"The Objectivist Death Cult"

[Matus1976]

I'm suggesting your basic attitude seems to be more pagan/Roman than Christian, which I don't think you'd object to. I don't.

In the proper context, yes, but you said "but like the ancient Romans know how to send men off to fight with righteousness ringing in their ears propelling them forward into the scythes of death" that could hardly be thought to have a productive value defending spin to it. You might have more properly said "Like a good Roman general, you advocated soldiers fight and die for the highest values" Generally, Romans and Greeks had a much more rational approach to upholding and defending values, all were rejected and usurped by Christian doctrines of humility, forgiveness, asceticism and suffering here on earth, and the thought of eternal bliss in the after life. In "Discourses on Livy" Machiavelli cites this specifically as the main reason Greeks and Romans were so much more successful, in line with Gibbon's attribution to Christian philosophical principles of the fall of the Roman Empire. Machiavelli wrote:

In considering therefore why all the peoples of ancient times were greater lovers of liberty than those of our own day I believe this arises from the same cause that today makes men less strong. Which I believe lies in the difference of our education and that of antiquity, based upon our religion and that of antiquity. For while our religion has shown us truth and the true path, it also makes us place a lower value on worldly honor. Where as the pagan, who greatly values honor and considers it the highest good, were more ferocious in there action.

From my blog on the subject

Some of the teachings of Christianity, Machiavelli realizes, are in fact detrimental for a worldview where someone will go out and fight for and defend liberty. Christians always have the easy out, saying, even if things are crummy now, it’s only for a while, and if we suffer now, blessed are those who suffer, blessed are those who are persecuted, in the eyes of eternity this is nothing and we will spend an eternity in the presence of god. When compared to the Pagan religions of the Ancient World, Christianity has had a negative effect on the zeal for liberty. He writes:

“Ancient religions beatified only men fully possessed of worldly glory, such as the leaders of armies or rulers of republics. Christianity more often glorifies humble and contempletative men instead of active ones. Supreme goods are humility, abjection, contempt of worldly things. Ancient religions in greatness of minds, strengths of bodies, and all other things apt to make men the strongest.“

In the great Christian churches, we see Christ in eternal suffering. We see frescos of people on their knees, praying. Or great martyrs who meekly subject themselves to torture or death, Katherine ripped apart by the spikes on spinning wheels, etc. Steven stoned to death. Lawrence on a grid iron. In Greek art we see proud and powerful heroes standing in defense of their highest values. In Roman art we see a celebration of existence, happiness and joy in life. In Greek Philosophy we see a concern with living the good life through virtue, in Christian philosophy we see only suffering and self loathing.

The values they pass on are passivity, contemplativeness, humility, not fighting back, meekness, it has an effect on the way people grow up and lives their lives. When they see their liberty threatened, its all to easy to brush it off, thinking if our liberty goes it goes but I’m going to heaven. The values of Christianity have made it more difficult for people to struggle for and defend their liberty. Religion here harms what he thought the the right political goals for his society should have been.

Christianity is not the only religious advocate of meek passivity or monotheistic domination, but Islam for all it’s terrible faults does not celebrate weakness and passivity (Mohamamd after all gained religious superstardom by fighting and winning numerous wars, contrasted to Jesus who gave in and suffered a terribly painful death)

So I think it's very disingenuous to just say Roman sent people off to die with righteousness ringing in their ears. Romans sent people off to FIGHT for that which they values most, do you think a Roman soldier would say that it might be JUST to kill someone, but NOT GOOD. ?

Again, this all boils down to a perfusion of pacifism coming into conflict with the uncompromising upholding of values. If you think it's just to have values and to defend them, then sometimes it is necessary to kill evil people who threaten those values, and if it is just, it is good and right. This compromising mix of eastern mysticism / pacifism with western value based ethics is what results in the strange sentiment, complete with it's psychological problems. This is a critical thing to have a clear moral stance on, It's very detrimental and threatens our very long term existence as a culture of rationality if you don't think it's just to defend your values, or you think one should stop defending them always in principle when it comes to someone directly assaulting your values, then your values will necessarily wither away, just as the Roman empire did, to those with more conviction and who don't hold rationality as their standard.

What I basically object to in this discussion is you telling us how people would feel consequent to an act beyond your own experience and which I'd not wish on anyone.

I think this is a case of you reading more into what I said than my actual statement, I suspect as a cause that because you were obviously in the military, you are perhaps more sensitive and hyper aware of idiots who have never served making stupid comments about serving in the military - such that you might think you found one with a quick reading where there wasn't one.

So I am not saying how one OUGHT to feel about killing in war, or even how one WILL feel, I said I don't know, but I do know that if something is JUST, than one SHOULD feel GOOD *ALWAYS* about doing that which is just. And if in some cases it is just to kill, then one should feel good about it, not bad. Something being JUST, but BAD is alot like that old "well it's good in theory" thing regarding communism, it never is, theories are descriptions of reality, if it doesnt work in reality, its a BAD theory. It's an internally in-consistent sentiment. And while I can only attempt to emulate the emotions I would have if I ever faced such a situation, I would absolutely NEVER tell a soldier who WAS willing to KILL EVIL PEOPLE who THREATEN MY DEEPEST VALUES that what he did was wrong, even if I qualify it with being Just. Soldiers of free nations should always be proud of fighting for their deepest rational values, and citizens who get to enjoy that should be proud of them as well and thankful.

I admit I missed the nuance of your statement differentiating "pride" and "profound Joy" so I went back and quoted it to update what we are talking about. I'm not trying, I hope, to do an argument from authority on you, and you've made many valid points, but experience does count for a lot.

I understand as my statement was unclear enough to be misinterpreted with a quick read, but after you said it again after I corrected you, I felt that was unreasonable. Your reaction to my comments about war and killing though can hardly be anything but an argument from authority, which actually I'm completely fine with as authorities often know much more, but suggesting I have no right to comment at all without having directly experienced it is unreasonable. I'll make my uninformed comments, if that's the case, and then correct my errors with input from authorities on the subject. I'd defer to your thoughts on this anytime, as I am more than willing to defer to anyone who I come to realize knows more about a subject than I do, a voracious appetite for knowledge can be sustained no other way. But you've been generally a little evasive direct thoughts and reasoning on this, perhaps because you mixed feelings about it from your experience in the military (which I think from your comments you were) But the only appeals to authority knowledge you make are appeals to intrinsism (you wouldn't understand type) which do me little good. I can either go kill someone, think about what it would be like to, or ask people who have what they felt and why.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's nasty and incorrect either way. The difference is that it is useful during a war, and not useful in peacetime (a somewhat incorrect term: has there ever been a point in history where there has been no civil or international conflict somewhere in the world?)

It's fine. I'd rather our boys do their jobs without having an existential crisis every time they have to kill someone.

Michelle,

I agree with this. But I also believe that getting pumped up for battle and normal humanity both have to be present in healthy competent soldiers. A seesaw balance that operates in different contexts.

I do not like the idea of our soldiers imagining other human beings are nothing more than rubbish. And I don't like preaching that. There are other effective means of getting pumped for battle. Once that rubbish lesson is learned on a deep level, it causes an imbalance that erodes the normal humanity side. This is very hard to unlearn.

What do you do with veterans like that? Turn them loose in society?

Would you want someone like that living next door?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I never know how serious to take Ba'al's comments. But if he's sincere about this, then he sounds no different in motivation than the soldier brant mentioned. Valuing killing, he sought the opportunity to legally do so.

Take me literally. I am an Aspie. I am genetically incapable of not being serious. Killing bad people is a necessary evil. Helping to clean up the dirt is a virtuous activity. I keep my house clean. I clean up the areas around my house, even picking up trash in other people's yards on my way in and out. Keeping the world neat is one of the things I like to do. The world will not stay neat unless people who do not like messes are willing to keep it neat.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's why the Nazis wanted to get rid of the dirty Jews. I don't think they could have done a much better job. Germany became so much neater. (Little blond children everywhere happily playing in parks previously occupied by Jewish houses of worship from which the evil Jews had clear fields of fire for their machine guns. [History of the Thousand Year Reich, H (for Hitler 1933)--H547, p.142.])

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I sleep more peacefully at night because strong men who feel no pity and only slight recoil are out there guarding the Republic. They are not doing it for me, they are doing it for themselves and those they love. I am the incidental beneficiary of their dedication to the task. More power to them, and may there be little or no love in in their hearts for our enemies. In my day it was my honor and privilege to provide these warriors with the tools they needed for their task.

They are not out there to die for their country. They are out there to make the enemy son of a bitch die for his country.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Michael D (Matus1976): After a quick reading of your last post my question is whether you have acknowledged the obvious Greek/Roman influence on Christianity?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

That's why the Nazis wanted to get rid of the dirty Jews. I don't think they could have done a much better job. Germany became so much neater. (Little blond children everywhere happily playing in parks previously occupied by Jewish houses of worship from which the evil Jews had clear fields of fire for their machine guns. [History of the Thousand Year Reich, H (for Hitler 1933)--H547, p.142.])

--Brant

Germany was ruined, in part, by Hitler's misunderstanding of the value of Jews to Germany. The result, we in the West got them and the Germans did without. The U.S. got the A-bomb first because our Jewish physicists were better than their Jewish physicists. If Hitler had been rational and sane he would have treasured German Jews as one of his nation's greatest assets. Every great nation needs a Jewish brain-trust.

The result of Hitler's mis-estimation was the ruination of Germany.

History teaches one Great Lesson. Don't fuck with the Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

There should be about 20 million more Jews than there are. It's hard to say they weren't well fucked with by Hitler.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

There should be about 20 million more Jews than there are. It's hard to say they weren't well fucked with by Hitler.

--Brant

True. But we are here and the Nazis are not. If the Nazis had held out six more months a little Jewish revenge in the form of nuclear weapons would have rained down upon them. But something good came of it. The Japanese got a taste of nuclear hot death. It served them right.

By the way, Hitler and his Jew hating cronies diverted enough resources to kill Jews that their efforts against both the Russians and the other allies suffered. So, in a way, the war against the Jews came back to bite the Nazis.

And by driving the Jews away, the Germans lost their chance to have atomic weapons. All these things worked against the Germans. It served them right.

I remember what my Uncle Jack Shapiro said to me when I was a kid. He said he was Hitler's worst nightmare. A Jew with a Norden bomb sight and 8 thousand pounds of h.e. to drop on him. Every little bit came back to bite the Nazis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I do not like the idea of our soldiers imagining other human beings are nothing more than rubbish. And I don't like preaching that. There are other effective means of getting pumped for battle. Once that rubbish lesson is learned on a deep level, it causes an imbalance that erodes the normal humanity side. This is very hard to unlearn.

What do you do with veterans like that? Turn them loose in society?

Would you want someone like that living next door?

Michael

No, I wouldn't. I think there is big difference between killing someone at close range and dropping a bomb on them etc. I can easily imagine how the pilots who dropped the atomic bombs could adopt the attitude of "it's all in a day's work" easier than the soldiers in the old days fighting with swords and axes. Your mind would not be full of images of hacking off limbs and stuff which could have deep psychological consequences if left untreated. If something requires that you become inhuman to do it then you become um.. inhuman? You will definitely need therapy after that.

[tjohnson]

True. But we are here and the Nazis are not. If the Nazis had held out six more months a little Jewish revenge in the form of nuclear weapons would have rained down upon them. But something good came of it. The Japanese got a taste of nuclear hot death. It served them right.

By the way, Hitler and his Jew hating cronies diverted enough resources to kill Jews that their efforts against both the Russians and the other allies suffered. So, in a way, the war against the Jews came back to bite the Nazis.

The Nazis would not be here even if they had of been fervent Zionists. They got defeated because they tried to take over the world and anyone who does that will eventually be defeated. Being anti-semites made it somewhat easier to beat them.

[BaalChatzaf]

The Nazis would not be here even if they had of been fervent Zionists. They got defeated because they tried to take over the world and anyone who does that will eventually be defeated. Being anti-semites made it somewhat easier to beat them.

My very point.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My very point.

Bob,

Not quite. I understand that GS is essentially saying that bigotry helped bring the Nazis down, not going against a chosen people, which I understand to be your message.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

There should be about 20 million more Jews than there are. It's hard to say they weren't well fucked with by Hitler.

--Brant

True. But we are here and the Nazis are not. If the Nazis had held out six more months a little Jewish revenge in the form of nuclear weapons would have rained down upon them. But something good came of it. The Japanese got a taste of nuclear hot death. It served them right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Atomic weapons would not have been used against Germany. After we dropped the second a third wasn't going to be available for a while. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered they would have gotten the third too and been invaded in March 1946 or thereabouts. Germany was in no position to stave off defeat by conventional arms. In the meantime the bombers would have kept flying in both theaters of war.

--Brant

[Matus1976]

Michael D (Matus1976): After a quick reading of your last post my question is whether you have acknowledged the obvious Greek/Roman influence on Christianity?

--Brant

What influences are you speaking of in particular? I'd say there are very little over all influences that the values of Greece and Rome had on Christianity, in fact it was almost anti-thetical in every regard. For Starters, Romans thought that a virtuous life led directly to material well being here on earth, either in wealth, or in politics. Great generals and leaders would be honored as Gods. In Christianity, a virtuous life was rewarded in the afterlife, not in this life, and in fact people of material wealth in this life were regarding as having any of a multitude of sins. Christians advocate un-earned forgiveness, while Romans emphasized justice and retribution, these are completely dichotomous. Christians also advocated poverty and ascetism, which Romans obviously did not. Later Christian philosophers, like Aquinas, attempted to integrate some of the values of the classical societies, and in particular Aristotlean philosophy, into Christianity, but this was not until the 13th century. While Christianity did adopt much of Plato's ideas, classical greece and Rome DID NOT, since Plato advocated communal ownership of property, absolute enslavement to the state which was ruled by elite philosopher kings, and a metaphysical subjective reality.

[Selene]

Matus1976:

"...a virtuous life was rewarded in the afterlife..." < now that is a pretty wide brush you are painting with under the

category christians...

Mormons? Calvinists? Many Masons that I personally know who are christians and have a very long cable cord.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

While Christianity did adopt much of Plato's ideas, classical greece and Rome DID NOT, since Plato advocated communal ownership of property, absolute enslavement to the state which was ruled by elite philosopher kings, and a metaphysical subjective reality.

The realm of Forms or Ideas was the "realist" thing there is. Normal sensible reality as experienced through the bodily senses was regarded as less real by Plato therefore inferior. In Plato's thinking there was nothing subjective about Ideas or Forms. They were as Real as Real got.

Since the Philosopher/Ruler was in connection with the Real Reality as opposed to the Reality given by the senses, his rule was bound to (according to Plato) be just and right since he was in touch with What Is. It was the lesser folk who were not in touch.

Read -The Republic- by Plato to get on Plato's wavelength. In particular read the Allegory of the Cave : Republic 514a-520a. Also read the Allegory of the Line: Republic 509D-513E.

I regard Plato as wrong-headed and reject his premise, but first I get his premise right, which you did not. Read what he has to say. You may (nay, you ought) to reject Plato's approach but understand that the thinking of Plato underlies every last totalitarian abomination that has plagued us in modern from Christianity, to Robespierre in the French Revolution, to Nazi thinking to Marxism. Don't take Rand's word for what Plato says. Read what Plato says. The existing translations from the Greek are excellent, partly because Plato was a very talented and entertaining writer (the very antithesis, in style, to Kant).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Matus1976]

Matus1976:

"...a virtuous life was rewarded in the afterlife..." < now that is a pretty wide brush you are painting with under the

category christians...

Mormons? Calvinists? Many Masons that I personally know who are christians and have a very long cable cord.

Adam

I am referring to the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire. I'm quite sure there were no Mormons around yet ;)

[Matus1976]

Read -The Republic- by Plato to get on Plato's wavelength. In particular read the Allegory of the Cave : Republic 514a-520a. Also read the Allegory of the Line: Republic 509D-513E.

This...

Plato advocated communal ownership of property, absolute enslavement to the state which was ruled by elite philosopher kings, and a metaphysical subjective reality

...IS the ESSENCE of Plato's Republic. Have you read it? I sure have, and it's quite disgusting, so much that some historians suggest it might have been satire, on the level of 'A Modest Proposal' since it glorified the very type of life and system that Athenians and most of the other Greek City states despised. However, Plato traveled to city states looking for one to help him setup just such a system and glorified Sparta every chance he had. I was reading Plato and Aristotle way before Rand (and that is in fact how I became interested in Rand) and was viscerally disgusted by "The Republic" the very first time I read it.

The realm of Forms or Ideas was the "realist" thing there is. Normal sensible reality as experienced through the bodily senses was regarded as less real by Plato therefore inferior. In Plato's thinking there was nothing subjective about Ideas or Forms. They were as Real as Real got.

Plato's forms are indeed a claim about the nature of objective reality (as all subjectivist claims actually are) but the claim was that no essence of objective reality could truly be known (one wonders how Plato knew that aspect then?) and all perceived objects are inaccurate impure 'shadows' of the real reality that no human mind has any connection with (except Plato, of course). A claimed 'objective' reality which is completely dissociated from any man's ability to perceive and understand it is a claim of metaphysical subjectivity.

[Rush]

Funny thing i actually agree with some of what ARI is saying somewhat no indescriminate slaughter eventhough that would help but that is another day well i believe we shouldn't be as concerned with saving civilians as the fact that we need to educate the people and help them build infrastructure i just got back from afghanistan and where i was located there was nothing just tattooine everywhere minus the two suns but all the people live in a clan mindset of hatred for other tribes they have no sense of country the only reason it is a country instead of many small is because the cartographer staked it out that way so the russians couldnt get india

[Selene]

Funny thing i actually agree with some of what ARI is saying somewhat no indescriminate slaughter eventhough that would help but that is another day well i believe we shouldn't be as concerned with saving civilians as the fact that we need to educate the people and help them build infrastructure i just got back from afghanistan and where i was located there was nothing just tattooine everywhere minus the two suns but all the people live in a clan mindset of hatred for other tribes they have no sense of country the only reason it is a country instead of many small is because the cartographer staked it out that way so the russians couldnt get india

JG:

Welcome to OL. What branch did you serve in?

Adam

[Rush]

Funny thing i actually agree with some of what ARI is saying somewhat no indescriminate slaughter eventhough that would help but that is another day well i believe we shouldn't be as concerned with saving civilians as the fact that we need to educate the people and help them build infrastructure i just got back from afghanistan and where i was located there was nothing just tattooine everywhere minus the two suns but all the people live in a clan mindset of hatred for other tribes they have no sense of country the only reason it is a country instead of many small is because the cartographer staked it out that way so the russians couldnt get india

JG:

Welcome to OL. What branch did you serve in?

Adam

i am currently enlisted in the national guard out of illinois i know i know very nonobjectivist of me i think ayn will forgive me lol and thanks selene you guys have deinately given me a way better perspective on objectivism than what i had before it was just me and my friend amy talking about which actor/actress would be good for an AS movie nothing about the philosophy glad to know there are some intelligent people out there willing to engage in free speak and open forums about all things objectivist Kudos OL major Kudos