Beck Stands With Israel - So Do I


Recommended Posts

Beck Stands With Israel - So Do I

Here is today's show.

Glenn was extremely eloquent, both about standing with Israel during the present set-up, especially as Obama adviser Samantha Power (Mrs. Cass Sunstein) calls to sacrifice our relationship with Israel and, in parallel, build up a massive military in Gaza under the ruse of a "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, and about not hating.

He was also very funny asking how Obama managed to spell "team" with an "I" in it. (Transcript from here.)

GLENN BECK, HOST: Did you watch the president's speech last night? I mean, if there's no "I" in "team," someone forgot to tell the president that. Just watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I want to begin --

OBAMA: I made it clear that --

OBAMA: I said that he needed --

OBAMA: I ordered warships --

OBAMA: I refused to let that happen.

OBAMA: I authorized --

OBAMA: I know that some Americans --

OBAMA: I will never minimize the cost --

OBAMA: I am convinced.

OBAMA: I along with many other world leaders --

OBAMA: I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

BECK: He said 25 times, which is about once per minute. We didn't count the "me's" or the "my's" but Congress -- let me tell you something. You remember, you know, I warned you, that you're going to become irrelevant. Congratulations. Who is irrelevant? You are. Yes.

Now, great guy, huh? President -- pundits lauding the president for taking charge. But I thought the reason we sat back and let France and England take the lead on Libya is because we didn't want to seen as taking a third military engagement with the Muslim nation.

So, I was watching and I'm trying to think -- why is the president saying, "me" "my" "I" all the time? He's a like pull-string doll -- I, I, I, I, I. It was weird because we didn't want that.

And then I got up this morning and I saw this -- polls show that Americans like the president to be in charge. I'm not going to show it. But look at the big "G" while I tell you -- polls show that the president -- like him to be in charge, so he's just following that. Really?

I'm confused, because this is the same guy who completely ignored 60 percent of Americans when they said they were against health care. And he was saying -- I, I, I, I, I think it's important. Remember that? Now, he suddenly cares what people think. Hmm. It doesn't add up.

May I have a different theory on what's happening? The boards I showed you at the beginning of the hour? Yes, something is wrong there, right?

Is it possible that what you are seeing is almost like a made-for-TV movie? I mean, it's made for people in the Middle East. This isn't for you. This part is not for you. No.

Do you remember in the first, the program of the year, we showed you how the administration was surrounding themselves in the 1960s radicals? The same ones that called them -- called our troops "baby killers" back in Vietnam. Isn't it weird that those guys are still running the show? You got Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers and you got the Code Pink people. I hate them but yet, they're still involved.

In fact, Bill Ayers here -- love this guy -- do you know he's over in Beirut giving speeches right now? It's weird. We'll show you that tomorrow. This guy hated the troops so much that he and his group actually made bombs that they were going to set off at Fort Dix at a dance where troops would be attending. Thankfully, they didn't harm any soldiers, but the bomb did explode, killing a few of those guys.

Of course, now, they are smart enough. They know -- what is it that Van Jones says, "drop the radical pose for the radical ends." They can't call the troops baby killers now. That's not popular. Why do that? I mean, it's not popular even in their circles. Why do that when you can have others, you know, say it for you.

Have you seen these photos released? This one's from Rolling Stone -- the American "Kill Squads." They're horrifying. There's a video of two Afghan civilians riding motorcycles being shot and killed. Horrifying.

These soldiers were allegedly keeping the body parts as trophies. OK, these guys are beyond scumbags that need to be punished. They're almost -- they're psychos. OK?

There were five accused of murdering innocent civilians. Five. There were hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Yet, the headlines all say the same thing, "Kill Team," thousands of pictures, leaving the impression that all of our troops are killers. Well, that's simply not the truth.

But the problem isn't really with Rolling Stone magazine. The problem is this came out at the same time we're going into Libya. At least Der Spiegel came out. When did this come out? Oh, 3/29. Isn't that weird? What an amazing timing, isn't it?

You know here's a couple of questions. Who's releasing these photos? Where are these pictures coming from?

The first batch of pictures came from Germany's Der Spiegel magazine. The latest batch, Rolling Stone, published 17 of the pictures.

The timing bothers me.

The Army allegedly learned about the photos as early as last May. In June, the Army announced one of the soldiers was facing murder charges. Then, in October, it said the soldier would be court-martialed.

Last Monday, Der Spiegel ran photos. That is so weird. You want a Pulitzer Prize? Hey, journalist, here's a Pulitzer for you. Find out who despises our soldiers so much that they felt they needed to release these propaganda goldmines to the press at this particular time. So that five murderous scumbags can ruin the descent image of the rest of the 99.9 percent of American troops.

This has put our troops in danger. And made it harder for our troops in the Middle East. And the president stands behind France and England and doesn't want to cause any trouble with that -- that's why he didn't take the lead.

And then he announces in his first press conference that we're taking charge and then he announces that we're going to give it over to NATO. And then this morning, no, no, we haven't decided -- White House hasn't decided whether we're going to arm the rebels and yet the press is saying that those rebels are the same ones our soldiers were fighting over in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Isn't this weird?

I wonder if anyone in the press would look into that? I wonder if they're up to challenge? Huh?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D8Bicmz-6UM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Glenn's portion on "I stand with Israel" was extremely moving. As soon as the transcript is available, I will post that section below. And if it does not become available, I will transcribe it myself. It's that good.

(EDIT: The transcript is now being inserted. You can get a more complete version here.)

Where is the person standing up for freedom? Where is the person on the national stage standing up for Israel? Do you see him? I mean, really standing up? We got Benjamin Netanyahu, but that's pretty obvious.

Tonight, I'd like to add my small little voice and make a declaration as clear as humanly possible that I know what time it is. I've done my home work. I'm also a spiritual guy.

God is not going to hold us unaccountable for what we do or do not do, for what we say or do not say. We must stand and be clear. I stand with Israel. And where is anyone else?

Now, it doesn't mean you blindly support everything they do. But you stand with them.

Now, I know the blogs, especially the Soros blogs who are hiring more and more interns every day, they're creating jobs -- they're going to call me a fraud or crazy man or anti-Semitic Jew lover. I don't know how that is possible but they've tried it.

But I will stand. I don't know how long it's going to take for the world to right itself, but I at least know where right is. And that is where I will stand.

Each of us have to ask ourselves, do you stand with the people in this dog fight over in the Middle East -- do you stand with the people that are the most like Americans? They make mistakes. They do.

We do, too. We suck sometimes as a country. Most times we don't. But we're at least trying to do the right thing. And so is Israel.

Or do you stand with those who are teaching to hide, blackmail, rewrite history -- people who are trying to destabilize and create fear? I mean, if that's -- if that's where you are, what's the difference between you and a terrorist? I would rather stand with the surviving members of the Fogel family.

I would rather teach my children the lessons of that brutal murder that were taught by surviving members. I'd much rather teach my children about this family and these lessons, than the lessons of those who hand out cake in celebration of those who killed that family.

Name the country in the Middle East that has the values generally speaking that we have. I can only name one. Why are we standing with all of those against Israel?

They tolerated more provocations than probably any other country in history, and despite having enough arsenal of nukes to obliterate their enemies. Believe me, they can take care of themselves. How many have they lobbed? Answer, zero.

While everyone complains about the evils that Israel has done to the Arabs and then picks apart each tiny imperfection with their democracy -- democracy, by the way, a republic is ugly -- tens of millions of Arabs, tens of millions have suffered atrocities at the hands of their own countries. Gays are still tortured today and killed, bloggers jailed without cause, women humiliated, raped and murdered, dissidents killed, protesters shot, terrorist born, suicide bombers given by their mothers.

But Israel is the evil one? That's the obstacle to peace?

Let me ask you this, how many homosexuals have been stoned to death by the Israelis? How many adulterers have been buried up to their neck in sand and stoned to death in Israel? How many bloggers have been jailed without cause? How many terrorists are wearing a yarmulke?

But now, the world is being led to the water that Israel is the evil one. And it's about to drink. Don't drink that water.

They have measurably -- I know it's the Middle East -- they have immeasurably more freedom than any other Middle Eastern nation. Women are free to drive. Women and our daughters can walk alone in the street without being stoned or jailed. You can bring a Bible or a Koran into Israel.

A woman can't walk down the street alone and be safe. And not because she's in a dangerous neighborhood, but because she walked alone without a man? How do you possibly stand with that country? How do you possibly stand with a group of people that say I'm going to kill you if you don't go to my faith?

A country that treats women or people who are at all different like a dog, treats a woman as a piece of furniture or a sexual toy that can be raped. The courts will allow it.

How is it that a country like ours actually listens to those evil people saying this is evil? And we believe it. How many Israelis have taken someone off the streets and then beheaded them on videotape just for political reasons?

Our administration is siding with the wrong side. They are standing against good and encouraging evil in the Middle East. We are reprimanding the nation that is as flawed as we are and protecting the aggressors. We are protecting the killers and the terrorists. We have gone from a nation who was doing the wrong thing by siding with Mubarak to a nation who is doing an even greater evil by arming al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood which empowers Iran and also in the end destroys Israel.

It is not difficult to tell good apart from evil. Let's start with some simple ideas: voting rights. Generally speaking, which is better, voting rights of Iran, Muslim Brotherhood, those who run al Qaeda? How about free speech? Rights of women? Rights of homosexuals? America and Israel or the people we seem to be siding with?

I stand tonight with Israel.

Note: When Beck said above that "a republic is ugly," he was being sarcastic.

This reminds me a lot of a portion of a speech by Shakespeare in Merchant of Venice. The message is slightly different, but the call to see what is in front of you and stop the bigoted hatred is the same. As is the eloquence.

Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

For anyone who still sees Beck as an entertaining buffoon, that has been put to rest, permanently, I believe.

He has tied together very intelligently half a dozen elements (including Soros) to arrive at a highly principled conclusion.

It took rationality, passion and courage to get there.

BTW, I think I detect some familiar resonance in his words and thoughts, as in "They are standing against good, and encouraging evil [in the Middle East]", and "It is not difficult to tell good apart from evil", and "Do we stand with a people the most like Americans...?"

:rolleyes:

The most shocking for me was the statement from that ever-so-softly-spoken-and-reasonable, Samantha Powers. If evil ever had a face...

I will go as far as saying that if the USA pulls the plug on Israel, throwing it to the wolves - so to speak - the logical outcome, the huge loss of life, will be on Powers' hands.

Conversely, if rationality prevails, and the US steps back from the brink - which I consider more likely - it will be Glenn Beck I will largely credit.

Tony

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me a lot of a portion of a speech by Shakespeare in Merchant of Venus.

Wow, I haven't read that one yet. I'll put it on the reading list, to follow Heinlein's Podkayne of Mars. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Glenn would drop the folksy “faith, hope, and charity” brominde.

Whynot Tony wrote:

For anyone who still sees Beck as an entertaining buffoon, that has been put to rest, permanently, I believe . . . . He has tied together very intelligently half a dozen elements (including Soros) to arrive at a highly principled conclusion . . . . It took rationality, passion and courage to get there.

End quote

I enthusiastically agree. That show reached a new height for Glenn Beck.

I stand with, "The farthest and last outpost of America - Israel."

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things most notable about this program is that Beck identified good and evil in terms of persuasion/order versus violence/chaos and urged people to act against evil without hatred. In other words, stand with the good, but stand cloaked in wishing well for all, not in the pleasure of destruction.

He said the Qu'ran burner was outright wrong because he was moved by hatred. I agree.

It is so good to see someone in the mainstream articulating my own idea of standing for the good--one I came up with in my life from my own thinking years ago.

One of my disappointments with Ayn Rand was her elevation of hatred to a virtue, not in talk, but in deed.

In talk, I agree with her. In spades. She said that evil was impotent. This is very similar to Beck's view that sunlight makes the cockroaches scurry to beneath the refrigerator and if you stand in the blaze of truth, evil will burn itself up of its own accord.

(This is within a context where you can speak and express yourself publicly, of course.)

But in deed, Rand spent a lot of her life nurturing contempt and hatred in her soul. It's unhealthy to do like she did.

These negative emotions and evaluations are good in life as flare-ups, and even then, there are contexts. There are times for them, and there are times for the harshest versions of them. But when you allow them to fester inside as long drawn-out moods and states, this makes you sick. And it makes those around you sick, too, if they emulate you.

(This is probably one of the main reasons Objectivists and those who like Rand bicker so much. Look at what their role model did, not just what she said.)

So I stand with Becks's way--and my way--of standing with Israel. I do not stand with bigots and/or those who prioritize hatred who stand with Israel.

I believe that is Beck's message. And that is a moral posture I bear with pride.

Michael

EDIT: I just inserted the transcripts in the opening post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Glenn would drop the folksy “faith, hope, and charity” brominde.

Whynot Tony wrote:

For anyone who still sees Beck as an entertaining buffoon, that has been put to rest, permanently, I believe . . . . He has tied together very intelligently half a dozen elements (including Soros) to arrive at a highly principled conclusion . . . . It took rationality, passion and courage to get there.

End quote

I enthusiastically agree. That show reached a new height for Glenn Beck.

I stand with, "The farthest and last outpost of America - Israel."

Peter Taylor

Peter,

I appreciate your agreement. I find myself in a conflicting situation on this. Depending where one stands, if the Israel and US relationship is one of big brother to little brother - or, big "obstacle", to lttle "obstacle" (to world peace) - or, as Great and Little Satan, it does look as if the two Nations are inextricably bonded.

I have stood for Israel since young; but, separately, I also stand for the US, implicitly and openly. In Europe and in SA, these are not popular positions.

Militarily, I believe Israel can defend itself; which is good - I fervently hope it never becomes essential for the US to come to its assistance. Enough American lives have been lost. (That's my conflict.)

What is dangerous, obviously, is your present Administration merely making noises about withdrawing support from Israel - already an irresponsible and immoral act which is enough for Syria and Iran to start licking their lips in anticipation of a war of conquest.

They must be firmly dissuaded. The ensuing bloodbath would be horrific.

'Progressive', and largely spineless Europe, has morally capitulated to appeasement, and accepted that a sacrifice has to be made for "world peace" :- Israel is it, I fear.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I stand with Becks's way--and my way--of standing with Israel. I do not stand with bigots and/or those who prioritize hatred who stand with Israel.

Michael,

I would rather end up with egg on my face over a misunderstanding, than believe for a second that this was addressed to me. :o

Tony

(I'm asking, just in case... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thanks for the transcripts, as I can not view long videos posted to YouTube from work. I still think that some here have a thorn sticking in their side due to Beck's faith, but I'd take a man with faith who walks the right path in life over one without walking the wrong path. I understand there are fundamental conflicts philosophically, but I set those aside regarding Beck because because his compass points true north on what's right (imho).

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me a lot of a portion of a speech by Shakespeare in Merchant of Venus.

Wow, I haven't read that one yet. I'll put it on the reading list, to follow Heinlein's Podkayne of Mars. <_<

MSK, please edit your post so it says Merchant of Venice. As Churchill might have said, this is the type of error up with which I will not put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me a lot of a portion of a speech by Shakespeare in Merchant of Venus.

Wow, I haven't read that one yet. I'll put it on the reading list, to follow Heinlein's Podkayne of Mars. <_<

Wow is right. I cannot believe that I did not notice this the two times I read it!

Amazing what the eye/mind does to make the corrections.

I was wondering about the Podkayne of Mars reference, but I thought since your are a lot more versed in the classics that I just was missing something!

That was a lot funnier now that I can see Venus... hmmm kinda like seeing paradise by the dashboard lights!

Excellent Dennis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I waited a few days to see if there was going to be a better explanation than the timeline presented in Beck's March 31 show for the current dangers to Israel, but that show was the really good one.

So here it is,

Enjoy,

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wUbG0vPz0aM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I wanted to post a transcript, but the one available only does the opening monologue and does not include the timeline part.

Beck also interviews a person who had infiltrated the Revolutionary Guard in Iran.

I like his idea of keeping an eye on the 12th Imam thing in the leadership in Iran. Like he said, we don't have to believe it, but we have to realize that they believe it and are acting on it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In today's show and tomorrow's show, Beck is connecting a lot of dots to show what he believes is coming, including a massive setup of Israel.

He also confirms that he is ending his show on Fox, but will continue in other capacities. He praised Fox to the skies. (Like I said elsewhere, I have an idea that he is going on to bigger things with Fox--some partnerships or something. Roger Ailes is known to play his cards very close to his chest.

Here is a wonderful quote from the show, right as Beck was leading up to one of his climaxes. He was talking about how all kinds of diverse elements throughout the world have one thing in common: they all want to take down the system now in place and are all working toward that goal.

But not one of them are saying to return to (or implement) the principles of our Founding Fathers. Instead they all claim that Western ideals and capitalism are dead. Thus you see Leftists organizing with Islamists, etc.

The American ideal is the right idea. They just screwed it up!

Amen to that.

In fact, this show is almost an eloquent statement of Rand's idea that philosophy governs human history. Even though he did not use the words altruism and collectivism, I could see them clearly in between the lines. (He did say "individual," showing a Walkman and an iPhone, saying that the individual makes that kind of change happen, not any state.)

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K8c1QMEt2ro?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tomorrow's show will be more about the Israel setup. This one today laid more groundwork than anything else.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Glenn would drop the folksy "faith, hope, and charity" brominde.

Whynot Tony wrote:

For anyone who still sees Beck as an entertaining buffoon, that has been put to rest, permanently, I believe . . . . He has tied together very intelligently half a dozen elements (including Soros) to arrive at a highly principled conclusion . . . . It took rationality, passion and courage to get there.

End quote

I enthusiastically agree. That show reached a new height for Glenn Beck.

I stand with, "The farthest and last outpost of America - Israel."

Peter Taylor

Peter,

I appreciate your agreement. I find myself in a conflicting situation on this. Depending where one stands, if the Israel and US relationship is one of big brother to little brother - or, big "obstacle", to lttle "obstacle" (to world peace) - or, as Great and Little Satan, it does look as if the two Nations are inextricably bonded.

I have stood for Israel since young; but, separately, I also stand for the US, implicitly and openly. In Europe and in SA, these are not popular positions.

Militarily, I believe Israel can defend itself; which is good - I fervently hope it never becomes essential for the US to come to its assistance. Enough American lives have been lost. (That's my conflict.)

What is dangerous, obviously, is your present Administration merely making noises about withdrawing support from Israel - already an irresponsible and immoral act which is enough for Syria and Iran to start licking their lips in anticipation of a war of conquest.

They must be firmly dissuaded. The ensuing bloodbath would be horrific.

'Progressive', and largely spineless Europe, has morally capitulated to appeasement, and accepted that a sacrifice has to be made for "world peace" :- Israel is it, I fear.

Tony

Now, let's integrate all this with practical application of and reference to the Objectivist philosophy.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my disappointments with Ayn Rand was her elevation of hatred to a virtue, not in talk, but in deed.

In talk, I agree with her. In spades. She said that evil was impotent. This is very similar to Beck's view that sunlight makes the cockroaches scurry to beneath the refrigerator and if you stand in the blaze of truth, evil will burn itself up of its own accord.

(This is within a context where you can speak and express yourself publicly, of course.)

But in deed, Rand spent a lot of her life nurturing contempt and hatred in her soul.

Of communism and communist cultural-intellectual toadies? Of fascists? Of collectivists? And it's one thing to have contempt and quite a jump to another to nurture it. Is your evaluation another example, albeit a little subtle, of presentism?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I don't think so.

I'm thinking of the reports I have heard of Rand sitting in her apartment, discussing something and pounding on her chair arms, saying, "The bastards! The basters!" over and over.

Take a look at her Marginalia for another example. Or all those stories about her behavior in discussing NB after the break.

Anyway, Rand made her choices. I make mine. I don't find that level of hatred good for my life. When I hate, I like to destroy whatever it is (or do what I can to destroy it any particular day) and get back to living. (I don't even spend any real time on Perigo. :) )

I can fight collectivism without getting bitter most of the time or getting a heart attack. (An exception to this is when I argue against bigotry. This seriously drains me because I hate bigotry. Often that's why I just take time off. I start feeling real bad.)

Don't forget, I know apathy from having lived within it. I don't think Rand ever had a phase like that. I got close to death because of this negative emotion i was nurturing. Something became really clear back then--I had to come out of it or die. It's not so clear that you have to do that with hatred until it's too late. My apathy experience made me acutely aware of the danger of staying deeply in a negative emotional state for too long.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would John Galt do?

The problemo with Israel standing alone is not Israel survival but the survival of . . . . And US access to Israeli computer technology and intelligence resources and information. Brains. So the US standing with Israel is begging Israel to feed the US Israeli goodies, including not blowing up the situation and depriving the West and Japan of oil.

To give up the power of the gigantic American State and be a true individualist is to give up fantasies of wars, conquest and making the world better all out of proportion to one's actual abilities and possible influence.

So therefore, John Galt would stand with Israel. Why? Because John Galt merely sensed the true source of power and grabbed it bringing along almost all of the major Atlas characters and Rand followers. Since what He did in Atlas was off the mark, in real life he would have converted to being a neo-con because he wasn't an individualist save in name only. You know that because everybody kow-towed to him one way or another.

And such is why Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand is transitory for it isn't a philosophy of individualism apropos the actual nature of human nature which is lot of social too, but not social to the primacy and glorification of the state.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I don't think so.

I'm thinking of the reports I have heard of Rand sitting in her apartment, discussing something and pounding on her chair arms, saying, "The bastards! The basters!" over and over.

Take a look at her Marginalia for another example. Or all those stories about her behavior in discussing NB after the break.

Anyway, Rand made her choices. I make mine. I don't find that level of hatred good for my life. When I hate, I like to destroy whatever it is (or do what I can to destroy it any particular day) and get back to living. (I don't even spend any real time on Perigo. :) )

I can fight collectivism without getting bitter most of the time or getting a heart attack. (An exception to this is when I argue against bigotry. This seriously drains me because I hate bigotry. Often that's why I just take time off. I start feeling real bad.)

Don't forget, I know apathy from having lived within it. I don't think Rand ever had a phase like that. I got close to death because of this negative emotion i was nurturing. Something became really clear back then--I had to come out of it or die. It's not so clear that you have to do that with hatred until it's too late. My apathy experience made me acutely aware of the danger of staying deeply in a negative emotional state for too long.

Michael

"The bastards, the bastards!" I never knew there weren't any bastards. Thanks, Ayn. Seriously, Michael, when you make such a statement you need to reference it. New to me regardless.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I have to look it up, but it's a commonly known story about Rand.

It's too late and I have to get up early.

Just say I made it up and be done with it.

Michael

I'm not saying that. I'm not implying that. I believe the story. I don't believe it supports your thesis. I really would like the reference.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant wrote:

Quote

What would John Galt do?

The problemo with Israel standing alone is not Israel survival but the survival of . . . . And US access to Israeli computer technology and intelligence resources and information. Brains. So the US standing with Israel is begging Israel to feed the US Israeli goodies, including not blowing up the situation and depriving the West and Japan of oil.

End quote

What would Ayn Rand’s philosophically greatest character John Galt do? “What would be rational and objective?” is a less fictional way of phrasing the question. Ayn would require the complete circumstances before answering. What would she do in the real world?

The “Save the Jews” from genocide factor is historical necessity. I think Rand’s gut thinking would be, “Wouldn’t you have to?” She would defend Israel.

The “Save the Brains” idea is on the level of global, human evolutionary action. Because of her insistence on eliminating any science from her *egalitarian volition* concept this would be a hard sell. She said the facts of different groups IQ’s were somehow racism, and stock yard collectivism, many, many times. She despised eugenics as a phony theory. Hypothetically, let me posit a scenario: there is a debate; a debate between Ayn Rand and the real experts on this evolutionary issue, which she then clearly lost. Six months or a year of rethinking would bring her to this position. She would defend Israel though this (they have an average 117 IQ) would never be her primary reason. As a corollary of this, she would defend *family* and the Jews in Israel who are genetically closer to her family. That is harsh but it is every humans gut feeling: Save my baby!

To save the humans from Israel, who create wonderful technology, is a more personal profit motive. Would she think it rational to save physicists, creators of computer technology and medical technologists if they are on the cutting edge of thought? Yes, it would be in her self interest. Is it in our strategic interest to protect the oil pipelines from the middle east? At the same time this would provide protection for Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. She would save Israel.

Is it in our self interest to keep our mutual defense treaty with Israel? Hmmm? Who else do we have in the area who would risk their lives to rescue one of America’s downed airman? Who would unhesitatingly provide us with their airspace? If a U.S. military jet crashed landed, who would cheer the survivors? Israel. who would butcher or hold the survivors for ransom? Iran, Hammas in Lebanon and the Palestinians. Who shares our objective, Western values? Ayn would reasonable carp about the level of Israel’s socialism, but she would save Israel.

Rand always maintained it was “righteous” to shoot a looter, or a murderer, or to destroy a dictator: they are the human equivalent of *mad dogs*. The key for a country’s righteous “extended” use of self defense, would be: if it is not in my country’s “current” national security, what would be the cost to the United States in lives and money? If it were negligible she would “double tap” Kaddafi, the head of Hamas, and all the Palestinian initiators of force.

What would John Galt do? What would Ayn Rand do? Would she stand next to Francisco and John Galt on the borders of Israel with a gun in each hand, shooting the terrorists? Yes she would.

Ayn Rand would defend Israel. So will I.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand would defend Israel. So will I.

Peter Taylor

Peter:

Out of curiosity, would you, if it was necessary to carry out that defence, reinstitute a draft in the United States?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's an interesting piece of reasoning, Peter, which I'll just let stand. even though I didn't ask what Ayn Rand would do. I was interested in the fictional context that Galt existed in for contrast with our real world.

I don't think the average Israeli Jew has an IQ of 117. That apparently applies to one major Jewish racial subset.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now