The Lepers of Objectivism
by Barbara Branden

I had not read anything on SoloPassion for quite some time, but I went there tonight and discovered an article by Phil Coates entitled "Targeting Those Who Have Not Initiated Force -- Muslims as Such."
http://www.solopassion.com/node/1599

In this article, Phil criticizes an Objective Standard post by Craig Biddle, as follows:

"Craig Biddle on his Objective Standard blog advocates taking out Iran by aerial bombing. He adds the following to the list of military and leadership targets: 'All Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian...imams [and] clerics. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).'"

I did not expect that I ever would recommend that the members of Objectivist Living should read a Solo article, and particularly the comments being made about it. But I think you need to know that there are so-called Objectivists who advocate, as a value in itself, the deliberate, pointless murder of perhaps millions of people in mosques and millions of children in schools.

If Lindsay Perigo does not denounce Craig Biddle and the members of Solo who support his recommendations, and if ARI does not denounce The Objective Standard, (which is published and edited by Craig Biddle, and which numbers among its writers Andrew Bernstein, Yaron Brook, Alex Epstein, and David Harriman) they should be shunned and avoided just as lepers once were shunned and avoided. These people are the lepers of Objectivism.

Barbara

Barbara, this is truly scary. The immorality of such consequent mass killing of innocents speaks for itself. Maybe not so obvious is the idiotic counter-productiveness of it in strategic terms. The whole idea reeks of mad zealotry.

Why does Objectivism always have such lepers around? Remember the legendary discussion among some of taking out a “hit” in the aftermath of the 1968 Split?

I do not read Solo websites and have not for years. I belonged once, long ago, but left after several months. There was something about the leadership there that struck me as pretentious and creepy.

-Ross Barlow.

Barbara and Ross,

Phil was referring to this blog entry by Craig Biddle:

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/...s-terrorism.asp

Robert

And here is Mr. Biddle's follow-up:

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/...work-try_12.asp

"...we should engage in a massive and sustained air assault on Iran until all the Islamists there are dead. Yes, all of them. You see, dead Islamists can't make bombs."

Robert Campbell

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group (Mirriam-Webster)

It sounds like genocide is again being advocated in the name of Objectivist principles. The ick factor again rears its ugly head. This is truly disturbing.... genocide is not part of my philosophy. I am an Objectivist.

Kat

Yaron Brook said essentially the same thing at his ARI talk on Sep. 12 here in Irvine, California. He didn't advocate the deliberate targetting of children in schools, but he basically did say that massive innocent civilian deaths are not our responsibility but the responsibility of the Iranian regime (as the massive innocent civilian deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the responsibility of the Japanese regime). Let Allah sort 'em out, is their apparent motto. :-/

I just hope that Craig Biddle will take out a full-page advertisement in the NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times spouting the same stuff he put on his blog. If he can't afford it, perhaps TAS/TOC should chip in and pay for the ad. It would be in their interests, after all. :-)

REB

I am glad someone posted about this here.

Robert,

I believe your follow-up link is mistaken as it goes to the same August 31 entry. I read a follow-up here for September 7. Here is a quote from this last one, complaining that captured terrorists are sent to Guantanamo Bay and calling the desire to ascertain the certainty of guilt "relativism."


No. That would not be only those things. That would be irrational in the extreme. Ayn Rand's oft repeated phrase comes to mind: Who decides? (I am sure Mr. Biddle is clear where he wants to be on that.)

This kind of blindness is scary. The reason the judiciary has been separated from enforcement organizations is precisely to ascertain guilt. Even the military has tribunals. The wish to bypass this system is the same wish to embrace the system of our enemies.

Here is a fuller quote from the August 31 entry, just in case anyone thinks there is some context missing.


This was written by a man who wrote a book called Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

I can't think of a clearer example of collectivism of spirit than these pronouncements and the tribal "us against them" mentality displayed on SLOP.

I have recently seen on CNN a discussion by our military leaders that they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than their enemies. The event was the decision not to bomb a funeral in progress and the call was made - not according to some altruistic rule - but by a commander on the spot because he was in doubt whether it was actual leaders of the enemy or not. This is not altruism. It is a vision of how life could and should be - with the phrase "And I mean it" included. Should anyone doubt the capacity of our military, look at what's left of the governments and military capacity of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Blaming our military for being good, precisely for holding to a higher moral standard of sparing civilians when possible, is already troubling. Blaming them for not purposely blasting women and children off the face of the earth in order to simply kill them is despicable.

This shows a fear far deeper than anything I have ever saw among the cowardly "better Red than dead" folks of my youth. One thing that cannot be said about American heroes - they are not afraid. They kick the ass of the bad guys and they do it without becoming as despicable as the bad guys are. They are neither afraid of the bad guys nor afraid to live life - and even fight - according to their convictions. I salute our American heroes and I am proud they defend me. I fight as they do.

(The A bomb in WWII was in a completely different context. Even so, the horror it brought even caused the bad guys to abstain from using it all these years.)

I have no words to convey my revulsion of the collectivist spirit behind those who would specifically target women and children in order to make a point.

Michael

I have been reading that kind of rhetoric out of O-world off and on for years. Lately, I notice an escalation.

It is fairly well-known that I am a hybrid, having many years of Objectivism under my belt, but also having become a Unitarian Universalist a couple of years ago. Objectivism has a really fucked-up, myopic way of looking at religious thought. Actually, that's not really even it; what they can't do is separate fundamentalist zealots from the religious community as a whole. Their Objectivism requires contempt for a thing they think they have nailed called "faith." True religious life, in any form, does not allow for killing, other than under the basic tenets that Objectivism itself agrees with. In essence, when you see this kind of writing, this contemptible, piece-of-shit article, the rhetoric of which is identical to the same kind of filthy sewage you see out of name-the-fanatical-group-of-your-choice. In the end, the proposition given is hate, it is killing, it is suffering, and it is, above all, immoral on any true grounds, be it O-ist or Christian or Buddhist, or what have you. Yes, by all means, a-hole; that's the solution! Let's go and burn the goddamn village and teach them a lesson. Teach the infant a lesson by incinerating them.

I can only offer prayer to my misguided brother.

Michael,

Sorry about duplicating a link in my follow-up.

I've corrected the link now. It's to a different blog entry from the one you found. Mr. Biddle has been on a roll with regard to this particular subject.

Frankly, I don't understand why Mr. Biddle isn't calling for the entire territory of Iran to be nuked--unless he is concerned about near-term uses of the real estate after its current occupants have been wiped out.

Robert

This is the kind of disgusting thought that keeps my girlfriend away from a serious study of Objectivism, with friends like Mr. Biddle … Anyway, I'm so glad Peri and I found a sane (and friendly) Objectivist community in Objectivist Living.

I suppose we all should just accept the fact that you'll find extremists (almost) anywhere. Oddly enough, though, I've never seen one here for more than a minute.

I still contend that this kind of violent rhetoric originates from people in the intellectual community that, on the whole, really don't have firsthand experience with violence. I don't know this guy from Adam, but I bet that he's of the sort that advocates village-nuking but would cry like a baby if you bitch-slapped him. I find that sane, rational people who have experienced hurt and pain have a pretty negative view about propagating it.

That is one reason that MSK keeps a sane house on OL--he has seen/experienced the horrors on the street level, he knows what it's all about. That's for you, Maestro...

People who talk smack generally haven't ever been smacked.

Just a small point concerning the Objectivist lineage of the position evidently now being expressed by Craig Biddle and Yaron Brook in this area:

As I recall, Leonard Peikoff was advocating these military offensives against Iran on the Bill O'Reilly TV program in the period between the 9/11 attack on the US and our invasion of Afghanistan. He did not want us to invade the latter. He wanted us to instead attack Iran. (I can't recall now why he thought we should respond to the attack on us with a counterattack on Iran. Perhaps he saw Iranian powers as the ideological font; perhaps as source of armaments to Hamas ilk; perhaps both.) His preference for exclusively aerial bombing, nuclear if necessary, and his ideas about the moral conduct of such a campaign are beng echoed by these other fellows now.

I saw that or a similar interview with Peikoff (CNN?). It was like they brought in the resident mad scientist just for chuckles. I'd like to say I felt embarrassed for him, but I was too worried about myself. I told my then-wife that LP was coming on, Objectivism, blah blah. She got about a minute into it and asked me if "they were all like that, and if so, why do you bother?"

Heh.

rde
Maybe next time he'll iron his shirt.

Ross, it is indeed scary. Not merely that these people call themselves Objectivists, but that they are Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Brits -- that such horrors crawl out from under the rocks even in supposedly civilized countries. This being so, how can we expect anything remotely human from "unenlightened" countries? (And yes, I do indeed remember the "hit" discussion after the 1968 break. For those of you who don't know about this, a few Ayn Rand devotees discussed whether or not, because Nathaniel Branden had hurt Ayn Rand, it would be moral to arrange for his assassination.)

Robert, the quote you posted from Biddle -- that we should bomb Iran "until all the Islamists there are dead" -- is even more horrifying than the material Phil posted.

Yes, Kat, it is a kind of genocide that's being advocated. I wonder why Biddle didn't mention the efficacy of gas ovens. But at least Hitler didn't try to defend genocide in the name of reason.

Roger, I want to make something clear. I know that collateral damage is inevitable in wartime, whether the war is fought with spears or atom bombs. And I believe that when it occurs, it is not the moral responsibility of those who are defending themselves against aggression; it is the moral responsibility of the aggressors. And I agree with Michael that the dropping of the atom bomb that ended World War II was a totally different phenomenon than what Biddle recommends. America was not out to destroy "all Japanese" as Biddle is out to destroy "all Islamists." Its purpose was to end the war, so that an invasion of Japan -- which would have meant the death of perhaps a million American soldiers -- would not be necessary. Even so, if we do not view the use of the atom bomb with horror and fear, we are less than human. But please, let's not divert this thread by a discussion of Hiroshima.

Michael, I agree that "this shows a fear far deeper than anything I ever saw among the cowardly 'better Red than dead' folks of my youth." This overwhelming hatred can only come from an overwhelming fear.

Rich, you say -- and I respect your intention -- that "I can only offer prayer to my misguided brother." But he is not my brother. There is tenet in Judaism that is very relevant here. I learned it from the head librarian at the Simon Wiesenthal Institute, when I was doing volunteer work there. She had recommended a book by Wiesenthal, entitled The Sunflower; it is a gripping and a harrowing story. While imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, Wiesenthal (who, along with his wife, lost eight-nine members of his family to the Holocaust) is taken from his work one day to the bedside of a dying member of the SS. Haunted by the crimes in which he had participated, the soldier wants to confess to – and obtain forgiveness from – a Jew. Wiesenthal cannot offer him forgiveness; he says nothing in response to the soldier’s story and his pleas; silently, he leaves the soldier’s room.

After I had read the book, the librarian asked me what I would have done. I answered that I would not have forgiven the soldier, that even though his remorse seemed authentic, I had no right to speak for the dead, no right to offer him forgiveness on their behalf and in their name. The woman smiled, and told me that according to Judaism, God, despite His might and His awesome powers, has one limitation of what He is able to do. If we wrong someone, God does not have the power to forgive us. Only those we have wronged have that power. And if they have been murdered, then no forgiveness is possible. Not even God may speak for the dead.

So if the Biddles of this world had their way and all Islamists were killed, your prayers would be wasted, Rich.

Stephen, I did hear that Peikoff advocated approximately what his followers are now advocating. It would be quite in character. I remember that when I lived in New York, during the height of the protests against the Vietnam War, I had a date with Peikoff and the girl who became his first wife. When they arrived at my apartment, it was obvious that they had been quarreling, and that the girl was terribly upset. She told me that they had been delayed by a parade of protesters, and that Peikoff had insisted that the protesters “should all be machine-gunned.” (He tried heatedly to defend his position, but I was able to talk him out of it . . . for the moment.)

An especially appalling aspect of the Biddle policy and of the Soloists who are cheerfully defending it is the relish they appear to take in the thought of destroying innocent people. They are not presenting their opinions gravely and somberly, but lightly, even jokingly. These supposed advocates of the sanctity of human life are vying with one another as to which of them can rub his hands with greater glee at the prospect of the suffering and death of millions.

Barbara

They are truly the "children of the corn".





RCR

Want to see a living caricature of a RA-RA Captain America type? Get a load of Brant Gaede who responds with drooling glee:

“Bombs away! Now that's KASS! It might be even more effective to send in troops with flamethrowers and barbecue the little beggars alive. Consider the psychological effects!”

Question: If Iran does—in fact—represent a threat, even a posed threat by the mere existence of terrorist training camps [along with it’s violent rhetoric against the Western world]—is it not appropriate, morally speaking, if not militarily, to issue a demand to dismantle the camps and now--or else there will be no more “Mr. Nice guy paper tiger.”

I am speaking, of course, to defuse any danger of possible attacks against America, but not to the extreme of a genocidal nature. That’s insane. I am not a military strategist, of course, but I’m not a pacifist and I do see the practicality of pre-emptive strikes.

Years ago, when I first heard the tangled rationalizations by Peikoff about situations in which it was proper to lie, I was deeply troubled by the elasticity of the "standards" cited. I recall something about it being okay to lie on certain job or loan applications, because the "mixed economy" reduced work opportunities in certain career fields. I thought to myself, "Man -- that 'mixed economy' excuse could rationalize almost anything today!"

Ayn Rand once wrote that "evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations." She was mistaken, however. As these creeps demonstrate, ANY philosophy can be warped into a system of rationalization -- most emphatically including Objectivism. When mass extermination is joked about, in the most grisly terms imaginable, you see the true face of evil; when you see a grand philosophy being cited to rationalize such things, you are seeing their evil compounded.

Let me be the first to put it this way:

These pseudo-Objectivists are hijacking a philosophy of peace.

Victor,

I think Brant was being sarcastic. He used to be in the military and knows more about military strategy than the whole lot of those on SLOP who are hollering "Heil Hitler!" right now.

Iran's policies and practices do pose a serious threat and this is a thorny issue. But there is a small thing that all the speculations and exhortations coming from ARI/SLOP crowd are missing.

Reality.

Iran has a population of about 68 million people. Do you see anywhere near the damage in the world that 68 million people can cause if they set their hearts to it? No you can't because they are not doing it. What you see is broadcast news stories concerning the organized efforts of a very small vicious contingent.

And what you really see from ARI and SLOP is naked fear - shitting in pants fear - disguised as bluster.

You see raw collectivism - the pure form - coming from that fear.

Believe it or not, Iran harbors both good guys and bad guys and lots of plain normal people - just like any country on earth. We have to take out the bad guys, since they are the threat, and start spreading some good ideas around over there. That's a tough job for America's intellectuals, but it is a crucial part of what needs to be done.

If some good guys happen to be nearby when we get the bad guys in our sites, that is one thing. Shit happens in war - even in something called a "war on terrorism." But nuking lots of good guys and lots of plain normal people just to scare the small contingent of bad guys is so Nazi-like - so damn anti-life - that I get into a rage just thinking that there are people who use Rand's ideas to try to justify that crap.

Our military is doing a magnificent job so far. There has been far too much criticism of it - from both sides. These men and women have my full respect, admiration and love.

If things stand as they are and do not change drastically, I have no doubt that a need for military action will become crucial with Iran - and I have no doubt that our magnificent military will dismantle Iran's government and its military capacity with a high degree of competence in short order.

What do you do with the 67,995,000 people after that, though?

Hey! I have a great ARI/SLOP idea! Let's watch them slowly starve to death while we point our fingers and gleefully say, "I told you so!" That's real rational.

Enough sarcasm. I am going to be serious now. I strongly believe that we will get the bad guys. And I believe it will be ugly. Here's the reality check: there ain't no pretty way to do it.

But I strongly believe that nuking civilians is a whole lot uglier - not even comparable - and, besides, it will not work with guerrilla terrorists like it did with a formal army in WWII. The terrorists think their killed are martyrs who get a guaranteed place in heaven. This would give them something to preach about.

I don't even want to go into the USA foreign policy of currying favor with local bloody dictators in order to get infrastructure monopolies that helped lead up to this (and yes, with training of the dictator's armed forces by US personnel, who later stand by watching as their "students" butcher the country's citizens). I have seen all this with my own eyes in Brazil. It is not pretty. That does not justify terrorists or excuse the evil of jihad, but it is definitely a component in the mix of the present mess.

Purposely blowing up innocents - in addition to being unspeakably despicable to every life-loving human being - would be icing on that particular anti-American cake and ensure long and healthy popular support for the terrorists when they call us the Great Satan. There is too much of that already, but in light of a population of 68 million people, I think that such hatred is not fully ingrained. The meager results show this to be true.

We are the good guys, so we cannot act like bad guys and then expect to win over any minds or hearts - and there are literally millions in Iran who are willing to be won over.

(Islam is in the mix of all this, too. It's a big part, but notice that word "mix." Like anything else in reality, you only get something done right by isolating critical parts and working on them.)

You just can't say, "we are the ones who love life," then train the killers of a people over decades - and then start blowing up groups of their innocents. They will not believe a word you say ever again. Ever.

I even think Al Queda prays we will do some dumb-ass thing like that.

God, am I disgusted!

Michael


PS - I just saw Robert's post above mine. Let me echo it loudly:

OBJECTIVISM IS A PHILOSOPHY OF PEACE!

With all due respect to Michael and Robert B., and with all due sympathy for their outrage against the irrational, blood-lust rhetoric of the ARI crowd, I would put the matter a bit differently.

Calling Objectivism a "philosophy of peace" is too broad. That would include "peace at any price" aka pacifism. And it would rule out truly just wars, i.e., wars of self-defense.

Obviously, if you are being attacked, you are morally entitled to defend yourself by using retaliatory force--against the appropriate person and in the appropriate amount. On the level of nation-states, our delegated agent of force, the government, exercises our right to self-defense and retaliation by waging war.

Advocacy of war, in the appropriate circumstances and in the appropriate manner, is part of the philosophy of Objectivism.

The problem with Craig Biddle et al is not that they advocate war, or even the killing of large numbers of people (which is what war does), but that they advocate the deliberate targeting of non-combatants. It's one thing to incur civilian deaths as collateral damage in wartime, but it's quite another to deliberately aim at them because they are teaching or learning the ideas that some carry out in violent, rights-violating action. There is no such thing as a thought crime--and thus no such thing as deserving punishment for holding the wrong ideas. I thought Objectivists all understood this.

Objectivism is a (political) philosophy of self-defense and non-initiation of force. That is precisely what Craig Biddle et al have hijacked, because they are advocating retaliatory actions that so grossly exceed the proper limits of self-defense that they amount to the initiation of force.

REB

Roger,

It is good you highlight these points about retaliation in order to establish context (and we already know what the boneheads are going to say, don't we?). But anybody who reads me, or especially reads Robert Bidinoto on his blog, know that we both preach taking out the bad guys. And doing it big time.

I remember, years ago, watching with pride from São Paulo as Ronald Reagan said on TV, "We did what we had to do. And if necessary, we will do it again."

I think you might remember when that was said. What a moment! That is the way Americans do it. (And one civilian at least, a tyrant's son, got killed back then, but look where he was.)

The statement, "OBJECTIVISM IS A PHILOSOPHY OF PEACE," means just that. The normal in life is peace, not war. Objectivism teaches rational production of values. War is an exception and is dealt with in the philosophy as such.

But things are much, much worse in terms of orthodox Objectivism. They are evil-type worse. Biddle and the SLOPPERS are not just preaching wholesale slaughter of civilian people. Read the Biddle posts again.

He is preaching a war of conquest - of territorial expansion.

That is a philosophy of war.

That is not Objectivism.

Objectivism is a philosophy of peace.

That is my context.

Michael

Victor, yes, we do have the right to make preemptive strikes when we are in danger, and yes, Iran must not be allowed to have atomic weapons. But it is in Iran especially, of all the Muslim countries -- and particularly among the younger people -- that there is at present the most vigorous and widespread hatred of the theocratic regime. Iranians have made this clear by means of countless riots and demonstrations, big and small, throughout Iran. In May of this year, fierce riots broke out on the campus of Teheran University.Thousands of students joined in., chanting anti-regime slogans, such as

WE DON'T WANT NUCLEAR ENERGY

and

FORGET PALESTINE - THINK OF US

It required more than 3,000 police, the merciless beating of the students, and the killing of several, before the riots and the bloodshed ended.

Are these students and other Iranians like them the people we should be nuking? We shoud be helping them in every way possible, helping them to break free of their tormentors, as we helped so many other courageous rebels in Eastern Europe when they were strugging to to break free of their Communist tormentors.

Barbara

Hi Roger,

I have a follow-up question to your Post #19.

As I recall, when Peikoff was on TV five years ago proposing that we attack Iran, he was spotlighting the proposition that it is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed. Do you have any thoughts on that proposition as a general principle?

Peikoff was very concerned in that interview about the loss of American military personel if we were to invade Afghanistan. We all were. (We knew who had attacked us, and we knew he had meant to draw us into war with him on his terrain, where he thought he could win. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding our unsureness of the usefulness of the Northern Alliance, over 90% of us thought the day after the 9/11 attack that we should send our military to Afghanistan and get those guys in their hideout and headquarters.) Peikoff also expressed the view that the Afghan people would wrongly suffer were we to attack their country to get our enemies. He pleaded on that particular O'Reilly show that we not attack Afghanistan.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I can't remember why Peikoff thought that our correct military target after the 9/11 attack should be Iran and not Afghanistan. Whatever his reasoning to that target, Iran, he wanted to urge that once our country goes to war with another country, such as Iran, one implication from Rand's moral philosophy is this: It is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed.

Do you have any thoughts about that issue? Is Peikoff's principle morally sound? Didn't Rand write something once that was in synch with this principle?

Stephen

Stephen,

In response to your posts #12 and 22:

The Fall 2001 O'Reilly show with Leonard Peikoff, from your description, is the same one that Heidi and I saw.

I recall that John Kasich was subbing for O'Reilly that night.

I didn't have a high opinion of Leonard Peikoff going into the show--this was well after I'd read OPAR. learned about various monkeyshines at ARI, etc. etc. etc.

But I still wasn't prepared for what I saw.

Heidi thought Dr. Peikoff was a bull goose loony. And I had to agree, that's how he was coming across.

My recollection is that he deemed Iran to be the prime source of Islamo-theocratic ideology, as well as a source of arms and money for attacks on Israel, and that's why he insisted the US armed forces should be nuking Tehran. instead of sending ground troops into Kabul or Qandahar.

That particular TV appearance is regarded by some in the ARI orbit as a public relations liability. During my first round of exchanges with Mike Mazza last fall, he claimed that criticisms of ARI largely came from people who knew nothing of Leonard Peikoff's lectures or publications, but had seen him on TV and thought he looked like a nut.

Those ARIans who think that adverse reactions to their organization stem from one hysterical TV appearance by their founder and senior leader are missing the point.

Robert

To Roger's post #19: I meant that the Objectivist philosophy is the only philosophy of truly enduring peace among men: the only one that's based in both reason and individual rights, two essentials for peaceful interactions among individuals.

Nor is a desire for peace a desire for peace at any price.

That clarified, let me repeat what I said: These creeps are trying to hijack Objectivism, a philosophy of peace.

Why yes, BB, 'cause as we all know, no government can exist without the consent of the governed, no government is *really* capable of existing unless "the people" allow it; evil is a limp-dick, an illusion of ignorance, so, of course, all that is *really* required to stop "evil" in its tracks is for the people to embrace perfect, proper thinking, and start a bloody revolution (you know, like the French did way back when), so clearly we can't really take those silly, ineffectual demonstrations too seriously; where are the guns, the knives, the car-bombs, the guillotines??

As my mind-reading powers tell me, in any rational universe (Oh, Rand, who art not in heaven), if the millions of Iranians *really* wanted to get rid of their "evil" government they would (this I know, 'cause Rand tells me so), and if they can't, we can see that the scientific force of passivity has chemically bonded with the souls of Iranians, effectively transmogrifying them into vampires; but we can hope, as the slayers of the world do their good work, that if their minds remain in any way true and properly aligned, they will know that by their failure, by their corruption of thinking, of logic and ineffectual actions, their stature as human beings becomes null and void, and their lives become but a meaningless sacrifice to the mighty sword of objective justice (Praise Be She), therefore they, we and She can rest easy in their indiscriminate slaughter.

Viva la rabbia! Bombs away!









RCR

Robert, in particular, and all, of course...

That is definitely the show. I'll never forget it. I think I was even taping it but it was so awful I taped over it.

One thing there is, it looked like LP was either not mindful of preparation for a media interview, or maybe he just didn't care. Who knows? It was a fiasco, it was an embarrassment. It's so infrequent that AR related people really get a good media shot. Maybe they caught him unawares. I think if I weren't ready, couldn't be ready, I would've politely declined--that would have surely been better vs. what came out.

A good media coach would've stopped or corrected that in a heartbeat.

Barbara, I understand your point vis-a-vis "misguided." But, see, that is the peaceful position. My choice is to focus on the good in people, give him the benefit of the doubt, as they say. I want to, such as it is, send him the message that I look for better in the future. Scolding doesn't get one too far. Like NB said (he's said it different ways, I am trying to quote accurately from hearing him): "No one has ever reached the heights of glory by being told that he or she is rotten." So, what can I do other than to hope for better? He is, in fact, sorely misguided.


I said before-- I find that often, people who make these edicts have never experienced the pain of true violence. You learn something from that. Same as learning to fight...if you have taken a good smack-down, you know the terrain.

MSK-- Any true philosophy or religion is one of peace. Consider the source/nature of violence.

best,
r

EDIT, upon contemplation:

One could say that the bar was set by terrorist activities, 911. True, to a point. But, violence begats violence. Pretty soon, everyone runs "amok." It is very difficult on a visceral level to not let violence trigger more of the same.

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0)
amok 

–noun 1. (among members of certain Southeast Asian cultures) a psychic disturbance characterized by depression followed by a manic urge to murder.
–adjective 2. amuck.
—Idiom3. run or go amok. amuck (def. 3).

Also, amuck."

Robert Campbell: I also saw that O'Reilly Factor appearance by Peikoff, and was simply appalled -- not just by what he said, but by his eye-popping, strident-voiced demeanor. He looked completely out of control, a real moonbat.

If you are saying radical things, you shouldn't LOOK and SOUND like a wild-eyed nutcase in your demeanor.

That evening was a p.r. disaster for Objectivism.

Stephen,

You make an interesting question when you ask about the following principle:


I have not done some real heavy thinking on this issue, but what comes immediately to the surface is the following:

1. Attribution of equal shares of blame to a large group of people in demanding they all forfeit their lives as individuals.
2. Human life is scalable into "good human life" and "lesser human life."
3. We are not human beings as a primary. We are Americans as a primary, and metaphysically, this is a superior type of human being.

Boy, does all that smell like racism, especially the scapegoating variety. And, as Rand stated, racism is the lowest form of collectivism.

Punishing one person in equal measure for the wrongs of another person flies in the face of all that is rational.

This leads to your question about ensuring that not one American soldier be killed by massive slaughter of a group of people. The error in this thinking presupposes that we are the ones killing that soldier. We are not. and, frankly, neither are the civilians under discussion. There are some really evil bastards who are killing our soldiers and they are the ones who need to be taken out. Killing civilians to punish them is neither moral nor practical.

The real moral point that is completely overlooked with this kind of collectivist thinking is that we need to fight ideas with ideas and guns with guns.

Something just dawned on me. If a person thinks philosophy is a form of "programming" a mind, he will inevitably think that a religion like Islam has brainwashed an entire people to the extent that they cannot be "programmed" further. So the best solution is to blast them off the face of the earth. They are hopelessly rotten and beyond cognition. Ultimately, he thinks of philosophy as a method of controlling people's minds. (And guess who he imagines to be the controller?)

If we think of philosophy as a set of principles for use by human beings - all human beings - and that all human beings possess volition and can think for themselves, then we know that rational thought can be used to sway people.

Islam is a formidable intellectual foe. There are about a billion and a half people under its sway. As intellectuals, we should be analyzing its strengths, not just pointing a finger and proclaiming "altruism" and "jihad" all the time. We only convince ourselves. We certainly do not convince them. We should try to understand what are the mechanisms in Islam that convince people and offer better ideas on that level, in language they can understand. I have great faith in human beings. Not all Muslims will be convinced that way, but enough can be to make a difference. There are cracks all over the place in Islamic societies.

Michael

MSK,

Wonderful.

I believe there is definitely something that can't be easily turned around the second you start the pigeonholing. Basically, this is a simple thing, it's called "prejudice."

It's probably the main catalyst of all human violence.

best,
r

Michael, you wrote:



I read them, and I don't think this is an accurate reading of Biddle's blog post.

Biddle is right in line with Yaron Brooks et al, who are arguing that we should attack and deal with Iran for the same reasons and in the same way that we dealt with Japan in World War II. We were attacked by Iran (actually numerous times since 1979, including on 9/11, either directly by them or with their financial aid), and the Saudis did expropriate the oil fields developed non-aggressively by Western oil companies. We should destroy the Iranian regime and discredit their ideology and do so with a minimal loss of American lives, occupying them if necessary to get them going in with a more rational, rights-respecting system. There is nothing in this that implies "territorial expansion." But it most definitely does entail "conquest," i.e., destroying the enemy and ending their regime and its ideology's credibility.

I strongly suggest that OL'ers go to the Ayn Rand Bookstore website soon (TBA) and listen to Yaron Brooks' Sep. 12 2006 talk on America's failed foreign policy. He discusses this issue at length, both in the talk and in the QA session that follows. He is most emphatically NOT arguing for "territorial expansion." Just DEFEAT OF THE ENEMY. Which Bush et al are nowhere near achieving, because of the altruistic way they are fighting the Iraq war, not to mention attacking the wrong enemy in the first place.

Let me say it again: listen to Yaron's talk in its entirety. Do not ASSUME that you "know" he (and Biddle) favor war for territorial aggrandizement. Stick to the facts, please!

I reiterate that Objectivism is NOT a philosophy of peace -- or war -- any more than it is a philosophy of love vs. hate or non-violence vs. violence. As Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for all of these things, and you cannot say that one time is normal and another is not.

What you can say is that irrational hatred (e.g., hatred of the good for being good) or aggressive wars (e.g., wars of territorial expansion) are evil. But to say that Objectivism opposes war per se is no more true than to say that Objectivism opposes violence or hatred per se. (Sorry, Rich. Although violence does beget violence, violence in defense against violence is not evil or wrong, but instead profoundly moral and right, as long as it is appropriately directed.)

The concept of "peace" is being used as an anti-conceptual package deal. (As is the concept of "non-violence.") I am distressed to see people undercutting their case against the vicious excesses of the ARI proposals by tossing the term around as if it were a fundamental that cannot be denied, all for the sake of topical rhetoric. Islam is a "religion of peace" that has been hijacked by the Islamic totalitarians has become: Objectivism is a "religion of peace" that has been hijacked by Randian warmongers. It makes great rhetoric, but it's fuzzy Objectivism at its worst. (Sorry Robert B. and Michael.)

REB

P.S. -- I saw the O'Reilly broadcast with Peikoff foaming at the mouth, and I, too, was appalled. There has never been a better case for putting him out to pasture. At least Yaron is able to make the case calmly and clearly, without sounding like Hitler's nephew.

P.P.S. -- Stephen Boydstun, I don't know what to say about weighing the lives of thousands of innocent civilians against one American soldier. I'm glad it's not my choice to make. I do know that people in World War II were helping the Allies locate bomb targets in their own countries, knowing that they might be killed in the process; they wanted the Allies to bomb their country into oblivion, or at least submission. How much more repressive does the Iranian regime have to become before their masses of supposedly "liberal" and "Westernized" people would stand up and do the same, begging us to come and destroy their vicious ruling regime? This is what truly innocent people would do, in my opinion -- that, or get out and not be a party to their country's deadly policies. But to just stand by and be a passive human shield? Please don't kill me in order to kill him? Understandable, but not courageous or innocent, in my opinion.

The real question is: is targetting civilians necessary to ending the war -- and, not incidentally, preventing even more civilian deaths, not to mention the deaths of American combat personnel in an invasion force? I think there is no question that the bombing of H and N in Japan in 1945 was absolutely necessary. Up until that point, there had been suicide bombers (Zero pilots, etc.) who were willing to give their lives, as long as they thought the cause they were fighting for had a realistic chance of success. But once the regime was shown to be impotent and bankrupt -- it could not protect the people against those big bombs -- it was all over. (And as Yaron said, what's the difference between killing 100,000 people with one big bomb or 100,000 little bombs? They're just as dead either way. The main difference is that it's much less likely any American military personnel would die in delivering the one bomb than the 100,000.) The regime collapsed, and Japan surrendered. And guess what? There was no more suicide bombing after the surrender of Japan. And we did not commit "territorial expansion." This may be what we are faced with in Iran -- or not. I don't know. But if it is, I would support it, as I do what we did in Japan. (As for violence begetting violence, I don't recall Japan doing anything worse to us than kicking our asses in the auto and electronics industries. :-)

Roger,

We disagree on two fundamental points. Read part of the the Biddle quote again. I'll give it below.


If seizure isn't de facto territorial expansion, I don't know what is. Just because it doesn't become a state doesn't mean that the government of the USA will not rule. Who are "our agents" he is talking about? You said "Stick to the facts, please!" Well, I read that statement. That statement is a fact and it doesn't need a whole lot of "interpreting" to arrive at some "real meaning." It's pretty darn clear.

The other disagreement is one I am becoming familiar with when dealing with ARI arguments, lack of precision and pushing a statement by someone so far in one direction that is not recognizable anymore.

For instance, you say "Objectivism is not a philosophy of peace - or war..." and completely miss the point, going off into a tangent. Objectivism is a group of principles to guide man's understanding and choices, including coexistence among humn beings. Its overwhelming focus presumes peaceful coexistence when groups of humn beings are involved. War is only dealt with in a minor capacity. That is what is being stated - not what you imply (that peace is a philosophical fundamental all of a sudden).

The ARI/SLOPPERS are putting the focus on war and collectivism. They are restricting individual rights to mean "American individual rights" only, not a philosophical principle, and not just "defeat the enemy." They are now suggesting to kill massive numbers of a population for shock value.

The error I mentioned is even clearer - and explicit - here:


The only person who ever said that idea anywhere on earth that I am aware of is you. And that was right here just now. I never said it. I have not read anything in Robert B's writings that says that.

I stand by what I wrote - with the full meaning as I meant.

Incidentally, Japan had a formal organized army engaged in a war of conquest and territorial expansion. Islamic terrorists like Al Queda are isolated ad hoc organizations operating independently of governments. This context needs to be considered with deployment of nukes. The only exception is Hezbollah and Hammas(ad hoc-wise, not nuke-wise). Isreal's recent actions were entirely proper since they both represent the people by popular vote.

(Edit - I just occurred to me that this post might sound aggressive on a personal level. It is not meant that way. I feel very strongly about these issues and try to be as precise as I can. I am sure that is where you are coming from, too.)

Michael

I invite a rereading of "The Roots of War," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Don't think my view is any different than Rand's. I thoroughly endorse what she said in that essay, and my view of the desire for peace is exactly in the sense she meant it.

Roger,

In answer to my question, you replied:

"I don't know what to say about weighing the lives of thousands of innocent civilians against one American soldier. I'm glad it's not my choice to make. I do know that people in World War II . . ."

I don't know the answer either. The context in the War in the Pacific leading to the atomic bombing of Japan was different than the context in the Korean War. MacArthur wanted us to use atomic bombs against the Chinese rather than sacrifice our troops on the ground. Was MacArthur morally right in the sense that it would not be morally wrong to exercise that option? I'm not sure in a context such as the Korean War context.


Michael,

I know that your remarks on this issue are very exploratory. Thanks for your thoughts, tenative though they may be.

Barbara, thank you for pointing out that there are a sizable number of Iranians who bravely advocate for reform and against their theocratic oppressors. I also remember the massive demonstrations of support in Iran for the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. This outpouring was both spontaneous and genuine.

You write: "Are these students and other Iranians like them the people we should be nuking? We should be helping them in every way possible, helping them to break free of their tormentors, as we helped so many other courageous rebels in Eastern Europe when they were struggling to to break free of their Communist tormentors."

I couldn't agree more.

Mick

> [Is it] better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed collaterally than that one American soldier be killed. [Stephen B]

This is a false alternative, especially with the loaded adjectives 'one' and 'enormous'.

It's not how collateral damage occurs. It's not the choice which presents itself in reality. It's one of those academic philosophy style extreme false alternatives that you encounteer in philosophy classes. No that Stephen is doing this, but they try to suck you into debating the kinds of floating abstraction, contextless questions which do not occur in the real world.

Rand discussed very briefly what's wrong with using this kind of head-scratcher in "The Ethics of Emergencies" as opposed to thinking in an empirical, inductive, Aristotelian manner about what *the actual war might look like*.

Another (more extreme) example to illustrate the philosophical mistake involved in even -asking- the question: "Suppose you had to kill everyone on earth so you could survive..."

Phil,

As I understand it, Biddle's proposition is to shock and awe on a massive scale through widespread indiscriminate slaughter of Iranians by nuking them - and by intimidation of the rest of the surrounding countries with threat of the same - so not even one American soldier will run the risk of being killed. Also, he advocates formally seizing vast tracts of the territories for good measure.

You are probably correct that in today's world, this is not a viable alternative. (It also has low chances of success with terrorists. Can you imagine what the lives of American soldiers would be worth on seized lands and oil fields? Don't think Biddle doesn't know this - he does - which makes his proposition even more despicable.) But in tomorrow's world, should another attack of Islamic terrorism hit a high-profile target with numerous lives lost, it could start to gain some ground. Crowd hysteria is very hard to control once it gets rolling.

One good thing about all this, though. Rand noted once somewhere that the American character had a characteristic - it was slow to anger, but once angered, it was very decisive in acts of war. (Vietnam was an obvious exception, but there was no national anger either.) I think another part of the American character is a well-deserved pride in being morally superior to terrorists - and being willing to die for that value.

Michael

Barbara and Michael:

Do you not think that the “leapers of Objectivists” are such a very small minority so as not to even give notice to them? That is, don’t you think that most all Objectivists share a reverence and true understanding of individual rights, [including property rights] success, rationality--but some merely have disagreements as to how best to protect those ideals and even how to implement them?

What’s more, these “Objectivists” cited, could it not be argued that they are not even really Objectivists? And as a matter of fact, that is?

Victor

Victor,

"Really Objectivists?" Good Lord! What on earth is that in this context? Every one you talk to will tell you that others are not "really Objectivists," but they are instead.

If we adopt and advocate the fundamentals of Rand's writings, philosophically, we are all Objectivists - even them. That might not be a form of worship or denomination, however, like "them" would have it.

I don't see any problem with Barbara's present reaction. For a long time she has been publicly called the vilest of names for the pettiest of reasons by the acolytes of this denomination of Objectivism. Now this very same denomination of Objectivism is preaching - gleefully preaching (at the start, not so much now) - indiscriminate nuking of an entire civilization, targeting places where women and children group, because they are scared shitless.

Are you asking for tolerance from Barbara?



Michael

Michael,

Well, I have a pretty clear idea of what an Objectivist is, and I can’t account for other people’s ideas on the subject --and so I stand alone. I wouldn’t have it any other way. But here’s an example of what I mean: You believe in God—or any variant of the supernatural? Not an Objectivist. You think that a woman should be president. Good, it’s a non-essential. You advocate a controlled economy? One that clearly violates rights—not an Objectivist. You like rock music, not classical. Who cares?

But it's not based on my 'sez-so.' A millionare church going venture capitalist Marxist? How?

This is a basic idea, and I think it is all very reasonable.

Victor

PS

As to your question about Barbara...sure. Sounds good.

Victor,

I have an article coming on who is an Objectivist that should be interesting, but we already have a lot of good discussion on it in several threads in About Objectivism.

Do you really think Barbara should turn the other cheek and show mercy to those who constantly crucify her when they present a morally despicable agenda to the public?

Should she appease them?

Is that what a "real Objectivist" should do?

Michael

Is that what a "real Objectivist" should do? That's what you ask? I don’t think it’s of a philosophical nature, but one of bad manners and is a matter for Emily Post. This is a tongue-in-cheek fast reply. How could I answer a question like that? In that, why would I proscribe what she "should" do? What nerve I would have.

But I wouldn't...speaking for myself. No, sir. [Unless that person made a public apology and if I believed in that person's sincerity].

Roger,

I just did what Robert Bidinotto implicitly suggested and reread "The Roots of War" by Ayn Rand. I found an interesting paragraph that sums up whether Objectivism is a fundamentally a philosophy of peace or not. I was surprised by Rand's use of the phrase "fundamentally opposed to war."


Laissez-faire capitalism is a fundamental part of Objectivism. To be fair, she also mentions right to self-defense on a national level and even nuclear weapons. Rand's main identification of the roots of war, however, is statism supported by a tribalistic mentality.

Apropos, do you happen to see a tribalistic mentality around somewhere in the Objectivist subculture? One screaming bloody murder?



Rand wrote the following paragraph from the same essay with a different context in mind (Korea and Vietnam) and she was criticizing pacifists who condone dictatorships, not Objectivist nuke-mongers preaching slaughter of unarmed target groups, but it falls so much in line with what we are discussing that I cannot resist giving it. Our whole context has changed, too, with a new factor, organized terrorism on a worldwide scale, in addition to statist governments.


I am aware that some of this is apparently ambivalent with what I have been saying, but look deeply into the concepts, not just the similarities, and see if it doesn't fit.

Michael

A phrase occurred to me in my sleep, but it hit me so strongly that it deserves a separate post.

The message that Biddle and all those who propose nuking large portions of a population is sending to dictators and the rest of the world is the following:

We sanction your statist government's right to attack its unarmed population so long as you do not attack us. And don't worry about slaughtering your unarmed innocent citizens. In the name of Objectivism, we will do it for you.

Michael

"The Roots of War" was written in 1966. In 1967 Rand wrote "The Wreckage of the Consensus," in which she said: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for--and the only justifable purpose is self-defense." (p. 224, emphasis added)

If you re-read the passage from "The Roots of War" in its full context, it is clear that it implies that laissez-faire capitalism, in being "fundamentally opposed to war," nonetheless also supports war for the purpose of self-defense. Laissez-faire capitalism opposes war precisely when and because "men...are free to produce." When we are free to produce, we "have no incentive to loot;" we "have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose." Both ideologically and economically, a man who is free to produce is a man whose "interests are on the side of peace." (p. 38, also see p. 37)

But that is precisely the situation in which we are NOT living today. We have been under attack by Iran since 1979 (the long string of incidents in which U.S. military and civilians have been attacked and killed is shocking when you see it in sequence) -- and the property of American citizens (oil production and distribution facilities) was expropriated earlier than that in Saudi Arabia.

Increasing numbers of our citizens are NOT left "free to produce" by the Iranians and Saudis -- i.e., are killed, kidnapped, and looted by those governments. Our interests, as Americans also in danger from the actions of these governments, are NOT on the side of peace with those governments. Instead, it is clear that the U.S. must do something decisive about those countries, before they do more and even worse things to American citizens. We are and have been in a state of war with those countries. We just haven't declared war on them yet!

So, to answer your (rhetorical?) question properly -- are some Objectivists engaging in tribal mentality war mongering -- I would first have to identify whether the folks "somewhere in the Objectivist subculture" are advocating that (1) we attack Iran and Saudi Arabia for the purpose of looting their wealth, and (2) that this attack is an initiation of force/war, rather than for the purpose of self-defense, in response to attacks on our rights by those countries.

Iranian wealth has never been an issue, so far as I know. But the Saudis? Their wealth? I don't think so. It's not looting if wasn't theirs to start with. It's restoring it to its rightful owners, the U.S. oil companies that peacefully developed it, before it was seized from them by the Saudis.

Initiation of force? Who started it? And who has been supporting it with money, intelligence, and logistical support since the 1970s? Not the U.S., but Iran. Iran is the spiritual and material fountainhead of the Islamic totalitarian attacks against the U.S. and others during the past four decades.

All of this tells me that we need to separate the question about whether the proposal for war itself is a just one from the question about whether the kind of war strategies being proposed are just. I'm inclined to think that a war with Iran (and possibly Saudi Arabia) is necessary and proper -- and more than inclined to think that the proposed deliberate, selective bombing of schools and mosques is unnecessary and improper.

That said, I would give the Iranian government 48 hours to surrender (and innocent civilians to move to safety), and then I would nuke Teheran and Qum. Heavy leafletting of the "liberal," "Westernized" population, to give them a chance to rise up against their leaders and take down the regime from within -- but if they don't take responsibility (or at least get out of Dodge before H-hour), they go down with the regime.

I'm sure the "tribalist warmongering Objectivists" would think my proposal too namby-pamby. If so, they can kiss my ass. I'm not into blitzkrieg genocide. Just nice, garden-variety, fair-warning devastation. Oh, yes, and victory over the Islamo totalitarians, who have been waging a piecemeal war against us for nearly 40 years, and who have stated their intention to destroy us and Israel first chance they get.

REB

Roger,

I have to smile. Tehran has a population of 14 million people. 48 hours?

Are you thinking about goats and camels and long trains of people on foot in the desert?

Michael

No, because I don't think the population of Teheran is so stupid or passive as to allow their regime to invite this catastrophe on them by refusing to surrender. They're not French after all. (Do you hear me, Nick Otani? :-)

REB

Roger

I just did a bit of investigating on the Saudi Oil fields and my hunches were absolutely spot on - and guess by whom of all people? Chris Sciabarra. Please read this article on the Saudi Arabia oil field thing written by Chris.

Here is how American companies have "peacefully" developed such "property" in foreign countries (and I have seen this from the inside). They bribe the hell out of whomever is in power. They get a monopoly. They set up business.

The root of the property rights you are defending is the right to obtain monopolies through bribery and maintain them through government protection (also paid for with bribery) - because that is exactly what happened in Saudi Arabia. (Guess what other monopoly/bribery monkey-business has been done with infrastructure construction and operation? The situation is really, really ugly on all sides. Objectivists need to do a reality check on this because making constant sweeping moral denunciatory statements based on that kind of history - and ignoring it - turns the philosophy into a laughingstock of double-standards.)

And, like Chris mentioned, the major US players are all still in the game over there and they are all still making oodles of cash. Do you know of any one that went bankrupt because of the expropriation? Gimme a break! Here is a paragraph from his article I linked above:


Using the US military to recapture that kind of property is most definitely a war of territorial expansion.

I also think you are missing the main point of Rand's essay, "The Roots of War." You don't just stop supporting a statist government by bombing it. You stop doing business with it. Period. You certainly don't bribe dictators and their staff for monopolies.

Where are the ARI people saying, "Let us shut down our businesses immediately"? They are not saying that. And yes, they are interested in - and preaching - territorial expansion.

I am not against dismantling statist governments by military force. As Rand said, they attack their unarmed population. Now some are supporting attacks on the world and they have to be stopped. I have no doubt the days of this government of Iran are numbered.

But let us have a reality check. We don't nuke innocents to defend gross hypocrisy. ARI might preach that crap. I don't.

Michael

Christian: "Viva la rabbia! Bombs away!" But of course.

Phil: You wrote that the question of whether "it is better that enormous numbers of innocent Iranians be killed than that one American soldier be killed" -- is a false alternative. That "it's not the choice which presents itself in reality." Thanks. You beat me to it.

Victor, you asked if these "lepers of Objectivism" aren't such a small minority that they can be ignored. If it were merely the Solo poepole who held this position, I would say they certainly should be ignored as the lunatic fringe of Objectivism. But apparenty a great many ARI people also sanction the lepers' view -- as evidenced by Craig Biddle and his ARI staff of writers. And ARI has a public face; unfortunately, it is seen by many -- and by a substantial element in the media -- as the face and voice of Objectivism. Because of this, it should not be ignored; it should be denounced as anthithetical to Objectivism.

You also asked if I think that most Objectivists share the same ideals and merely disagree about how to implement them. It's apparent to me that many who call themselves Objectivists -- and I'm speaking here of people within the Objectivist movement -- have psychological rather than philosophical reasons for some of the positions they advocate, and that, in such cases, psychology trumps philosophy. For instance, I do not see how advocating the nuking of millions of innocent people can be interpreted as even a wrong-headed commitment to the sanctity of the individual and to rational self-interest. Or how airbrushing "enemies" out of existence can be interpreted as even a wrong-headed commitment to honesty and integtrity. I could go on and on with a llist of such examples, which I intend to do in an article I'm writing on the subject.

As for Objectivists who are outside the movement, my feeling is -- although I don't have hard evidence for it ---that the more intelligent and thoughtful among them probably do share, in a generalized sense, the actual ideals of Objectivism.

Michael, thank you for defending my lack of "tolerance." Let me say that, as you know, I am endlessly tolerant of misunderstandings of Objectivism, of disagreements with it, etc; but I have not an iota of tolerance for those who attempt to translate Objectivism into a philosophy of hate and destruction, into an outlet for their own venom and inadequacies. In my talk on "Objectivism and Rage," I attempted to explain some of the philosohical and psychological reasons for such translations, but I did not say that they should be tolerated. They should be exposed and refuted.

Barbara

Roger: "The problem with Craig Biddle et al is not that they advocate war, or even the killing of large numbers of people (which is what war does), but that they advocate the deliberate targeting of non-combatants. It's one thing to incur civilian deaths as collateral damage in wartime, but it's quite another to deliberately aim at them because they are teaching or learning the ideas that some carry out in violent, rights-violating action. There is no such thing as a thought crime--and thus no such thing as deserving punishment for holding the wrong ideas. I thought Objectivists all understood this."

Agreed.

Roger: "The real question is: is targetting civilians necessary to ending the war -- and, not incidentally, preventing even more civilian deaths, not to mention the deaths of American combat personnel in an invasion force? I think there is no question that the bombing of H and N in Japan in 1945 was absolutely necessary. Up until that point, there had been suicide bombers (Zero pilots, etc.) who were willing to give their lives, as long as they thought the cause they were fighting for had a realistic chance of success. But once the regime was shown to be impotent and bankrupt -- it could not protect the people against those big bombs -- it was all over".

Well said.

Barbara

Does anyone have a tape of Peikoff's appearance on O'Reilly? I'd be very interested in hearing it.

Barbara