THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Victor Pross]

Caricature alert:

Anybody who calls someone else a “pussy” given their reservations over a certain policy being advocated in war time—not pacifism—but one who is contrary, say, to what Biddle advocates--has got to be a first-grade stereotypical He-man jag-off asshole.

Okay, there is nothing particularly philosophical about this, and I admit that. But I do ask this of you: look at it from my perspective as a caricature artist.

Let me give you a little tip on how to observe certain people, how to look for stereotypical clues and traits [this is not a sin] if you plan on caricaturing. Take a look at the process, at least, of what I do. Let’s take a look at the blood-lusters at SLOP as our model.

What I see with all this “pussy talk” at SLOP, as it is being applied to the question of war and Biddle, is the following: I see a suburban American building contractor type, drunk at a party and filled with piss and vinegar. This is the type of person who makes it a point to let you know that they are colored blind when it comes to races. They have that ugly, down-twisted mouth, like that “good ol’ boy” trying to be friendly. They have that “har-har” laugh, that punch-in-the-arm, man-to-man delivery. Pissed to the ears, loaded with hate. A bullshiter, a bigot, a real 100%-flagwaving-Forth-of-July American asshole. Archie Bunker--the real ugly version. “Whaaaaat? You don’t think we should nuke em’ all? What are you--a pussy?!”

Did I paint the picture? ;)

Edited September 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Philip Coates]

Yes, you did Victor. Not everyone on Solo, but there is a far higher than normal in Oist circles percentage of "rednecks" over there.

But with a bigger vocabulary and presumably less alcohol abuse.

[Philip Coates]

I posted this earlier today:

" They probably believe that you can't convince people who have not accepted Objectivism, or, at another extreme, have been 'brainwashed' into a particularly virulent and anti-reason, anti-reality religion or philosophy. And they are basically vicious, mentally lethargic or resentful of reality people, evaders."

I hope it was clear the 'they' in the second sentence refers to the view that the Oists I'm criticizing have of human beings in the world at large....not to the Oists...so I went back and changed it in my post.

[Rich Engle]

Right on, Victor.

My ladyfriend once pointed out those people that seem to have a permanently downturned mouth. It's like the bitter is literally hardwired into them. They never seem to truly feel any joy.

I remember when I was a very nasty, prosecuting Objectivist how quickly I messed up cocktail parties. Used to be quite proud of that. Of course, pretty soon you're not going to cocktail parties... ;)

rde

Now I just host much bigger cocktail parties, guess that makes me a pussy sell-out.

[Victor Pross]

Thanks, Rich.

People have reproached me, asking why I ‘stereotype’ or ‘pigeonhole’ some people, and it’s very so infortune that they miss the entire point: many people self-caricature.

Art being selectivity—I simply draw those traits out in exaggeration—for emphasis, not distortion. Look at some of the SLOP mentalities. Did I create that? No, I express it.

Never get on my 'dark caricature' side.

Victor

Edited September 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

Years ago, pre-web, I really got a buzz-kill when I excitedly made my first visit to the Objectivist cyber-world (which pretty much consisted of OWL and such). I must have blocked it out because I can't remember what question I asked; something pretty run-of-the-mill regarding Atlas or something. It was like throwing myself into a shark pit.

But nasties aside, it really is so much better now. Look at the diversity of talent and experience on OL. You can get into worthwhile discussions about all kinds of things.

rde

Trying to do the half-full not half-empty thing.

[Victor Pross]

Speaking of talent, I was trying to think of ways to expand Biddle’s brilliant military strategy: I suggest we shoot anybody wearing a turban…you know, just in case. You can bet your bottom dollar they don’t have Objectivist ideas in their heads. So, let's get em' all.

You see, I’m always thinking.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

I'm just mowing them down on the way to work. Sikhs, schmeaks... pull-starts, push-starts...all the same to me.

Ever see "A Clockwork Orange?" I was just thinking about how our boy there could benefit from the Ludovico Technique.

Who's got the syrup of Ipecac? I'll throw in for the eyelid thingies.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think that many of them are just immature juveniles, it is exactly the kind of forum for such people.

BTW, that reminds me of that so-called "Penelope Beach" with her peace shirt, I've never heard again from her since I suggested that she was a fake person. She must have disappeared in Nacht und Nebel.

I wish I hadn't seen that comment about Penelope, but since I did, I feel obliged to speak in Penelope's defense. Are you intimating that she left specifically because of your suspecting her of being a troll? But if that's what you are suggesting, why would your particular opinion have been important to her as compared to the scurrilous remarks made by others here? If she read your remark, she was likely reading the rest, some of which was rather like a verbal gang bang. Even I blushed a little at the tone of it, and God knows I'm no prissy-missy. Since it's my belief that Penelope really was just what she seemed to be -- young, trying on a brashness and assertiveness she couldn't sustain, in over her depth in regard to the roughhouse behavior so often exhibited on these elists as well as in regard to the intellectual issues -- I think she felt shriveled inside, the way a woman who feels sexually wounded does feel, and that she crept off the scene. If she really had been a troll -- in this case of the fake persona type -- it's more likely that she wouldn't have left, since it's characteristic of trolls that they enjoy causing a commotion and are hard to get rid of. (Even with outright banning, they'll often come back using a different sign-on).

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

If she was real, she was a big girl. And she did come out swinging. Well, more like a kind of sucking up and swinging at the same time.

But you might be right, Ellen. A little more cordial persuasiveness might not have hurt. She appeared at a pretty volatile time.

She was so flavor-of-the-month over there... Some of these guys see a pretty girl and suddenly she's golden.

One thing virtually for sure-- that was a pseudonym, and a very obvious one. Google it.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Where is Artemis when we need her?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, what the heck was up with her?

rde

Trying to avoid jokes involving adversaries going onto sites cross-dressed.

[Dragonfly]

I still think "she" was a spoof by some joker, some of the things she wrote were really over the top. I hardly think she was shriveled inside. No compassion from me!

[Rich Engle]

Wasn't she the one that would talk about having to stop writing to put on her rubber boots and trod through the moors or whatever? I always felt like I had just ingested psychotropics after reading her posts.

rde

OK, so let's just get it out of the way and say it was Perigo in drag.There, I'm all better now.

[Aaron]

Artemis was an alter ego of Roger Bissell, see http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0785.shtml.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

Nobody clicks on links anymore? Click in the word "Artemis" in my previous post and read the text right beside the photo. Under the word "Description" there is a long text. Here is the first line:

A confession: my real identity is Roger Bissell.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Dayaamm!

Nobody clicks on links anymore? Click in the word "Artemis" in my previous post and read the text right beside the photo. Under the word "Description" there is a long text. Here is the first line:

A confession: my real identity is Roger Bissell.

Michael

I think most people knew that already and therefore didn't feel the need to click.

[Rich Engle]

Guilty, sort of. I clicked but I was in the middle of a PC lockup yesterday. I open too many screens. I was running rent rolls for October and the whole thing went bonkers.

Totally forgot that one... one of Roger's better escapades.

Pranks are the best. I have a never ending campaign going where I live. My street is sort of Bohemian. I live in a duplex, with an old friend of mine on the bottom half. Inter-house pranking is bad enough. Last week we set all his clocks forward an hour. We felt it kinder to do it that way; at least he would be early rather than late. I think we're removing the hood from his car for the weekend and hiding it in back of the garage.

Next door to me is a total nightmare. Downstairs is a local music god, it's just absolute trainwreck bedlam all the time. He never can make his rent. It got so bad with him and the other tenants that his landlord had to sell his condo and move in on the top floor. He tries to be a hip playboy, but he's just so danged hapless. All these young girls coming and going, probably escorts, who knows... I see them in the a.m. when I leave for work and they're all frazzled. We started up psychops on him. Took an audio feed off a very bad porno and have been pumping it into his bedroom at high volumes for the last few days. He's starting to look a little rough around the edges...

[Dennis Hardin]

Thank you, Barbara, for your thoughtful and respectful response to my previous post. I am pleased to know that you do not consider me a leper (at least not yet!). Obviously, there are others here who disagree. Inasmuch as they have deemed me "unclean," they may want to skip the rest of this post. I want to warn everyone at the outset that I remain unremittingly diseased.

In answer to your question, Michael: No, I most certainly do not care to enter into a dialogue with those who think they have a right to enslave and/or kill me if I disagree.

With respect to the meaning of “Islamism” (the specific target which Biddle advocated), here is a quote from Daniel Pipes, a recognized authority on the subject:

I approach the religion of Islam in a neutral fashion, neither praising it nor attacking it but in a spirit of inquiry. Neither apologist nor booster, neither spokesman nor critic, I consider myself a student of this subject. I ask such questions as: What is the nature of Islam's principles, customs, and implications? How does the Shari`a affect Muslim societies? Are there elements common to Muslim life from West Africa to Southeast Asia, yet absent elsewhere?

Though neutral on Islam, I take a strong stand on Islamism, which I see as very different. Islam is the religion of the Qur'an and the Sunna; Islamism is the political path of Hasan al-Banna, Abu'l-A`la al-Mawdudi, and Ayatollah Khomeini. The former is (in the Muslim view) eternal or (in the non-Muslim view) fourteen centuries old; the latter is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The one is a faith, the other an ideology. Whereas the closest parallels to Islam are Judaism and Christianity, those closest to Islamism are other radical utopian "isms," namely fascism and Marxism-Leninism.

Islamism is a global affliction whose victims count peoples of all religions. Non-Muslims are losing their lives to it in such countries as Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, and the Philippines. Muslims are the main casualties in Algeria, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan. Islamism is perhaps the most vibrant and coherent ideological movement in the world today; it threatens us all. Moderate Muslims and non-Muslims must cooperate to battle this scourge.

Here is a further clarification by Daniel Pipes:

QUESTION: What's the distinction between Islam and what you call Islamism?

ANSWER:"Islam is a faith of something like a billion people, around for 14 centuries, comparable to Christianity and Judaism in the sense of being a faith.

"Islamism is a 20th century outgrowth, a radical movement, utopian and totalitarian in its outlook, like Marxism-Leninism or Nazism.. . .Its great successes have been in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan."

QUESTION: Is there anything about the Islamic religion itself that facilitates this transformation?

ANSWER: "Islam is the most political of religions, the one most oriented toward power. This is a modern evolution of something that was always in Islam but takes it to an ideological extreme. . .The basic idea is that the state will create a just society, and the individual is sacrificed to that end."

QUESTION: What is the appeal of this Islamist view? How common is it. Why does it thrive?

ANSWER: "My estimate is 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population is attracted to this. That's based on a variety of polls and elections and hunches - it's soft.. . .The great problem is, Muslims have been rather powerless the last two centuries. Economic difficulties are part of it, but not all of it. It's a great challenge to explain and rectify that.. . .The solution most popular of late, the one with the most velocity, has been this form of militant Islam."

It is Islamism, not the Muslim religion as such, which Biddle seeks to eradicate. And I think he has good basis for the argument that the only solution to world terrorism is to stomp it out of existence in Iran, where it has attained virtual control of a theocratic government whose pipsqueak dictator, after publicly calling for Israel's destruction, went on to add the United States' demise to his wish list when he said:

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

The specific strategy advocated by Biddle is obviously open to debate. Perhaps the same goal can be achieved with less massive destruction and loss of civilian life. I do not claim to be an expert in this area. But I can say without hesitation that we are not taking sufficient action to protect ourselves at this point. And I fully agree with Biddle that we are totally justified in taking whatever actions are deemed necessary. The Islamists and the Islamists alone are to blame for the loss of life.

Given a choice between his plan and the suicidal strategy being pursued by the Bush administration, I would not hesitate to endorse the tactics proposed by Biddle. We are rapidly running out of time for this academic debate. In the absence of very, very serious military measures in the name of our self-defense, a lot of truly innocent people are going to die.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Thanks for the Pipes quotes. I will have some things to say, but later. (Incidentally, I am against Islamism as a 20th century fascist movement as defined by Pipes, as opposed to the religion, but I don't agree that this is the real target of Biddle and ARI's call for nuking. It is just one of the targets. In the ARI rhetoric I have read, I have not seen this distinction made.)

One misunderstanding I do want to clear up. Who on earth said anything about a dialogue - especially with the people you mention? Certainly not me.

Another misunderstanding. I know of no one here on OL who thinks you are diseased with blood-lust.

You are an honored friend, Dennis.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

...With respect to the meaning of "Islamism" (the specific target which Biddle advocated), here is a quote from Daniel Pipes, a recognized authority on the subject:

[...]

Though neutral on Islam, I take a strong stand on Islamism, which I see as very different. Islam is the religion of the Qur'an and the Sunna; Islamism is the political path of Hasan al-Banna, Abu'l-A`la al-Mawdudi, and Ayatollah Khomeini. The former is (in the Muslim view) eternal or (in the non-Muslim view) fourteen centuries old; the latter is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The one is a faith, the other an ideology. Whereas the closest parallels to Islam are Judaism and Christianity, those closest to Islamism are other radical utopian "isms," namely fascism and Marxism-Leninism.

Islamism is a global affliction whose victims count peoples of all religions. Non-Muslims are losing their lives to it in such countries as Nigeria, Sudan, Egypt, and the Philippines. Muslims are the main casualties in Algeria, Turkey, Iran, and Afghanistan. Islamism is perhaps the most vibrant and coherent ideological movement in the world today; it threatens us all. Moderate Muslims and non-Muslims must cooperate to battle this scourge.

Here is a further clarification by Daniel Pipes:

[...]

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

The specific strategy advocated by Biddle is obviously open to debate. Perhaps the same goal can be achieved with less massive destruction and loss of civilian life. I do not claim to be an expert in this area. But I can say without hesitation that we are not taking sufficient action to protect ourselves at this point. And I fully agree with Biddle that we are totally justified in taking whatever actions are deemed necessary. The Islamists and the Islamists alone are to blame for the loss of life.

Given a choice between his plan and the suicidal strategy being pursued by the Bush administration, I would not hesitate to endorse the tactics proposed by Biddle. We are rapidly running out of time for this academic debate. In the absence of very, very serious military measures in the name of our self-defense, a lot of truly innocent people are going to die.

Here is something I found with a quick internet search:

The First Crusade

Pope Urban II (1088-1099, see art below) was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.

Dr. E.L. Skip Knox gives a summary of the pope's speech, which has been recorded differently in various sources: "The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.

"The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war.

"God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it!

"Deus vult! (God wills it) became the battle cry of the Crusader."

(See full article here.)

Dennis,

Thank you for bringing this perspective to my attention. I tend to spend so much of my attention on the underlying nature of reality that I sometimes do not pay attention to what is right in front of me. What you say is important to integrate into the considerations of my life.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Because of the Pipes quotes, which are brilliant in bringing into focus the real issue, I decided to do a bit of reading on what ARI has actually been doing. What I uncovered was worse than I suspected. ARI, as it claims, is not simply supporting a pro-reason use of force to counter radical Islamist states (which is proper, especially as given in Pipe's definition). It is actually and explicitly promoting a tribal collectivist use of force for aggression.

Let's look at some of the stuff I came up with. There was way too much reading to do, so I had to choose what looked promising in terms of the issues I wanted to discuss, but I invite you (or anyone) to peruse the titles to get the general gist and actually read some of the articles. Maybe you can prove me wrong (and, believe me, I would like to be wrong—seriously).

Capitalism Magazine is an online place for ARI-type intellectuals to write about current events. They have a section called Reason vs. Terrorism. As the articles in this section are from 2004 and earlier, I used this list mostly to get a general impression and check out the most famous of all articles on this subject, Peikoff's article about ending terrorism-sponsoring states. But before I get to that one, here is an article that came out on the same day:

Is Islam at Fault? by Warren Ross (October 2, 2001). What I found here was basically the ARI approach to intellectual persuasion (if you can call it that) against radical Islamism. ARI intellectuals do not seek to highlight the differences between the 20th century intellectual/political movement and the centuries-old general religion—all as given by Pipes. They seek to make them equivalent, but make it seem reasonable by providing some selective lip service.

They use a variation of an old rhetorical technique of covering your ass by saying at the start "I could be wrong, but..." and then making a three hour diatribe railing against something in the harshest of terms. When someone points to the vehemence as unfair because a lot got left out or there are facts contradicting the diatribe, they say, "Well, I said I could be wrong."

What ARI does is the following: It starts by using some term like "fundamentalist Islam" and casually throws in something like "peaceful Muslims." These are rarely used right next to each other. This part receives a bare minimum of mention. There is usually some kind of harsh denunciation of "those who hate us and want to kill us" and so forth for the radical Islamists. After this, there is an huge section dissecting Islam, but giving lip service to some similarities it has with other religions in order to sound reasonable. Then the conclusion—that terrorists are the perfect embodiment of Islam with heavy insinuation that "peaceful Muslims" are just as evil. Either along the way or after this, there is railing against "appeasement" by America's intellectuals and/or government and calls for a decisive war of massive destruction and killing, now with centuries-old Islam—instead of 20th century radical Islamism—being heavily insinuated as the source of the evil.

When someone calls them on the blood-lust, they point to the Islamist-Muslim distinction at the beginning and say they didn't mean it for Muslims. But they always include a part saying that the blame for any innocent Muslim deaths is always the responsibility of the Islamists. This usually comes after a section dealing with indiscriminate killing on a massive scale.

Warren Ross's article went so far as to imply that the religion of Islam itself was directly responsible for authoring a manual on terrorist activities, so in answer to the question in the title of his essay, "Is Islam at Fault?", all that was missing was, "Hell yes!"

There is a deeper hidden agenda in all this, though—a surprising one. But first let us look at a rather subtle way of getting the Islamist-Muslim equivalency across with Peikoff's article:

End States That Sponsor Terrorism by Leonard Peikoff (October 2, 2001). Here is a direct quote:

Most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs who would be paralyzed by an American victory over any of their neighbors. Iran, by contrast, is the only major country there ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of the Muslim fundamentalist movement they brought to life.

That sounds very reasonable, until you take a second look at the phrase, "most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs." The insinuation is that Islam ("most of the Mideast" in the context of this article means "Islamic governments" with no distinction between radical and peaceful) leads to thugs—in other words, one kind of scumbag. A "zealot" in this context is merely another form of scumbag. The insinuation is that all Mideast Muslims are scumbags—but that doesn't sound good when you say it. Read that quote again carefully and you will see this message clearly now that it has been explicitly pointed out. This is not an accident of rhetoric and there are many examples of such one-sided oversimplification in ARI articles.

No distinction is made whatsoever for a decent, upstanding, peace-loving Muslim like you see the world over. I would bet the characterization I just stated ("decent, upstanding, peace-loving Muslim") even sounded shocking to you, yet these people exist—millions and millions of them. According to Pipes, they are "something like a billion people" minus the "10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population [that] is attracted to this" (radical Islamism). (Other estimates I have read give the Muslim population at 1.5 billion.)

Still, 100-150 million people the world over is a hell of a lot of people intent on world domination and this needs serious attention. I fully agree that the teeth need to be pulled from such fundamentalism by all means necessary—including all forms of force available given the proper context. But this context does not include nuking 850-900 million innocent people or whole civilizations.

These people—the 850-900 million peaceful Muslims—are the closest people to fundamentalists. They are ones fundamentalists could listen to and they are ones who could provide high-quality intelligence about the activities of fundamentalists. There are many crossed family ties. These people—the 850-900 million peaceful Muslims—are the ones who need to be persuaded to repudiate the radical Islamists, not so much Americans. We don't need to be convinced that radical Islamists are the bad guys. They sort of made that clear.

Their peaceful family members and friends might not be so convinced that they are bad guys, though. So they need to be reached. This is primarily the task of intellectuals in the finest Randian sense—those who wage a real war of ideas. How are you going to reach a target public by calling all the people in it the equivalent of scumbags? That is poor strategy and tactics. That is a way not to be heard. ARI certainly doesn't try to reach these 850-900 million peaceful Muslims. ARI is preaching to American non-Muslims. (ARI's statements show that it prefers to kill Muslims, anyway.) Just look.

There is a section on the ARI website called America at War. Take a look at some of the titles. Here is one that jumped out at me:

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam by Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein (Thursday, July 21, 2005). Here is the description at the top:

Their attempt to practice religion consistently explains the terrorists' actions.

Think about it. Is an article like this geared toward convincing those 850-900 million Muslims to explicitly repudiate violence and repudiate those among them who practice violence, or is it a call to condemn all those who practice Islam as scumbags and potential terrorists?

Here is a real gem, but it is especially illuminating as regards what really is at the bottom of ARI's motivations (at least, one of the main points of its hidden agenda):

"Muslim Opinion" Be Damned by Alex Epstein (Tuesday, September 6, 2005).

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers.

(…)

The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them—especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism.

(…)

Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for—such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel—he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state.

(My bold emphasis at the end.)

Notice that there is the Islamist-Muslim distinction and it is very clear—much clearer than any of the other articles I have read. But then the payoff comes at the end—Epstein wants to completely destroy the idea of a Palestinian state.

I will argue elsewhere, not here, that one main tenet of ARI's hidden agenda is that Jews (as embodied by the country of Israel) are God's chosen people (here he expands this to the tribal collectivist phrase "superiority of Americanism"). Note well that the argument is not that Israel has a moral right to exist, which is both moral and correct, or that reason is superior. It is that an Israeli (Jew) is a superior form of life (expanded here as "Americanism")—much superior to an Arabian scumbag (Muslim).

Does that sound far-fetched? Look at this letter to the editor ARI sent around:

Israel Should Wage War on Palestinians by David Holcberg (Thursday, July 13, 2006)

Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people. The inevitable deaths of a few truly innocent Palestinians should not stop Israel from doing whatever it takes to eliminate its enemies; any deaths of innocents would be the moral responsibility not of Israel but of the guilty majority of Palestinians that seek to destroy it.

You cannot preach a master race without creating a scapegoat. Ancient Romans needed Christians, European settlers needed Indians a few centuries ago, Nazis needed Jews, and so it goes throughout history. Now ARI needs the entire Palestinian people.

This is tribal collectivism.

This is not a defense of Israel. This is not a refutation of radical Islamism. This is pure "us against them" reasoning ("we are good and they are evil") and to hell with the rest. This is actually an assault on the moral integrity of Israel. As I said, I will deal with this in more depth later. But this is very real and it is scary coming from Objectivist quarters. We are not supposed to preach fighting collectivism with another flavor of collectivism. We are supposed to fight collectivism with reason.

Now, another issue. I have criticized ARI so far in another post for not emphasizing that Americans have no business doing business with dictators. Their argument that the oil fields in Saudi Arabia need to be restored to their "rightful owners" is flawed by this enormous BLANKOUT. They preach that an American businessman who does business with a dictator (i.e., a person who generates income by attacking an unarmed population) somehow generates "rights" when the American businessman is being paid with stolen loot, but these rights are violated when the American businessman's own "loot" is confiscated. If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is. This is a perversion of reason and morality.

I looked at another section on the ARI site devoted to essays on business. I saw everything there but a title against doing business with dictators. On the contrary, the only title that seemed to deal with this was:

Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion by Alex Epstein (Thursday, July 6, 2006). The closest Epstein can come to identifying the true principle is in the following quote:

Still another option might be a comprehensive, all-out embargo by the United States and its allies to starve the leader of the enemy, Iran, until the regime crumbles and the Islamic totalitarians lose their will to fight.

Notice that it seems to be OK to do business with the rest of "the enemy." Only the leader needs to be singled out for embargo. This is not identified as a moral principle, though. It is called a decision of "military strategists" in the article.

Obviously, you cannot put a moral "load" on money itself. If somebody pays you with stolen cash, you have no way of separating the part that was stolen and the part that was honestly gained. But you can put a moral "load" on who you deal with. Buying product from a known dictator is no different morality-wise than buying product from a mafia truck hijacker. Blanking this out allows for the following type of oversimplified conclusions you constantly see in ARI articles (taken from the article above):

Our leaders do not believe that America has a moral right to assert itself in self-defense. This is why we engage in self-effacing, appeasing "diplomacy" with easily defeated enemies like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Well, Epstein apparently believes that America has a moral right to do business with dictators. And he kind of overlooks the fact that maybe self-effacing, appeasing "diplomacy" might also have another reason: to keep the cash flow coming to those who sponsor election campaigns. (This is indirect these days, but it certainly did not go away with stricter laws. It only became more hidden.)

Peikoff proclaimed: "End States That Sponsor Terrorism." Why don't we do it right? Why not end American companies who make money from states that sponsor terrorism? Or better still, end politicians who are financed by companies who make money from states that sponsor terrorism?

ARI will not preach that.

They do not want morality. They want blood and they want a tribe.

Now, Dennis, I will be glad to preach hard-line military strategy. I mean it. Let's stomp the hell out of the radical Islamist enemies who want to kill us and rule the world. Let's do it. I will stand beside you preaching it. I will support Israel—the moral country, Israel, in its right to exist and its need to neutralize such an enemy. If that means needing to kill this enemy, then by God, let's do it efficiently.

But I will not support the tribe, Israel. I will not support preaching the superiority of one tribe over another—on either side. And I certainly will not support preaching mass killing of innocents and blaming the enemy tribe for the number of innocents "our tribe" killed. I cannot and will not support ARI's explicit call for genocide of the Palestinian people or any other Muslim group that is so implied.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You find the oddest sparks of brilliance in the worst places sometimes. I didn't want to post so soon after I made the long one above, but I can't resist noting the following post by Duncan Bayne giving the text of a letter-to-the-editor he authored. Here is the text:

If Mr. Javed Khan wants to foster a "good relationship between Muslims and others," then perhaps he ought to consider imploring those who share his faith to recognise secular Western values - such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, and the equality of men and women.

Until the Muslim community is seen to support those rights, rather than rallying in the street to oppose them, then they will be rightly treated with suspicion by those who have spent centuries fighting and dying to be free.

This was short, clear, dealt with essentials and is a perfect example of how an intellectual battle is to be carried out against 20th century radical Islamism with the Muslim community. I have no doubt it will hit the mark somewhere in the hearts and minds of some Muslims.

More public messages like this need to be made, not the genocide crap.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I'm not going to get immersed in the debate over Muslimism vs. Islamism, etc. But I found one thing that Dennis Hardin said very provocative in its implications:

I most certainly do not care to enter into a dialogue with those who think they have a right to enslave and/or kill me if I disagree.

Indeed. But who are these people? According to the estimates cited, 10 to 15 % of the Muslim population of the world (i.e., about 10 million, give or take) hold this philosophy. Most importantly, though, are any of them in charge of Iran? It would seem so. At the very least, the government of Iran has given material help to those who do, and it has jailed or killed a number of its dissidents.

However, that leaves approximately 80 to 90 % of the population who do not hold this philosophy, but instead are "peaceloving, moderate" Muslims. Now, the presumption is that they are "innocent," rather than "guilty" of being our ideological enemy, since they reject (at least in private) the murderous views of their rulers and the minority of their countrymen.

But are they truly innocent? If, knowing the homicidal philosophy of their rulers, they choose to remain under that rule without protest, are they not appeasing or condoning the philosophy that threatens our well-being here in the West? And if they are doing so, doesn't that make them complicit in their leaders' goals and actions? Don't people have a moral responsibility to rise up against -- or at least to leave -- an aggressive slave pen?

And when the time comes for military action in our own defense, are we to tie our hands behind our backs if those people do not exercise that responsibility? If the minimum amount of force needed to neutralize the deadly threat of the Iranian regime involves the killing of a large number of these people, perhaps we should stop wringing our hands about the tragedy of the "innocents."

Like Dennis, I'm all for the approach that results in the least devastation that still has the desired effect, but I think it is foolish to put too fine a point on it, and I think it is time to start calling a spade a spade and stop mewling about the poor "innocents" in Iran. Whatever happens to them is not our fault.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Like Dennis, I'm all for the approach that results in the least devastation that still has the desired effect, but I think it is foolish to put too fine a point on it, and I think it is time to start calling a spade a spade and stop mewling about the poor "innocents" in Iran. Whatever happens to them is not our fault.

REB

That depends on what "we" do. It is easy to kill people, even millions. The US has killed maybe 40,000,000 babies over the last 10-20 years with its war against the use and manufacture of DDT. Fortunately, DDT is making a comeback, in spite of the US. The DDT ban was started by the EPA during the Ford Administration.

The US has long failed to act from the truly morally superior position in foreign affairs. To do so would be one of its greatest assets. Therefore it needs to act morally at home and abroad to the greatest extent possible or be a bull in a china shop. It would certainly be better if the "innocents" could repair to a righteous banner instead of being killed out of self-deluded righteousness.

--Brant