THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM


Barbara Branden

Recommended Posts

He sounds like any garden variety low-life white trash that you might come across in at the local tavern --except he wears a tie and has a larger vocabulary.

Exactly. I mean, exactly. I happen to frequent this very trashy biker bar at the end of my street because it's a: a major musician hangout, b: has some of the best food around for cheap and c: I can swing dance in there sometimes. I can't tell you how many times I hear bar trash talking identical stuff. Identical! You don't need schooled rhetoric to be a chicken hawk. I don't talk religion or politics in bars, and for the same reason I don't talk religion or politics with Ortho-O's. Used to, in the former you get into bar fights, in the latter, you get into curmudgeon fights... :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

It's no use for you to get personal. That won't work. I like you too much. (I do admit that I like being "Kat-ty," but not in the sense you meant.) I was not trying to be condescending in that post. I meant what I said both as regards my respect for you and as regards to what you show that you know about Islamic and Muslim affairs.

You asked for proof of peaceful Muslims. The following links do not even scratch the surface. Try Googling “Muslims” with words like “peace,” or “Muslims for peace,” or “peaceful Muslims,” or things like that. You get oodles of hits. It’s all mixed, though. You have to look, but it’s all there. Oodles of it.

To start, here is a rather good Wikipedia article on Islamism. Here is a quote from the article:

There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them.

So to some experts, the actual threat of Islamism taking over the Muslim world does not seem to be as great as what gets played up in the media. That does not make it any less deadly and in need of serious attention, but it does put a proper perspective on it. At least it looks like you don’t have to nuke a billion people to smithereens to combat it.

Here is a Wikipedia article on Islam. Here is a quote from that article:

The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers during war. Some Muslims have respected Jews and Christians as fellow people of the book (monotheists following Abrahamic religions), while others have reviled them as having abandoned monotheism and corrupted their scriptures. At different times and places, Islamic communities have been both intolerant and tolerant. Support can be found in the Qur'an for both attitudes.

It is easy to see that the Koran contains contradictions, just like the Bible does, and that there are and have been different interpretations among Muslims, just like with Christianity. ARI doesn't really want you to look at this too closely. It wants to preach the morality of mass slaughter through scapegoating.

Here is some other general information:

Daniel Pipes

Pipes gives much good information, but he slants toward criticizing the Islamist war-mongering side. Still, you can find much good information on that site. Although he contests many things about Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) , it does have the following page up (and other equally peace-preaching pages):

MUSLIM CONDEMNATIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS

Here are a few other links chosen at random:

Muslim peace rally attracts thousands

Muslim Peace Fellowship (website)

The Muslim - Jewish Peace Walks

Faiths united over Middle East peace (Jewish and Muslim communities)

Norway grants 27 milliion rupees to Muslim Peace Secretariat

First Annual Conference of Muslim Peace building

Here is a video. You may not like some of the images, but they are proper to a people practicing their religion in peace. There is some nice singing and beautiful images, too.

Here are two sets of links to Arab and Jewish peace organizations:

List of links to Jewish/Palestinian peace and human rights organizations

Recommended Arab Peace Links

I came across the following online article which spells out some really important things that need to be done.

SEEKING ARAB - ISRAELI PEACEMAKING AND RECONCILIATION THROUGH CULTURE by Ada A. Aharoni.

On Iran, the best place to start is a book (which unfortunately I have not yet read):

Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution by Nikki R. Keddie

The National Council of Resistance of Iran spends a good amount of time criticizing brutal policies of the regime in power, but it obviously gets its information from people who live in the country - ones ARI doesn't mind sacrificing.

There is this organization, too. And it is one (including the students) that ARI also doesn't mind sacrificing: Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran. Here is a Wikipedia article on them.

Here is an interesting blog article. Iranian students will revolt, just not soon

As you can see, there is a lot to look at. None of this is oversimplified ("The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim" or "Peace in our time"). Some of it is pretty ambivalent, but it shows clearly that Islamism is not as widely supported by Muslims as ARI claims.

This stuff needs to be examined in order to make a rational decision concerning how to preach using lethal force, especially nukes. I would say that it is irresponsible to preach using nukes without looking at this kind of stuff, especially when you preach nuking these people. (How easy it is to say that they are the ones to blame and simply ignore all facts.)

I hope you find this information helpful.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

It's no use for you to get personal. That won't work. I like you too much. (I do admit that I like being "Kat-ty," but not in the sense you meant.) I was not trying to be condescending in that post. I meant what I said both as regards my respect for you and as regards to what you show that you know about Islamic and Muslim affairs.

Me personal? I just quoted you, and you have above completely recharacterized what you said.

Again, you wrote: "With all due respect (and there is much respect), your last post shows that you know hardly anything at all about the Muslim and Mideast cultures you write about. Once you learn more (should you ever learn someday, I am certain that you will wonder what on earth you were thinking."

Michael, I like you, too, but I don't like the way you are (or appear to be) acting.

What else could you mean by the parenthetical comment (which I underscored and bolded) than a personal, snide comment about the uncertainty that I will "ever learn" what you already know about Muslim and Mideast cultures? If that is not condescending, I guess I'd better trade in my dictionary.

Now, in the spirit of charity, I will give you another chance to provide an alternative explanation of what the heck you were trying to say in that parenthetical comment -- if not a condescending dig at me for not knowing what you know and for being of doubtful openness to facts. In my book, that is an insult, and a pretty nasty one. But like I said, you are welcome to offer a reasonable alternative interpretation of what you mean.

You asked for proof of peaceful Muslims. The following links do not even scratch the surface. Try Googling “Muslims” with words like “peace,” or “Muslims for peace,” or “peaceful Muslims,” or things like that. You get oodles of hits. It’s all mixed, though. You have to look, but it’s all there. Oodles of it.

Dammit, I did NOT ask for "proof of peaceful Muslims." I over and over ACKNOWLEDGED that there are "good Muslims," that is, those who do not say "off with their heads" when someone pokes fun at Allah or when someone else engages in free speech, etc. The problem I keep harping on is not the NON-EXISTENCE of good Muslims, but THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO PERSUADE THEM TO VOCALLY OPPOSE THE JIHADISTS, because of the deadly peril to them of their doing so. All of the links and references you provide are fine for those who doubt that there are sincerely civil, rights-respecting, peace-loving Muslims. BUT I DON'T DOUBT THIS, AND I NEVER DID. Where do you see evidence to the contrary???

I do not believe it is possible to read my posts and miss this. So, I'm really puzzled about what the heck you are up to with this complete misrepresentation of what I have said.

So to some experts, the actual threat of Islamism taking over the Muslim world does not seem to be as great as what gets played up in the media. That does not make it any less deadly and in need of serious attention, but it does put a proper perspective on it. At least it looks like you don’t have to nuke a billion people to smithereens to combat it. [...] This stuff needs to be examined in order to make a rational decision concerning how to preach using lethal force, especially nukes. I would say that it is irresponsible to preach using nukes without looking at this kind of stuff, especially when you preach nuking these people. (How easy it is to say that they are the ones to blame and simply ignore all facts.)

Are you seriously saying that ~I~ "preach nuking these people" or saying that we "have to nuke a billion people to smithereens"? By "these people," you mean the "good Muslims," the peace-loving ones, right? I don't preach nuking them, any more than I preach (support) nuking the good, peace-loving citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki to end World War 2. I preach -- open-endedly -- doing what is necessary to defend rights. If defending rights necessarily entails "collateral deaths," I support that, whether it's done with nukes, bullets, or starvation (by sealing off food supplies). If it does not, then I oppose it. Specifically, if it's necessary to cause many civilian deaths in order to defeat Iran, we should do it. If it's not necessary, we shouldn't. (And I said necessary, not sufficient.) I'm fine with each side of the hypothetical, because I am fine with doing what is necessary to defend our rights against Iran's continued attacks.

Also, ~even if~ nuking Tehran were the minimum necessary force needed to defeat Iran and crush jihadism, that is in no way accurately described as wholesale obliteration of the one-billion-plus Muslims worldwide. Tehran's population is about ONE PERCENT of the worldwide Muslim population. So, a little perspective and proportionality, please. Let's leave the gross hyperbole to the SLOPpy reasoners, OK?

I am interested in whether ~you~ are fine with doing what's necessary, or whether you have an a priori opinion that it could not possibly be necessary to, say, nuke Tehran, in order to defend our rights. My view doesn't need any further clarification or explanation than that. Yours is still a little fuzzy to me, though.

If you want to keep this from being even more personal, Michael, you should back up, take a look at what I have been saying, and take a look at what you have said -- and then take a look at what you just CLAIMED that I said and CLAIMED that you yourself said. There are too many mis-matches there for continued clear, civil discussion. Please remedy the situation. (Hint: I usually apologize when I have inadvertently misrepresented someone else's comments -- or my own.)

REB

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

Joking about nuking Mecca and Medina (until the rubble and the sand fuse into "green glass") does, unfortunately, seem par for the course at SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1657

Surely the resistance to Islamic imperialism, in the particular case that this particular thread purported to be about, needs to be coming from Germany, which is where the production of Idomeneo was cancelled. Refusing to back down in the face of one anonymous threat was all that was required.

I should add that what Jesus, the Buddha, and Muhammad are doing in a production of Idomeneo, whose libretto includes none of these characters, only the director will be able to explain. This manner of directing an opera would, under virtually any other circumstances, be derided on that very forum as "pomo-wanking." But everyone has the right to behave pretentiously, or to exhibit poor taste.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really glad to see this topic being discussed here. Of all of the problems with ARI, I think that its generally bloodthirsty tone and beliefs when discussing US government foreign policy towards Islamic countries perceived as supporting terrorism is the worst. Without having checked this out, I would bet that most of the ARI writers supporting such policies, along with most of the posters on SOLOP who have advocated them, are chickenhawks who have never been in actual combat, have never been anywhere near the kind of death and destruction that they advocate, and have never even been in a fist fight, let alone been called upon to kill anyone. If objectivism is ever to be reclaimed as a rational philosophy, this kind of craziness needs to be repudiated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

A couple of questions.

(1) What would it mean, in the present context, to defeat Iran?

Would eliminating the theocratic regime's nuclear weapons program be sufficient?

Peikoff, Brook/Epstein, and Biddle seem to want more than that.

Brook/Epstein and Biddle also suggest that there would be no roadside bombings, or other attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, if that nation had been soundly defeated in Gulf War II.

Do you agree? If so, what, from your standpoint, would have constituted a thorough defeat of the Iraqi nation?

(2) Brook/Epstein and Biddle are opposed to a Palestinian state because they believe it will merely be used as a base of operations for suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel. You seem to agree with them about this.

What do you see as the alternatives? For instance, do you think that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza can, or should, be continued indefinitely? If not, what should be done with these areas?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really glad to see this topic being discussed here. Of all of the problems with ARI, I think that its generally bloodthirsty tone and beliefs when discussing US government foreign policy towards Islamic countries perceived as supporting terrorism is the worst. Without having checked this out, I would bet that most of the ARI writers supporting such policies, along with most of the posters on SOLOP who have advocated them, are chickenhawks who have never been in actual combat, have never been anywhere near the kind of death and destruction that they advocate, and have never even been in a fist fight, let alone been called upon to kill anyone. If objectivism is ever to be reclaimed as a rational philosophy, this kind of craziness needs to be repudiated.

Martin, I'm glad it's being discussed here, too. The level of acrimony and distortion is noticeably lower than on SLOP and elsewhere. Still, it's getting too uncomfortable for me to continue taking part in it. Hot-button issues are inherently prone to high emotions and escalation of improper discussion tactics (on each side, OK?). I'd rather turn my focus back to the positive things I was doing before I got involved in this particular debate. I'm not accomplishing anything here, and I have a rather low threshhold for frustration.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like I signed off the discussion a moment or two early. Bob Campbell asked some interesting questions, about which I have a little (though not much) to say in reply:

(1) What would it mean, in the present context, to defeat Iran? Would eliminating the theocratic regime's nuclear weapons program be sufficient? Peikoff, Brook/Epstein, and Biddle seem to want more than that.

I don't know for sure. I wouldn't trust Iran's assurances that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, now or at any time in the future of the present regime. If you mean ~we~ are the ones who would eliminate this program, somehow, then it depends heavily on whether the regime stays in power or not. If having their nuclear weapons program forcibly (somehow) ended discredits the extremist Iranis to the point that their regime is overthrown by more moderate elements, then ~perhaps~ that would be sufficient to defeat Iran, in the sense of removing its threat to our well-being. Iran is currently the ideological center of the worldwide jihadist movement, and discrediting it is all-important in defeating Islamo-terrorism. (Not totally ending it, but gutting it as an organized force motivated and supported by a central purpose and headquarters.) In general, I think that crushing Iran's theocratic regime or having it ended (somehow) is a necessary and sufficient condition to defeating Iran, in the sense of ending its credibility and potency as a continuing threat of violation of our rights. It would also be sufficient to discredit worldwide jihadism or whatever you want to call the ideology of Islamo-totalitarianism. I do not know whether crushing or ending the Irani regime requires the use of one or more nuclear weapons, but I would not rule it out. I do not think that that regime will end without the nuclear weapons program being stopped, and I don't see that happening without our stepping in forcefully, in some manner, to compel, and I don't see how doing that can be done neatly or without loss of life, including civilians, whether from combat or revolution that we triggered.

Brook/Epstein and Biddle also suggest that there would be no roadside bombings, or other attacks on American soldiers in Iraq, if that nation had been soundly defeated in Gulf War II. Do you agree? If so, what, from your standpoint, would have constituted a thorough defeat of the Iraqi nation?.

Well, if we're playing the re-writing history game, I think that Bush Senior should have conquered Iraq in Gulf War I. That would have changed a lot of history. Perhaps Al Qaeda would not have gotten the impetus to have attacked the World Trade Center in either 1994 (?) or 2001. Or, maybe AQ would have gone even more ballistic. Hard to say. But personally, I think it was a big mistake to invade Iraq in 2003, and we fought it wrong, to boot. (I think ARI's analysis of the altruistic manner in which GW2 was fought is spot on. Peter Schwartz, whom I cannot bear to listen to in person without a pillow and blanky handy, wrote an excellent monograph on this.) I think that B/E/B are correct in suggesting that a decisive action in Iraq would have quashed the insurgency/terrorism there. Brook specifically suggesting levelling Fallujah and saying that more would follow if the B.S. didn't stop. I think it would have worked just like it worked in Japan in 1945. That said, I still don't think we should have been in Iraq in the first place, not in 2003.

(2) Brook/Epstein and Biddle are opposed to a Palestinian state because they believe it will merely be used as a base of operations for suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel. You seem to agree with them about this. What do you see as the alternatives? For instance, do you think that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza can, or should, be continued indefinitely? If not, what should be done with these areas?

I don't remember ever saying anything about a Palestinian state, and I haven't given it much thought. I think that the less occupation of hostile, unrepentent enemy territory Israel (or we) take on, the better. The mixture of hostile forces and human shields renders the whole situation impossible, unless you sanction Israel's completely crushing those areas and discrediting/ending the hostile regimes. Short of that, Israel has to sit back inside its own borders and put up with missile strikes across the border and suicide bombers on its own territory, funded and facilitated by its hostile neighbors, who want to destroy it, including, ultimately, Iran. IMO, the Palestinians should all be transported to Iran, free of charge (let the Ayatollahs feed them with their oil money, so long as they continue to rule Iran, that is), and Gaza and the West Bank be set up as demilitarized zones (buffers). I don't know if it would work, but the present situation really sucks and is untenable.

Israel is in a shitty position and has been for nearly 60 years. If Israel's neighbors disarmed tomorrow, peace would break out in the Middle East. If Israel disarmed tomorrow...there would be another Holocaust. The plight of Israel is proof positive (to me) that even a "decisive" victory over your enemies is not enough, if their regimes continue to exist and spew hatred and desire to destroy you. They are all the real-world confirmation I need that ending Iran's nuclear weapons program ~in itself~ is not enough to end Iran's threat to our well-being. Its danger to us is ~not~ its weapons, but the murderous ideology that would use it against countries that are not harming or threatening to violate the rights of its citizens.

I hope this adequately answers your questions, Robert. As you can see, I have no simple solutions, but I do not think that simplistic demonizing (as some have done) of one's opponents -- even ARI! -- is helpful. Your approach, probing questions and subtle analysis, is an important first step toward untangling and solving this mess, if it can be solved, short of a very nasty war.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I sincerely don't understand you right now, but there a problem with Internet posting communication in that we cannot see a person’s reactions when he writes something.

You took a word I wrote in a parenthetical comment and blew that up to become a full-blown insult. I was confused about this because I have never insulted you to my knowledge, nor have I have been condescending. Also, I am rarely that subtle—to use only a word hidden in a phrase—when I want to insult someone.

So I talked it over with Kat and she mentioned that I have been harsh with you. If that is the case, I had no intention of insult or condescension and I apologize. Now on to the issues:

Please understand that my providing knowledge about the Muslim culture is to provide information—only that. In your discussion so far on this issue, you show a level of familiarity that is limited to what ARI provides. I know this because I am reading ARI’s stuff right now. So I am trying to offer other facts to you. Where my own button gets pushed is that I have lived among Arabs for years (although not now). I know that the way they are being portrayed is so lopsided it hurts.

One huge disagreement I have with you is about the courage of Muslims. That is the one of the main reasons I provided the links. You stated the following:

The problem I keep harping on is not the NON-EXISTENCE of good Muslims, but THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO PERSUADE THEM TO VOCALLY OPPOSE THE JIHADISTS, because of the deadly peril to them of their doing so.

Most all of those links I provided deal precisely with Muslims who vocally oppose radical Islamism. Somebody persuaded them to do that. Many of them are even asking for help in continuing such persuasion.

There is an intellectual battle that they are fighting. ARI says it doesn't give a damn, just kill the bastards or scare them into submission. You said that Muslims are too scared to think about it anyway so any intellectual effort is useless. I am trying not to respond harshly to this because I don’t want to alienate a friend, but I find it extremely difficult to reconcile this approach with Objectivism. Especially in light of news articles, organizations and a lot of Internet activity showing that there are many Muslims who are quite vocal in opposing radical Islamism.

I respect your right not to supply ideas to help fight a war if you don’t wish to (because you think it is wasted effort). Please respect my right to do so.

Let us diffuse another misunderstanding.

Are you seriously saying that ~I~ "preach nuking these people" or saying that we "have to nuke a billion people to smithereens"?

I didn’t mean you, Roger, preached that billion people figure thing. I was using rhetorical emphasis where a person postulates an exaggerated situation to make a point. Like, for instance, when you talked about giving people 48 hours to get out of a city the size of Tehran before nuking it. This shows a bit of exaggeration also, no? Incidentally, this would also include a huge slice of people who are actively opposing the regime and just plain normal people trying to get along.

I emphatically disagree with the position that their deaths in such a case from us killing them would ultimately be their own responsibility for not overthrowing the regime. I don’t put moral import on “collateral damage” in war time. I think the issue is military, not moral. I will deal with this in more depth when I present my analysis of the Brook and Epstein essay about just war and self defense.

Incidentally, your words about nuking Tehran were roundly applauded on SLOP. Some people over there showed great glee in the idea of leveling Tehran to radioactive sand. They called it the Bissell Plan or something like that.

You asked me directly if I am prepared to do what is "necessary" for defense. Hell yes I am. I have been advocating two fronts of concrete activity for some time now: an intellectual front and a military front. And I fully intend to stand up and do something concrete and productive in this effort. I am not military. I am an intellectual. But for the record, even though I am not military, let me say that we have nukes. If we need to use them, we should.

But let me be very clear on the following. I am not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, I am NOT willing to let ARI and those of that kind of mentality dictate what they feel to be "necessary" for defense. I don't want ARI-type people anywhere near the power to deploy nukes. I don't want their influence anywhere near the people who have the power to deploy nukes. They are nuts and I don’t trust them. They are tribal collectivists hell-bent on the destruction of an entire people.

To repeat an ARI letter to the editor (quoted more fully in Post 122): Israel Should Wage War on Palestinians by David Holcberg (Thursday, July 13, 2006):

Israel should declare and wage war not only against the Palestinian leadership but also against the Palestinian people.

That is pretty clear. And there is much more.

In intellectual terms, I do not intend to let this be called Objectivism without raising my voice as an Objectivist in protest. However, my focus will not be there, although it will be clear and loud. It will be much more focused on helping get proper ideas about rights and the need to stand up for them to Muslims.

In military terms, I vastly prefer to trust our elected officials and military leaders. Contrary to popular opinion, I think they did a magnificent job in winning both wars in short order. Where they are floundering is in the intellectual department. They have no real plan for offering good ideas and the occupation troubles show this clearly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Michael.

I hope that there are enough pro-freedom Muslims willing to speak out against the Islamo-totalitarians, and that they aren't assassinated for doing so. Good luck in working with them.

"The Bissell Plan," huh? Maybe 48 hours was a bit stingy. But I think a week would be more than enough time to get clear of the blast zone. I'm willing to be flexible, in order to help the truly innocent avoid annihilation as we crush the regime and its nuclear weapons facilities.

But here's a better idea, a modification of my original suggestion, that helps fix the Palestinian problem, too: we (whoever that is) organize a swap of "decent, normal Muslims" from Iran and the nasty kind from Palestine who overwhelmingly approve of kidnapping Israeli military and shooting missiles at Israel -- one for one, two for one, whatever -- and let Palestine be a land dedicated to peaceful, benevolent, rights-respecting Muslims, and let the nasty Muslims go live with the bastards in Tehran who want to destroy Israel and the U.S. We continue the swapping process at least until public opinion polls show that less than 10% of the population approve of aggressive acts toward Israel, but as long as peaceful, benevolent, rights-respecting Muslims want to move away from Ground Zero. That would be Step One of the Bissell Plan. Step Two would be obliteration, without warning and with nukes if necessary, of any Irani facilities suspected of being part of a nuclear weapons plan.

Perhaps that is adequate to convince my newfound cheering section on SLOP that I am a brainless idealist rather than a heartless realist, and they will look elsewhere for aid and comfort. Fugg'm. (Nuke Mecca -- Jesus Christ, what morons.)

REB

P.S. -- I really am out of the discussion now. Carry on, and best premises...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

So long as we are considering swapping populations, I have a perfect solution to kill two birds with one stone. Unfortunately it does not involve Iran.

We should take the entire Palestinean population and relocate it to southern Ireland and we should take the entire southern Ireland population and relocate it to Palestine.

The results should be fantastic because:

1. Palestinean Islamists will certainly not want to fight the Protestant British and vice-versa; and

2. Catholic Irish do not even care about Israeli Jews, much less want to fight them, and vice-versa.

As to Iran... well... maybe if we moved Iran to Siberia...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Please note that the preconceptual stooges are not the only ones cheering. Excellent job! Well done!

And, I should add, thanks for restoring my confidence in free thinking Objectivists and for giving me hope for America’s survival.

Dennis

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> [Are the Iranian people innocent?]...Don't people have a moral responsibility to rise up against -- or at least to leave -- an aggressive slave pen? [Roger]

Ayn Rand once said that no one has the moral responsibility to throw themselves under the wheels of a tank. Nor is it always possible to leave and find something better. Neighboring countries -- which may be the only ones you can actually get to -- may be just as bad or worse, or hostile to your ethnic group, especially in the less free parts of the world. And maybe you can't get your entire family out.

The 'slave pen' physically -prevents- you from leaving is the most obvious case to consider.

The mistake is one of trying to answer this question as a sweeping general proposition. You have to address details and examples which illustrate the full context -- such as the ones I am listing in this post, which are only a partial list. You simply can't discuss this matter -without- doing that; else it's floating abstractions and floating commandments.

Here are more examples: Many of the people are young or unskilled or not wealthy. Taken together, how will they find the money or the employment or new schools or whatever?

If there were a magic wand that would instantly transport people across international borders to places where they could have a better life, then one might be able to make a case about what people living in Iran...or Russia...or China...or Saudi Arabia...or North Korea SHOULD do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a magic wand that magically transports people across the time barrier to the Ford Hall Forum, 1976...

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

Ayn Rand: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression—in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people…Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.

No country put more obstacles in the path of those who wanted to leave than Soviet Russia. I can't wait to see Ayn Rand attacked for using "floating abstractions."

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I like the part in that Rand quote (which I already quoted in this thread here in Post 129) where she said:

This question is so blatantly wrong...

That question happens to be wrong on many counts, not just one. (I find the main one to be gross oversimplification.)

I have another question - a more serious one. Where did your quote come from? I just checked it against mine, which came from the ARI website (Q & A with Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War) and is as quoted in Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q & A edited by Robert Mayhew. Your version and ARI's version are different. Even the question is different. Look at the following comparison:

As quoted by you:

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

Ayn Rand: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression—in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people…Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.

As edited by Mayhew:

Q: Assume the Soviet Union started a war of aggression; assume also that within the Soviet Union there are individuals opposed to communism. How do you handle this conflict?

AR: I'll pretend to take the question seriously, because it's blatantly wrong. The question assumes that an individual inside a country should be made secure from the social system under which he lives and that he accepts—willingly or unwillingly, because he hasn't left the country—and that others should respect his rights and succumb to aggression themselves. This is the position of the goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even if attacked, because they might kill innocent people. If this were correct, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. But we must care about the right social system, because our lives depend on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there—those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps. Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

I know Mayhew edited Rand's answers, but it looks like he edited the questions, too. Here is what Mayhew said (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q & A, "Introduction," p. x):

Most of the editing I did consisted of cutting and line-editing to bring the material closer to the level of conciseness, clarity, and smoothness appropriate to a written work. Very little had to be cut owing to repetition. I should mention, however, that some (but not much) of my editing aimed to clarify wording that, if left unaltered, might be taken to imply a viewpoint that she explicitly rejected in her written works. (The original transcripts of all this material are held in the Ayn Rand Archives, and are available to serious scholars.)

Does Mayhew's editing of this passage really fit this criteria?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Victor,

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Roger,

Thanks for your comments. I totally agree with you about the importance of avoiding personal insults and acrimony. These accomplish nothing, other than getting the participants in a defensive mode. This is a critically important topic, among the most important topics facing us all today. The last thing we need is to let personal insults and invective get in the way of rational discussion. Michael, you have done an admirable job as owner and moderator of maintaining a friendly, non-hostile forum that minimizes personal insults. If this means that you are not sufficiently KASS by the standards of Lindsay Perigo, you can probably live with that.

The idea that people living in a society with a dictatorial government are somehow responsible for the actions of their government, such that they automatically become legitimate targets for retaliation, is the worst kind of collectivism, whether Ayn Rand suggested this or not. It is nothing more than a rationalization for having one's government kill them and then absolve it of moral responsibility for the killing. Yet this idea seems really popular among self-identified objectivists.

I recall reading on SOLOP a poster who basically argued that people living in a police state have no rights left anyway, therefore killing them is not violating their rights, since their rights have already been eliminated by their government. This raises an interesting hypothetical. Suppose another 9/11 style attack happens in the US. In response, the US government declares martial law, abolishing all constitutional protections and arresting any people deemed to be a threat to the security of the United States. The US becomes a police state, run by a government in control of the largest cache of WMDs anywhere in the world. Are Americans now fair game for mass murder by another government which considers the US to be a threat to world security and which holds Americans to be collectively responsible for the actions of their government? How many objectivists would accept this conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> How about a magic wand that magically transports people across the time barrier to the Ford Hall Forum, 1976...

Dennis, please don't just simply quote Ayn Rand as if she were an authority and everything she says was always right.

If you want to discuss this issue, then you would need to address **my actual points** in which I explain why the following position (taken by Roger and by a number of people, such as on Solo) is false: the Iranian population bears some blame as residents in a dictatorshi, it is irresponsible, cowardly, are immoral if they don't leave or rise up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed Hudgins just made a very important post on RoR where he cited the following article in The WorldNetDaily called Suicide bombers follow Quran, concludes Pentagon briefing. I am putting the link and quotes here because this is pertinent to our discussion.

There is a little known Pentagon agency called CIFA - Counterintelligence Field Activity. It made a recent study and concluded that suicide bombers are rational. That's right. Rational. Once suicide bombers accept certain premises found in the Quran (the irrational part), they rationally pursue values and benefits. The study called these people "rational actors."

"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

(...)

In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

I Googled the phrase "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers" to see of the briefing paper is online, but I couldn't find it.

What this study so eloquently illustrates is the need for intellectual action. There are many mainstream Muslims who are against a suicidal practice of the religion, but they fall helpless before the erudition of the fundamentalists when premises are discussed. More than any time in history, they need strong intellectual tools to be able to defend their position. Telling them at the outset to abandon the religion is not going to convince anybody. Yet the CIFA states clearly that rationality is a huge factor. One has to conclude that Muslims are and want to be rational at base. But a wrong premise can develop rationally into a nightmare. This is why premises are so crucial.

Need I mention how many people have committed barbarous acts over the centuries in the name of Christianity? How many wars? How many literal self-sacrifices that were destructive of others? Yet the intellectual war was fought with Christianity. Separation of church and state, individual rights, checks and balances and a host of other principles were added to the faith in terms of being accepted as proper conditions for living on earth. Freedom became a condition for practicing Christianity. not the contrary. Few Christians nowadays think religion is the source of freedom. Only after this attitude became widespread was it possible to feasibly advocate abandoning faith completely for reason.

This is the war that needs to be fought with radical Islamism. We do not need to approach Muslims with the attitude that Islam as a whole is bad. We need to isolate the bad parts that conflict with the principles of freedom and make them clear. We need to offer intellectual alternatives - ones that have just as much erudition as those provided by fundamentalists. We need to show the contradictions in the Quran and make it clear that if peace-loving Muslims do not choose their premises from one side or the other of these contradictions, the fundamentalists will choose for them - and maintain that choice by force. We need to highlight - in Islamic terms, but with principles of freedom - that the manner in which the fundamentalists practice Islam is evil.

There are literally millions and millions who hunger for such information.

It sickens me that "democracy" has been offered as an intellectual principle instead of something like this. That democracy is no good without individual rights needs to be clarified in the loudest terms possible - and in terms Muslims can understand.

After a base of freedom has been established, we can offer Rand undiluted. We should not forget that The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged would not have ever been published in communist Russia, but in today's Russia, one where principles of freedom are starting to grow, this possibility is becoming feasible. The idea that this could have happened under Stalin is so remote it seems comical.

It is a breath of fresh air to see a US government agency finally admitting that there is an intellectual problem involved with suicide bombers. Now maybe they will start to make proper efforts to do something in the right direction.

But that is not really their job. We should let the military do what it does well. It has been brilliant in all things military so far. It has not been good at all in intellectual warfare. We intellectuals have this job to do. Even the military is now starting to perceive this.

Michael

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