Antifa Are not Terrorists

AntiFa Enlgish Logo
Antifa Logo in English

People often call Antifa a terrorist organisation. This is not correct for multiple reasons. Antifa can stand for Anti-Fascist, Anti-Fascism, or Anti-Fascist Action (on their flag). First of all, Antifa is an idea, not a centralised organisation; you cannot join a centralised group known as “antifa” that covers all of the members of antifa. If someone says they are a member of antifa, they most likely mean that they identify with the idea and maybe sometimes protest or advocate in other ways. You may also be part of a group that identifies as part as antifa, but in no way are they “official” antifa.

Not all people who identify with antifa are violent people who go on the streets and beat people up and do damage to property. Many people who identify as antifa are people who advocate online, people who do peaceful protests, people who argue against fascism or other authoritarian ideas, or just some one who does not like fascism or similar ideologies. Just being against fascism can make you an anti-facist.

 

The reason antifa sometimes damages property is because many of them are leftist. Many people who are on the far left generally disagree with having private property. They agree with personal property, but not private property. They see land owned by some rich person as private property. Personal property is stuff that you use for yourself, such as your tooth brush, you phone (in most cases), food, and other stuff that cannot be used to give yourself and advantage.

Not to mention that not all antifa protests actually hurt anyone, many of them are peaceful people just fighting for rights. Often times when someone is hurt, it is often a police officer or someone who they are protesting against (they often do counter protests). They see police as a threat to their freedom and that’s why they sometimes attack them. Sometimes they are only attacked because they came there or they came there and started to attack and stop the protesters who in some cases are not doing anything wrong, in fact, the police often seem to make the violence worse and cause up more trouble.

 

Not to mention that there has not been a recorded murder caused by antifa protest that I am aware of so far. If anyone has any evidence that shows otherwise, feel free to send we a link to a news article or video, and do the same if someone else says antifa has killed someone. This is a common myth that is going around.

Many revolutionaries like some people who consider themselves antifa believe that the state and bourgeoisie will not give up their position of power peacefully and that their would have to be some violence involved in order to bring about social change. Many violent protests lead to change, you just do not hear about them as often because you are discouraged by the state and bourgeoisie to do them. Look at the Latin American Revolutions, Haitian Revolution, Russian Revolution, and overthrow of the Shah. All these probably would not of been possible without violence.

 

Many say that Antifa are the real fascists because they use violence and that’s considered fascist. While authoritarians often use violence, they most often do it with the goal of controlling other people, while antifa in most cases is fighting against being controlled. Fascists are for control, while antifa are against control and are fighting against being controlled or people who want to eventually control them or help someone else control them. If there is no violence, then the state will feel free to control us more and more, and they are being violent for their own self-defence, sometimes it is hard to avoid hurting other people, you just got to stay away if you think you will get hurt.

Another misconception is that antifa thinks that they are strong and that they are in fact weak. This often comes from how they dress up and sometimes seem to look tough. Just because you cover your face does not mean you are tying to be tough, in fact, it can show that you are trying to hide you  face, this is because you may be afraid of what your government may do to you. Also doing violent acts does not mean you think you are tough, it just means you are doing violent acts. Antifa people are not any weaker than an average person, how does hiding yourselves or anything like that make you much weaker? It just means you fear a much stronger power, not that you are weak.

 

Similar to above, many people say that your ideology is bad if you have your face covered and often show pictures of antifa, the KKK, and other protesters. This does not make your idea bad, it just means that you are afraid people who do not like your idea are going to do something bad, or you may think it weakens chances in your life if a potential boss does not like your political beliefs (why many people do not talk about politics in general). It can be a sign of weakness to not talk about your political ideas in public, but considering that there is also stuff you can loose especially if your idea is uncommon, its not all that bad to hide yourself in some cases. The only reason I cover myself when I protest is because I do not want the state to try to get me in trouble, but I will happily fight for my ideas with you.

 

If we go to the definition of terrorism, there is often no universal meaning, though it is often “using violence or threats to influence politics or religion.” UK, US, and UN laws have similar definitions and are more specific and include to civilians, property, and the state in most cases.  While some people who are with antifa may do these things, they do not do it nearly as much as many governments do, such as the US, UK, and UN. The wars in the middle east that they create kill many civilians and destroy property there, and in most western European Countries and North America seem to think there countries are great. Police agencies terrorise much more than antifa does, and most people love the police in their countries.  The United States is Hypocritical when they call someone terrorists when the country was created because of “terrorism.”  ISIL are labelled terrorists by the United States, when most of the acts they did are done by the United States government. The United States destroys things like ISIL, they take land like ISIL, they kill people in these conflicts like ISIL, and so much more. The United States considered The People’s Democratic Republic of Korea a “rouge” state when they hardly attack anyone. So before you call Antifa terrorists, look at the country you live in, as there is a chance they are even worse.

 

 

Another less commonly seen definition for terrorism is “enemy of the state.”  But as in the example I showed you above, your government may not be all that great and you may want to rebel. I doubt the United States considers many of their founders terrorists when they were enemies of their government (The British Government at the time). This just shows the hypocrisy in the United States and other nations idea of what terrorism is. And what is even worse is punishing people for being “enemies of the state.”

 

Probably the biggest argument, is that just because a few people does something, does not make everyone in the group bad. Just like people from a different place than you. Maybe a person from some Asian country is stereotypically good at math, but that does not mean all or most actually are. Its just a few are and that’s the reputation people give them, not all stereotypes are true, and many are based on the examples that get the most publicity. Most people who identify with antifa do not go out and punch people, just some do and that’s the reputation they have gotten.

 

I hope to update this article in the future but hope it has cleared some things up for you.

Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry

Picture of Trump Responding to Inquiry in South Florida
Picture of Trump Responding to Inquiry in South Florida

Recently Nancy Pelosi, the speaker for the House of Representatives for United States has been trying to impeach United States President Donald Trump. Apparently an anonymous whistle-blower reported Donald Trump abusing his power and trying to cover it up. Trump and his personal attorney possibly blackmailed president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden so he has less chance of winning the election, as well as his sun named Hunter. Ukrainian Advisers seemed like they agreed with the rumour.  Around the same time, Trump stopped aiding Ukraine’s military aid. The whistle-blower also accused the White House   of trying to cover up these calls. The part with the calls being hidden had been confirmed, and similar things have been done to Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia. According to some people who have been with Trump, these kinds of foreign interactions are “typical.” Trump has stated that he is not worried about interfering with the United States Election. This is not the 1st attempt to try to impeach Trump, some talk had begun even before he had taken office. Trump has done many impeachable actions and there was also suspicion that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election. One of the 1st attempts to impeach Trump was in his 1st year where it failed by a 58–364 margin because the House back then was mostly Republican. The last impeachment was run by 2 Democrats named Al Green and Brad Sherman. Things have changed since then, now Democrats have a lead in Representatives. 232 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent support the impeachment inquiry. This number is a majority of the  of the House. Impeachment does not always mean you are taken out of office. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by remained in office. Richard Nixon resigned so he could not be taken out of office.  Some of Trumps business allies have stayed silent, according to AOL. Some of Trumps supporters do not seem to believe in the existence of the wrong doing or do not really care, some of his business allies have just stayed silent. Most of the people who funded his campaign still support him and some criticise the impeachment inquiry.  Trump also threatened that the stock market will go down if he is impeached. He also requested the full transcript on the incident be released by the White House. Trump’s financial situation is also largely unknown; It is largely estimated by Forbes that he has around 3,1 Billion USD. This number is largely debated though, some say he could be in debt. Public opinion in General favours impeachment from register voters. With many polls putting the support number at around 45% and 40% disfavour. The incident of impeachment has triggered memes, tweets, political discussion and much more from the public. Many other things done by Trump may influence the public’s decision such as ICE, the idea to build a wall, Tariffs, and so much more. Some say they think of Trump as a Neo-Nazi, and white nationalist, and other similar things.  The stock market looks like it may go into a recession soon and this may make Trump loose 2020 even if he is not taken out of office. We will have to see what information comes out in the following days, weeks, and months.

Life is not worth anything – Existential Nihilism

I often see people who say how your life is the most valuable thing. Whenever you go to someone asking how to commit suicide, they almost always seem to try to say how there has to be another option. Some Search engines, such as Google and AOL have an autoanswer for words in the nature of “how to kill myself”, of just the suicide hotline (though this is likely the Bourgeoisie who thinks they can get money from you). In California if you go to school and joke about suicide, they force you to some kind of treatment or try to stop you (this happened to me). And Around the world, suicide is illegal (so the state can slave you). If you just talk to a friend they will try to prevent you from doing suicide. Churches and religions seem to look down on suicide. Abortion is causing protests every day. All these entities they seem to have some value in your life.

But why do so many people value life?

This is most likely from people trying to take advantage of us and have made it sound immoral to kill yourself and seem to put life as the most valuable thing. This is likely because of Moralism. Moralism is a paradoxical philosophy that states that actions can be right or wrong. 1st of all, there is little if any prof that an action can be right or wrong, they is little to distinguish, there are many moral/ethical philosophies. But the thing is, where people seem to get lots of their morals from, are the state and large corporations. The people in power are often the ones who make the ethics. These entities like to take advantage of you, either to slave you or to take your money. If you are dead you cannot be their slave/help them or give them money. This can be traced back to the hunter gatherer days, back then, you were looked at as bad if you killed yourself because you would often be a big part of how they got their food. This attitude continued through Egypt and Mesopotamia, who used slaves and still were authoritarian(just a little less bad) to everyone else, and this has continued to the present day. They know they can get taxes from you and stay in power. Since this was already looked down upon, religions could easily integrate it, and it would make sense and in fact spread the fire. The Bible and Quran look at suicide generally unfavourably. But these books are obsolete, filled with errors, and just not provable in most instances. So are the times of small groups of people being dependent on each other. There are now over 7.3 billion people on Earth. There are about 225 people born every minute. Thats more than 3 a second. There are almost that many people who die a minute. Why do people care so much? A single person is just 1 in 7 billion, and that number is growing. The world is already too densely populated in many cities. There is no need to save that many lives anyhow. This value mostly seems to be placed on humans as well. If someone stomps on a wasp, or an ant, people seem to place little value on it, but if a person kills another person, they often make a big deal about it. They are alive to. There is no reason that I can think of that a human life would be worth more than a wasp’s life (both are worthless). The reason that a human can do something in his life is flawed. 1st of all, a wasp can also do stuff in life, there are many humans competing for opportunities to do the things you can do, the last reason is that the earth will be molten in a few billion years and what you did in the 2000’s won’t matter.

I hope I made some stuff clearer for you. If you have questions please be sure to ask.

Hypocrisy of Parents

You often have parents who tell their children not to do something because that something is bad. Such as beating someone up for not obeying you, or acting upon impulse, or stealing from someone else. While some of these may be things to avoid in this current situation or things you may not want to do in general, parents try extra hard to enforce these rules upon their children sometimes. But if you’ve looked into it, sometimes you would notice, that the parent does these things when disciplining their child or sometimes, just for any reason. They say doing something is bad, and do it themselves. Such as, if a hit someone, the parent may think that is bad, so what do they do? They often hit the child who committed the act of violence. Why would you do violence to someone if you think violence is wrong? The idea that it is wrong can often be used as an excuse for the you not to do it, so then the person who is saying it is wrong can just have an advantage over you. They often have excuses such as since they are parents it gives them exceptions to their own rules or that it is for the child’s own good. The issue with the 1st is there is no reason why someone being a parent would give them any reason to be accepted by the children. Parents sometimes say how they gave their children life. This is true, but 1st of all you never asked for that life, and like me, wish you never had it. 2nd of all, just because your parents give you life does give you any objective obligations towards them. Another thing parents say is that you live under their property. Now this is similar to the one about parents giving their kids life; children often do not have a choice where they life. The state often forces them to live with their parents who do this kind of stuff to them. While it is in some cases possible to escape from this, it is often super hard and may need parental approval. Parents will rarely accept. Which brings us to our next point; the state enables this to happen to a large extent for creating exceptions to the laws that allow parents to take from their kids even if it is their own money, and not let the kids take anything. They force the law on minors, but not parents. There are also laws which exist only for minors, such as runaway laws, and other rebel laws. And yet, they are often taught in schools how they are “free”. This brings us to our 2nd section, that this hypocrisy is for their own good. 1st off, we have a section of our forum based on dissing this idea, the name of the section is Anti-Paternalism, 2nd it does it benefit the kids most of the time. Beating them and taking their stuff is just going to make them revengeful to get their stuff back (often through stealing ) or to beat someone else up. Which, if you are punishing them for these actions, actually just makes them want to do it more. Also, many of these “benefits” the children do not want anyways and it just wastes their time.

Edit 3 June 2019
Also, Parents sometimes hit you or steal from you even if they tell you not to for a completely different reason.

That’s it for now, I may make changes later. Feel free to challenge any of these ideas

State of The Union Opinion 2019

The State of the Union is happening today as I am writing this. There are many issues with the state of the union which I wish to cover. The 1st issue, and this happens a lot even outside of the state of the union. This issue is that people call the USA, America. The USA MAINLAND is in America, but they are not the only part of America. And Not all of their land is even in America(such as Guam). Here is a Map of America and the USA.
[​IMG]

The Blue is The USA, Everything in the line is America. Yes I know I left out some islands part of America and Parts of USA-Only/Non-American Land. But as you can see, USA is not the only part of America. And even though they are not on this map, some islands the USA owns are not in the Americas. When they call themselves just “American” they seem to think they are the only Americans. I often call people from USA “United Statesian”, I am United Statesian, and I do not think that we are the only part of America.

Next thing, they have many references to god. Many people belive in god, but there are some people who do not. When you put god references in your speech to the whole country, even full of people who do not belive-in a single god or any higher power, they are leaving those people out. If you belive-in god, that’s ok, but I do not think they should push that on people who do not belive-in a higher power.

They also like to say how the “State of the Union is Strong”. This can be good or bad depending on how you view it. In this case, in many ways I think it is bad. Being together with the federal government lets them control you more, they block autonomousness.

Another thing, is they talk about closing boarders more. Why should we even have boarders? Boarders stop business decisions and just benifit the state. EU contries dont really have boarders with other EU Contries, why should we have such strong boarders? Wouldnt all that crime eventually spread out and be even? Boarders I think do more harm than good. We could work together with contries, but the state does not seem to like that. If state did not exist, there most likely would be no borders. It would be great IMO.

One thing they said is how they are working on a “trade deal” with PROC (People’s Republic Of China). What kind of “trade deal” could they be making? Why cant they just let the people who live in the country decide the trades on their own? Why do they need governement to do that for them? Or do they mean tarrifs when they say trade deals? Those are bad, they are just the government saying how much power they have and how they do not want you to benifit other contries even if it benifits you.

Another thing is that Trump called us Socialist, which in some ways we are depending on who you ask. But I think we are more of a Social Democracy. Socialism I think is more of a transition to Communism and maybe in super rare cases capitalism. But do you think we will ever go to Communist or Capitalist? I doubt it, if we did, then the government would loose their power. And we all know they do not want that.

Another thing, he says they will cut taxes. Sounds good IMO, but is it really do you think? Do you actually think the government will cut its spending on things we do not really need? No! They are probobly just going to build more debt that the newer generations will have to pay off.

One last thing I want to mention for now, is how the U.S President is picking sides. They are claiming that their pick for the president of Venezuela is the legit president fo Venezuela. There is still debate on that. And they also claim that Jerusalem is the capital is Isreal. It may be, but it is also under dispute with Palestine. The USA does not recognise Palestine for some reason, they are just spitting in their face. Also, USA claiming the legitness of their side probobly makes their allies angry, such as Russian Federation or PROC. I recognise Palestine, but USA government does not.

Now there are many more things I would like to cover, but I am a little low on time and ideas now, I will most likley be editing this to find more problems with the state of the union.

How colleges/universities support the Bourgeoisie and the state

Colleges and Universities are tools of the Bourgeoisie, not only that but they ARE the bourgeoisie. Under this semi-capitalist system, in order to get a job that you can feed yourself with, if you don’t go to college and try to apply for a job, you will likely get rejected if it is a job you can feed yourself with. But all the colleges care about is gaining capital and reputation (so they can get more capital). In order to get into many of the “Good” colleges, you need to do well in Primary Education. Whats in primary education? State and Bourgeois propaganda, at least if you go into a public school. There have been many times where the bourgeoisie has paid politicians in order to make the education system to benefit them. This commonly happened with factory workers who would pay politicians to teach them not to question the system and to obey. The idea for them was that since factory work was the most common job in the 1800 and 1900’s, and if their employed these people, they would not have to teach them. And in the United States of America and I would belie most countries, you are taught at a young age that you are “free”, though I dont think I have seen them explain HOW exactly we are free. To be honest, we are not free. Under this Semi-Capitalist State system we will never be free. They make you take classes about which country you are in so they can show you how great it is, sometimes they will say how we used to be bad so they can say how much better they are now. And in Private schools, there may be less state, but there is almost always more bourgeoisie. Private schools are owned by individuals and are making profit, so they would want you to think good of the system as well. Home school or Unschooling may be better, but they still would probably make you answer a bunch of questions that would have required you to study propaganda to “prove” you were educated.
You need to go through one of these paths because most governments force you to go to a school, and you need to do well in order to get into one of those “good” colleges. In order to do well in school, you often need to have a lot of time. If you do not have a lot of money, you often can not get many of the resources you need to do as well as someone who is much richer than you. This means that the bourgeoisie has a much easier time getting into colleges and staying at the top. The less rich people cant afford to get into the college, and since they did not do as well in school they are not offered a scholarship. Rich families can afford tutoring, study manuals, gifts for the teachers, bribing the people high up, and the kid not having to spend all their time doing work for the family. These are all advantages the bourgeoisie has that the average person does not. Many financial aid programs such as Grants are just ways for the state and bourgeoisie to get a favourable opinion from you. And colleges themselves suck, the stuff they teach you is becoming more and ore useless, and the prices are insanely high. The colleges are super rich, they have more money than many countries and some like Harvard, could pay their tuition for over 100 years. These institutions are almost fully tax free, even private ones, and sometimes even receive money from the state, even private ones once again. So even someone who did not go to college has to pay for colleges. You can bet there is some corruption going on. Even if you did somehow happen to make it into college, you would probably be taught a bunch of propaganda, stuff you already know, stuff you dont need to know, and more. Lots of the stuff in fact, I am sure you could learn on Udemy or Skillshare or something similar. Colleges make you take a bunch of general education classes and prerequisite classes just to take the class you want to take. This is a way for them to squeeze propaganda and and your money. After you are done you are left with huge amount of debt that will last you decades. This makes it so you will be owing tonnes of money to lenders and so you have to work harder in your job, benefiting your boss. If you are in debt, you cannot safely go on strike, or start your own business, so you would not be able to compete with your boss, making you largely a slave of them. So you would end up working in school and going to college just to spend your whole life working for a bourgeois. It is almost impossible to become rich with all that debt you have, so the bourgeoisie, stays the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, stays the proletariat. If that individual had a family, since they would not be rich because they maybe still had debt or since they could never rise up, just never got that much money, then the cycle would repeat, making the new child just like their parent. This is what happened in the middle ages and this would repeat over and over again. This system also provides justification for adults to control the lives of minors. I am almost 16, and go to a pretty basic school named El Modena High School. They are so controlling of me, and they work with parents rather than the student themselves. If you do poorly academically, your parents would often punish you or tell you how to run your life, if you did something the school did not like, even if it was something perfectly fine like talking back, your parents would punish you. Parents use this system to justify them being able to control their children. I do not support this as a victim of this system. I do not think they are making my life much better, and do not think it will make a lot of difference in the future because I , and probably anyone else, will probably revert back to their old ways after they leave their parents and do poor in college. While many people are told that this system is great. The bourgeoisie and state benefit from this system, the people who come out of college are poor and will need to boot lick their boss, and have done well in all the propaganda, and will get money from all the loans the student needed to take out. While the student is just making it by, having to work really hard to support themselves. The state benefits by forcing propaganda and having a few less homeless and questioning people. Colleges limit the amount of people they can accept for a reason, they want to keep their reputation so they can get more money and charge people more to be admitted. This allows for the bourgeoisie to get the best of the bunch and the college to make money. The idea that people had to cheat to go into a good college or university (like the scandal a few months ago) just shows how highly the system is failing and how selective these schools are and how little they actually care. Grades are just a way to judge how good people are so the colleges and bosses know, its an outdated system meant to favour the elite.

This system is filled with things you do not want and is highly optimised for the bourgeoisie and state. I mean, do you want to have to work hard in school and have to be controlled by your parents just so you can work for some bourgeois for the rest of your life?

Here is a Solution
None of these issues would happen in anarcho-communism. In anarcho-communism, there is no centralised state to give you propaganda. There is no bourgeoisie to find people to exploit. In anarcho-communism, everyone has an opportunity, everyone would get a good education if they wanted it, they would then be able to do higher education if they wanted that. People would not probably be forced to do any education if they do not want to, but it would be encouraged so you can better contribute to the commune and do something you may be interested in, like making tools or building something. You would not be taught a bunch of stuff you do not want or need to know. The teachers would not be teaching you to get a paycheque, but rather because they like teaching. The teachers would work with the student, grades would have no reason to exist. Parents would have almost no involvement in your life because you dont need them because you can manage your self and are not in a harsh semi-capital statist would that would make you dependent on them. Colleges would exist to teach you new skills that you want to learn, you would be doing it not because you will be homeless if you don’t, but because you want to. And work hours would probably be lower because with everyone working together, they could probably make everything they need in 5 hours a day. This would mean you have plenty of time to study and do well. And after you are done, you would not have a huge debt, you would just contribute as normal or maybe a little more. No Propaganda, no useless stuff, no debt, no restrictions on who can get in. They may teach about anarcho communist principles, but this would mainly be so they dont revert back to the previous system.

I will be submitting this to the Anarchist Library and other Radicle Libraries, I would suggest you read it there because this site often has issues. I will provide a link to some of the accepted ones.

 

Tough Love vs Paternalism

Both of these philosophies are used in controlling organisations to try to justify them controlling you. Both of them have egoism involved as we have already discussed. By The way, ADHERING TO SOMEONE ELSE’S EGOISM IS NOT EGOISM, and is not good in my opinion. But what exactly is the difference between tough love and paternalism?

When someone is doing paternalism, they are also doing tough love, and vice versa, I will explain how after I have covered them both.

Tough Love
Tough love is putting someone through a time they may not like because they may “benefit in the long term” or just “for their own good” and sometimes “morality”. The issue with this is that their is no best outcome, just whatever the person wants. If someone wants to do something, they often get punished by parents or some other organisation. If the punishment is time out, then this is most likely tough love, since it is often suppose to benefit the victim of tough love. We will talk about the disadvantages of tough love in this forum. The phrase originally came from a movie.

Paternalism
Paternalism is similar to Tough love. It is taking away a right for someones “own good” or “moral reasons”. Many of the same disadvantages are the same as with tough love. This would be shown if I stopped you from eating too much candy because I said you would get fat. This is flawed because if the person knows, then they are just choosing to eat the candy and do not care about your health, and its your life. I will talk about the disadvantages to this on this forum.
Paternalism comes from the word paternal meaning father, and means controlling someone in a fatherly way.

How they overlap?
Paternalism is taking someones right, tough love is putting someone through tough times, if you are putting someone in a tough time, then you are taking their right to the time and the ability to say no. If you take someone’s right, then you are putting them through a tough time. So they overlap.

The Egoism in Paternalism/Tough love

This is also going into the egoism section.

I am an egoist. I do what benefits me. I do not despise being an egoist, I encourage it. What I do not like though, is you following someone else’s Egoism for less benefit to you. This is what allows the state to exist. Paternalism and tough love are suppose to be someone doing harm to you or taking away your freedom so you will benefit from it in the future or because it is not in your best interest. This has many flaws and many ways Egoism can be involved in it.

First of All, Psychological Egoism states that everyone is motivated by self interest, even when they care about others. This argument can be used even when it does not appear the person using Paternalism/Tough Love is gaining anything, they have a greater change than not of having a way that they will benefit. Sometimes you can even see how the Paternalism or Tough Love can benefit. An example is a parent forcing you to do labour and saying it will benefit you later, even if you never plan on doing the thing you are suppose to be learning, and are just getting your time wasted and in a miserable way. You can most likely see how the parent would benefit from this, its less work for them, and they can say they are doing you a favour. John Stuart Mill disagrees with state paternalism saying “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” . He states that people knows whats best for them, and I agree. It is your life, and you should be able to do what ever you want, if you want to ruin your life, its your life. If the person does not appear to benefit from enforcing paternalism or tough love on you, that does not mean they cannot benefit at all. Some people may gain respect/reputation, they may get pressure from other paternalist if they are not paternalist. They may feel morally(for people who believe in that) just, or maybe sad if something happened to you if they have invested in you. Max Stirner in the Ego and Its Own covers why people stop crime that has nothing to do with them, one of the reasons he says is people’s morality tells them to. Morality is a flawed idea but many people still believe it. To some that is a benefit worth having. You need to be the egoist, you need to not let this happen, letting this happen is most likely not egoist. We must spread anti-paternalism and anti-tough love. None of them really benefit the victim to that great of an extent. Stop feeding into other people’s egoism, and be the egoist.