THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Thanks guys!

Michael: Yes, I'm certain that we would have our disagreements if I posted much here. But your posts are so damn long that I think I'll just throw up the white flag right now.

Shayne

Shayne,

It's good to see you posting again, both here and there. It's good to see another fellow engineer and iconoclast around :-).

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

The original caricature posted on this thread here (and on its own thread here) has been altered and the nude intruder has been removed. The artist agreed that she was detracting from the message too much and that the message was much too important to let this happen. A note was included on the post so the ensuing discussion of nudity would make sense.

Permission to copy and distribute it electronically has been granted as given in the note to the caricature.

[reason.on]

PS: I think it's critical to make sure those Yaron Brook quotes are correct and in context, because they are indeed a damning and eloquent summary of the attitude spewing from the ARI crowd.

I cannot speak to the accuracy of what BB posted, however, I can post very similar remarks from Brook's published work, which seems to be becoming the training-guide for ARI's dogma of death. Of course, this deeply and sickly collectivist dogma is essentially the same as the bloody doctrines spewed up by the blighted children-of-the-corn who are not worthy of individual mention.

As such, I don't see how anyone could be surprised by the quotes BB posted.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp

As for what to do about any given threat, egoism gives the crucial sanction, in enemy territory, to kill and destroy whomever and whatever needs to be killed and destroyed in order to end the threat to the victim country. Such a policy, contrary to Just War Theory, upholds both the principle of justice and the principle of individual rights. Depending on the circumstances, legitimate targets can include the leaders, soldiers, and civilians of the enemy nation.

Now take the case of Islamic terrorism, a threat in which civilians are also a crucial source of spiritual support. Many civilians across the Arab world give terrorists encouragement by worshipping them as heroes. Newspapers in many Arab countries spread anti-Americanism and glorify the martyrdom of the terrorists. Clerics promise terrorists a glorious afterlife. Madrassahs indoctrinate students with Islamic Totalitarianism. Even civilians who do not entirely support the methods of Islamic terrorists are often sympathetic to and encouraging of their goal of Islamic world domination. Enemy civilians are also a crucial source of material support for terrorists; these civilians frequently provide terrorists with hideouts, money, and weapons. Rich statesmen pay large bounties to the families of suicide bombers.

Most civilians of oppressive regimes do nothing to oppose or resist or change their governments. This passivity does not render them innocent; it renders them accomplices to the evils of their regimes. This passivity is one of the major factors enabling these regimes to commit atrocities against innocents at home and abroad. Unless oppressed civilians take active steps to object to the evil ways of their government, or to go underground, they are morally responsible for the actions of their government. (The positive or negative consequences of the actions one's government performs in one's name is one reason why being active in regard to politics, especially intellectually active in this realm, is a selfish obligation.)

To summarize: The civilian population of an aggressor nation is not some separate entity unrelated to its government. An act of war is the act of a nation—an interconnected political, cultural, economic, and geographical unity. Whenever a nation initiates aggression against us, including by supporting anti-American terrorist groups and militant causes, it has forfeited its right to exist, and we have a right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat it poses.

Given that a nation's civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.

That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one's rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world. Rational, selfish soldiers do not desire mindless destruction of anyone, let alone innocents; they are willing to kill only because they desire freedom and realize that it requires using force against those who initiate force. Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.

RCR

[sjw]

I cannot speak to the accuracy of what BB posted, however, I can post very similar remarks from Brook's published work, which seems to be becoming the training-guide for ARI's dogma of death. Of course, this deeply and sickly collectivist dogma is essentially the same as the bloody doctrines spewed up by the blighted children-of-the-corn who are not worthy of individual mention.

As such, I don't see how anyone could be surprised by the quotes BB posted.

One of the unfortunate consequences of ARI's (& Solo's) irrationally skewed hatred of subjectivism while tolerating intrinsicism is that it skews all the counterpart movements toward subjectivism--if you viciously ban or harass those with subjectivist tendencies but coddle budding intrinsicists, then there's an exodus of the former to fill up these counterpart movements. Which creates a vicious cycle, making the remaining intrinsicists foam all the more about the antics of the counterparts, but not without good cause in many instances.

Which is to say that Brook's previous comments aren't completely wrong-headed. What he's reacting to is the pacifist mentality that says it's our duty to take grave risks preserve innocent life. His reaction relative to the status quo is right on a basic level; but his reasoning is all wrong. E.g., his attempt to paint a picture of all the innocents being guilty to some degree is collectivist and obviously wrong: there's children there. In fact it is not our duty to sacrifice ourselves to preserve the life of innocent children in the aggressor nation. ARI offers chillingly anti-life rationalizations precisely *why* this is so, but that doesn't make what they are arguing for completely wrong (on the other hand, there's no way one could trust them to make correct application in real life). As I have mentioned elsewhere, the real justification is along the same lines as we'd use to justify tragically killing innocents in a hostage scenario when that was the only reasonable way to protect everyone else (this isn't my argument, I'm just trying to give the basic idea for the right argument).

These new quotes allegedly from Brook (I have serious doubts over their accuracy, I would be surprised if he actually said that) indicate the same sort of emotionalism interfering with proper arguments. It's certainly true that the creature who would wear a Bin Laden shirt is as low as you can get, but clearly, the fact that someone is a lowlife doesn't grant you the right to take his life (he allegedly says "moral right"--as against what? "Legal right"? That's a very odd and not Objectivist distinction to use in this context; it's rather the distinction a collectivist would make; if Brook didn't really say this, then the person fabricating the quote is probably a collectivist).

[Rich Engle]

And of course, Perigo has done his usual dog and pony impressario thing. How someone can use terms like "smearer in chief" and then whip out "evil bitch"...

He does this Walter Winchell thing. More like a Toohey thing. What a curmudgeonly little gadfly!

And then he announces that he asked Brook. He kind of makes it sound like he called Brook's cellphone and had a tete-a-tete. But alas, no answer, only an opinion. I suppose that means he either didn't get an email reply, or maybe left a voicemail.

There's nothing there, just him grandstanding and snorting and sniffing.

He even said he knew who Barbara's friend is. You think he'd at least whip out the name.

The dude is in outer space.

It's always been back there in my mind, I'm going to spit it out... Here we have this ringmaster-type guy, champion of Ayn Rand, therefore champion of capitalism. But, he's not much of a capitalist, from what I can see: that would require that he provide solid, substantive things of value. He has a little radio show. He's not really a politician, just some sort of activist. Unless he's got a real job somewhere that he doesn't talk about, as far as I'm concerned, no prime moving going on. Without actual people doing actual things, he doesn't exist. He presents himself as some kind of righteous freedom fighter, defender of the straight moral compass. I guess war means handing out bananas. He doesn't do war, he does theater; and not even regional theater. He's not a professional academic, either. What the eff is he, then? He's not trying to be a person, he's trying to be a personality. Yuck.

I don't have his profile, such as it is, and I don't want it. At least I can honestly say I'm a capitalist, that I practice the true trader mentality. If you ask me what I do (and most people here), I can provide straightforward answers. My company buys large buildings, and makes them into beautiful places for people to live, in return for which we make a profit. We run other businesses where we sell hard goods, for a profit. I regularly entertain audiences, for a profit. I am making a record which I will sell, for a profit.

Whatever money Perigo makes (outside of whatever comes in from his, er, writing), he makes with his mouth. And what a mouth he is. Perigo is an ideological creature, he runs in that realm. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't really work, so he can kiss my sweet prime-mover ass.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a news article on the UCLA speech by Brook (link gleaned from a comment from "over there"). It is from the Daily Bruin, dated October 17, 206.

Lecture discusses totalitarian regimes by Joanne Hou

Here is a quote from the article (talking about what Brook proposed):

The self-interest tenet of objectivism advocates that one's own life is worth defending by any means necessary, which would allow the United States to justify defeating Islamic totalitarianism by killing a large number of its supporters, according to Brook.

He added that the killing would shrink popular support for extremist ideas to a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 40 percent Brook says are supporting the regimes now.

This is pretty clear. Brook stated that people should be killed for holding certain ideas.

I will be interested to see if he admits or denies the statements Barbara reported, since he has been asked and the request has been made public.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well, that seems clear enough. It kind of makes it unimportant whether he actually did cite the two specific examples that Barbara's friend was pretty sure they heard. In a speech with the above as a main idea, these two simply would follow. The big idea is the scary one.

If that's what Brook is about, then basically, he's no different ideologically than any tyrant who is proposing genocide, be it racial, religious, whatever.

So that's their fearless leader, eh? Hoofa...

rde

Gawd, I hope he doesn't ever get hacked off at Unitarians or musicians.

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

I will not repeat the supposed Brook quotes without corroboration.

It's not because they are obviously out of character. They are a short step from the long article by Brook and Epstein and the more recent pronouncements by Holcberg and Biddle.

Randians sometimes do use the phrase "moral right." If you do a search of Rand's writings you'll find a few instances. I avoid it, for the same reason that you avoid it: it's never been clear to me what a moral right is, unless it's what's normally referred to as an individual right.

And, yes, a listener with collectivistic leanings might be inclined to distort what Brook said. But when Brook insists on analyzing the present global conflict in terms of nations, instead of governments and individual human beings, he has explicitly adopted collectivism as his own frame of reference.

Robert C

PS. If the reporting is accurate, the article that Michael cites from the UCLA student newspaper makes the quotes appear even more plausible. But I still definitely want to see Brook confirm or deny that he said them.

[sjw]

Robert,

I agree with everything you said.

I was careful to say the moral/legal dichotomy was strange *in this context*, because it's used as if to say that something could be morally right while legally wrong. Assuming a proper legal system this is false. But the reverse is true: something can be morally wrong and legally "right" (that's not precise: really I mean "legally agnostic"). But there is no such thing as something that's morally right and legally wrong.

Shayne

Edited October 20, 2006 by sjw

[reason.on]

Here is a news article on the UCLA speech by Brook (link gleaned from a comment from "over there"). It is from the Daily Bruin, dated October 17, 206.

Lecture discusses totalitarian regimes by Joanne Hou

There is also this:

"He [brooks] said only a resurgence in the pride for Western civilization can help the West defeat those Islamic states."

Call me crazy, but in the context of Brook's appeals to indiscriminate civilian murder, this seems to be quite an ominous parallel between ARI and the fascist Nazis, whose efforts relied not only on the rationalized slaughter of millions whose beliefs didn't square with Nazism, but also on heavy appeals for a resurgence in German nationalistic/Arian pride--to the extent that they sought (among other things) to claim Plato's Atlantis was not only historically real, but populated by ancient Arians.

Brook's impotent desire to enact the wholesale slaughter of human beings because of what they may or may not believe is a tragic embarrassment; that he insists on parasitically relying on a dead woman's name to promote his brutish collectivism is revolting beyond description.

Me thinks, pitiable lepers they are not, but rather plain old ivory-tower butchers; traitors of individualism, rational thought, and a benevolent universe.

RCR

[sjw]

I don't have his profile, such as it is, and I don't want it. At least I can honestly say I'm a capitalist, that I practice the true trader mentality. If you ask me what I do (and most people here), I can provide straightforward answers. My company buys large buildings, and makes them into beautiful places for people to live, in return for which we make a profit. We run other businesses where we sell hard goods, for a profit. I regularly entertain audiences, for a profit. I am making a record which I will sell, for a profit.

Whatever money Perigo makes (outside of whatever comes in from his, er, writing), he makes with his mouth. And what a mouth he is. Perigo is an ideological creature, he runs in that realm. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't really work, so he can kiss my sweet prime-mover ass.

Brilliant!

Once I posted to Solo that the best way to change the culture was to actually be a producer, to apply Objectivism to one's field and demonstrate how practical the philosophy is. Linz took exception.

Shayne

[Ellen Stuttle]

Randians sometimes do use the phrase "moral right." If you do a search of Rand's writings you'll find a few instances. I avoid it, for the same reason that you [shayne] avoid it: it's never been clear to me what a moral right is, unless it's what's normally referred to as an individual right.

I've encountered that usage among Objectivists. A glaring for instance -- and one parallel to the quote attributed to Brooks -- was during the months immediately after the Rand/Brandens split when there were a few who proposed that an Objectivist would have the "moral right" to kill Nathaniel Branden for the pain he'd caused Ayn Rand. The idea was that, although of course one would be up on a murder charge, legally, if one did this, it might be morally ok. Another circumstance, much tamer, in which I've heard Objectivists speak of having a "moral right" to do something considered illegal is that of income-tax evasion.

Ellen

___

Edited October 20, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

It's always been back there in my mind, I'm going to spit it out... Here we have this ringmaster-type guy, champion of Ayn Rand, therefore champion of capitalism. But, he's not much of a capitalist, from what I can see: that would require that he provide solid, substantive things of value. He has a little radio show. He's not really a politician, just some sort of activist. Unless he's got a real job somewhere that he doesn't talk about, as far as I'm concerned, no prime moving going on. Without actual people doing actual things, he doesn't exist. He presents himself as some kind of righteous freedom fighter, defender of the straight moral compass. I guess war means handing out bananas. He doesn't do war, he does theater; and not even regional theater. He's not a professional academic, either. What the eff is he, then? He's not trying to be a person, he's trying to be a personality. Yuck.

And observe how pathetically he's bragging about himself, first with that speech in the book store, and now about an interview with a party leader:

Contrary to Oscar's dictum that "only shallow people are brilliant at breakfast," Don and I sparred, sparked and sparkled for forty-five minutes before handing over to questions from the floor.

Yeah, really a sparkling star... looks more like a brown dwarf to me. If you're not praised enough by others you just start praising yourself. And about the same time Hsieh crows: "I'm famous! I was quoted in the cover story of Impact on the fifth anniversary of the Objectivist Academic Center". The reason? She had praised ARI's indoctrination center skyhigh in the typically sectarian "I-was-a-poor-sinner-but-now-I've-seen-the-light" manner:

"When I entered the OAC, I was acutely aware that my understanding of Objectivism was insufficient for serious scholarly work in philosophy. Happily, the education I received at the OAC exceeded my wildest hopes. I didn't merely learn new skills, principles, and integrations in my OAC classes, but also cleared up countless rationalistic confusions in my understanding of Objectivism, many of which were unknown to me. Thanks to the OAC, I made a huge leap forward in my understanding of Objectivism. I will be a better philosopher, and a better person, as a result."

ARI isn't above publishing such idolatrous testimony with its cult-like tone, and now Hsieh is flattered that she's quoted by ARI's magazine! Wow! Perhaps someone can use these people as inspiration for a humoristic book?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Apparently, your quotes by Yaron Brook are accurate, although there is some context that is not present (and I still suggest further third-party corroboration). Lindsay Perigo made a production out of asking Brook about these quotes and reporting on the answer. Here is an exact quote of Perigo's latest post on this issue (Fri, 2006-10-20 23:48):

The Crux ...

... is here, in my first post:

I strongly suspect that Yaron has been quoted incompletely. Let's see.

That's exactly the case.

As I say, I wish Yaron would let me quote his reply to me in full.

As I understand it, this means that the quotes are accurate, but incomplete. At least this is the case as corroborated by Perigo.

Much obliged to the Dark Side.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It was legitimate for Barbara to post the quotes attributed to Yaron Brook the way she did. They were obviously quotes looking for a context and in the give and take of the Internet that context should be forthcoming. If she hadn't, no context and no quotes. It doesn't matter who embarrasses whom. Barbara uses the quotes to hang Brook. Linz hangs Barbara for hanging Brook. Brook tries to hang on by keeping the context private, which is funny for he gave the quotes up in public. If the quotes were erroneous all he had to do was say so. Barbara's primary focus was on what was purportedly said. Linz's and Yaron's is on Barbara.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

It was legitimate for Barbara to post the quotes attributed to Yaron Brook the way she did. They were obviously quotes looking for a context and in the give and take of the Internet that context should be forthcoming. If she hadn't, no context and no quotes. It doesn't matter who embarrasses whom. Barbara uses the quotes to hang Brook. Linz hangs Barbara for hanging Brook. Brook tries to hang on by keeping the context private, which is funny for he gave the quotes up in public. If the quotes were erroneous all he had to do was say so. Barbara's primary focus was on what was purportedly said. Linz's and Yaron's is on Barbara.

I agree with Brant. The comical element is there. It seems to be that pompous Perigo [i had to get that out] fears that the quotes attributed to Yaron Brook may be true, and this could prove to be very embarrassing. His huff-and-puff is whistling in the dark--coming from a lip that has perspiration on it. I, for one, want to know the facts of this case.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Victor Pross

[reason.on]

I find it interesting that I see no link to the US Army, or any other branch of the military on ARI's website. It seems to me, were they to take their own zealous espousals seriously, they would be encouraging anyone and everyone to join up and crusade the goodly blood bath. It would take, afterall, quite a large military capacity to sufficiently pacify and destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Syria, as Brook recommends (one wonders if Brook has ever looked at a map of the Middle East). Come to think of it, I'm surprised that none of the authorities at ARI have enlisted themselves, integrity, it would seem, would demand as such.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood the true ARI position, and what they really only advocate is not war as we usually understand it, but simply genocide at a distance using nuclear weapons--post-haste--anywhere the ARI intellectuals deem it "necessary" (which, so far as I can tell means anywhere "Islam is the law of the land", or anywhere Islamic "terrorism" is given "spiritual" support, and heaven help you if are geographically anywhere near the "spiritual fatherland of the ideology driving Islamic terrorists").

Never mind, of course, the consequences of nuclear fall-out in the region, and the world for that matter. For example, what would happen to oil production, and consequently the world economy in the event of nuclear attack in the Middle East? Who wants radioactive oil? What about all of the other nations in the geographic region? And just how far is Israel from Iran? EMP?

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/0...onsequences.htm

If Britain decided to use one of its standard Trident submarine nuclear warheads against a Middle East threat, radioactive fallout could land in oil-producing areas. If it did, that area would likely stop production. If production continued, who would buy radioactive oil? Since the Middle East supplies the world with so much oil, decreased production might trigger economic chaos.

British farmers only produce enough food by themselves to support 12 million of Britain's 56 million people.(8) If Britain used one of its nuclear warheads, it could cost Britain and others in the world greatly. How would the British people feed themselves if there is little fuel for transporting food and the world economy is in chaos?

Some nuclear explosions produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). An EMP can travel at the speed of light across a wide area and pack enough punch to wipe out or make unreliable electronic bank and business records, further adding to the economic chaos.

The radioactive fallout from one nuclear explosion can cover a wide area and last a long time. The Center for Defense Information has pointed out that nuclear weapons could not have been used in the Persian Gulf War without poisonous radiation destroying the countries we were fighting to protect (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) as well as our troops and our allies' troops.

And now, through the looking glass...

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp

One crucial factor is the failure of our intellectual and political leadership to clearly identify the nature of our enemy, to recognize that terrorism stems from a religious ideological movement that seeks our destruction and that that movement is widely supported by Muslim peoples and states.

What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy, but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power.

The question of what is in America's self-defense comes down to: What is the best way to make other nations non-threatening as quickly as possible? To consider this question objectively, one must be willing to consider all our options, including: quickly deposing terrorist and especially Islamic Totalitarian regimes, threatening the inhabitants with retribution if they threaten America again, and then moving on to ending support of terrorism by other regimes.

Doing whatever is necessary in war means doing whatever is necessary. Once the facts are rationally evaluated, if it is found that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities or flattening Fallujah to end the Iraqi insurgency will save American lives, then these actions are morally mandatory, and to refrain from taking them is morally evil.

It doesn't seem to matter all that much what Brook did or did not say to that young student, his published work is just as stunted, simple-minded, collectivist, and disturbing. I can't for the life of me find any difference between Brook's prescriptions, and that of someone suggesting 50 years ago that since the Soviet "threat" was driven by communist ideology, anyone giving "spiritual" support to communism ought to be murdered. And again, never mind the potentially devastating global consequences of utilizing modern nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.

All I can say is thank-be-the-heavens that history doesn't find us with these detached-from-reality-ivory-tower-lunatics possessing any actual efficacy or power in American politics; I'm reasonably sure that were it so, we'd all be dead.

RCR

Edited October 21, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[Victor Pross]

Christian, excellent post, man. I simply find it humorous, now that I think about it, that Perigo and key SLOP players have so closely aligned themselves with ARI that any criticism of ARI is a criticism [or a negative reflection] of them. That is, as they see it. But I doubt that the left hand cares what the right hand is doing.

And who are they anyway? Solopassion, that is. Does ARI even know or care about pompous Perigo and his chat-line head-bashing party? I think the “message” and perforations of my Perigo ‘follow the leader’ caricature are very true. Perigo does want to be seen by ARI as a leading force to be reckoned with in the whole Objectivist subculture. No doubt they—as we do—see him as nothing more than a blowfish narcissist with drawing room airs.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Russell]

I find it interesting that I see no link to the US Army, or any other branch of the military on ARI's website. It seems to me, were they to take their own zealous espousals seriously, they would be encouraging anyone and everyone to join up and crusade the goodly blood bath. It would take, afterall, quite a large military capacity to sufficiently pacify and destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Syria, as Brook recommends (one wonders if Brook has ever looked at a map of the Middle East). Come to think of it, I'm surprised that none of the authorities at ARI have enlisted themselves, integrity, it would seem, would demand as such.

Perhaps military recruiters should reach out to those ARI hawks who are gung-ho for a new crusade in the Middle East. These new recruits can call themselves the Yaron Brook Brigade.

Mick

Edited October 21, 2006 by Michael Russell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I am very tempted to agree with you:

Which is to say that Brook's previous comments aren't completely wrong-headed. What he's reacting to is the pacifist mentality that says it's our duty to take grave risks preserve innocent life. His reaction relative to the status quo is right on a basic level; but his reasoning is all wrong. E.g., his attempt to paint a picture of all the innocents being guilty to some degree is collectivist and obviously wrong: there's children there. In fact it is not our duty to sacrifice ourselves to preserve the life of innocent children in the aggressor nation. ARI offers chillingly anti-life rationalizations precisely *why* this is so, but that doesn't make what they are arguing for completely wrong (on the other hand, there's no way one could trust them to make correct application in real life).

(My emphasis.)

I think at the start of Brook's reasoning (and others at ARI), when he was in the "identify the problem stage," he correctly identified fundamentalist Islamism as a motivating doctrine of terrorists, the fact that there are Islamist countries that sponsor terrorists, and the fact that the USA Military exists to protect Americans, not the foreigners of an enemy country.

He goes south, though, by developing his reasoning with a strong dose of collectivism, arriving at formulations that are just as barbaric and tribal as those he claims are evil. Instead of arriving at the doctrine of fighting force with force and ideas with ideas (and individual rights for the innocent), he arrived at the conclusion that ideas must be fought not just with force, but with massive annihilation of those who hold Islamist ideas. He has stated this clearly in confirmed sources.

He denies the right to hold Islamist ideas. If that premise "takes," using force against ideas, then it is only a mere step to "identifying" other prohibited ideas. (Imagine what ultimately would happen to the Brandens! )

But there is another logical outcome dealing with the role of the military. I mentioned in an earlier post that when the military is given carte blanche to fight an enemy, it soon turns its guns on its own citizens (seeing the enemy among them). I have seen this with my own eyes in another country. I found it merely a logical extension of this premise when Barbara mentioned the Brook quotes, Perigo questioned Brook about them and he did not deny them, mentioning context (as reported).

Maybe there was a more restrictive and specific scenario when Brook uttered those phrases, but the fact that he even discussed the idea in public of the correctness of the American military turning its guns on American citizens shows how this kind of logic develops. And it never fails.

So with these observations, I find myself on the same page as you are (including your comments about subjectivism, intrisicism and the whole kit and caboodle).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Never mind, of course, the consequences of nuclear fall-out in the region, and the world for that matter. For example, what would happen to oil production, and consequently the world economy in the event of nuclear attack in the Middle East? Who wants radioactive oil? What about all of the other nations in the geographic region? And just how far is Israel from Iran? Nuclear winter? EMP?

Carl Sagan and his colleagues in their studies found that a war in which 100 megatons were exploded in low-yield airbursts over cities could ignite thousands of fires. The smoke from these fires would be enough to generate a Nuclear Winter, darkening and chilling the earth and reducing world food crops.

Christian,

By no means challenging your thrust that, thank (whatever), ARI-type folks aren't in a position from which they can make the military decisions, but you might want to do some checking about the idea of "Nuclear Winter." As best I understand -- and I hasten to say, I haven't studied this; I'm reporting what I hear from a subset of physicists I know (including Larry) who have done some studying of the issue -- the idea of "Nuclear Winter" has strong features of a scare-tactic idea, like anthropogenic global warming. This of course is not to say that the consequences of using nuclear weapons in the Mid-East would be anything but bad in terms of harm even to those attempting to "defend" themselves by the use of such weapons. But you might want to research the idea of "Nuclear Winter." Dan Ust on A2 might be a good person to ask re that idea (also re Carl Sagan's scientific rep more generally speaking).

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

As I understand it, this means that the quotes are accurate, but incomplete.

The quotes are damning enough in themselves, they're unequivocal. No matter how much qualifications you may add that for this or that reason you shouldn't really kill everyone with a T-shirt with Bin Laden, they don't leave any doubt about the principle that an American has the "moral right" to do exactly that. Anyway, this is completely consistent with other quotes from Brook that we've seen here, from which it is clear that he thinks that it is OK to kill people for the ideas they hold.

I've seldom heard such a lame excuse as that from Brook for not telling what he had said; Perigo: he asks that I not quote him in this context since to do so would grant the premise that the Barbaras of this world are open to rational argument and proceed in good faith. What a cowardly evader... No doubt the inmates of Solo will swallow uncritically this excuse and not ask difficult questions but instead point accusing fingers at Barbara for daring to suggest that there may be something rotten in the state of ARI.

[Brant Gaede]

As I understand it, this means that the quotes are accurate, but incomplete.

The quotes are damning enough in themselves, they're unequivocal. No matter how much qualifications you may add that for this or that reason you shouldn't really kill everyone with a T-shirt with Bin Laden, they don't leave any doubt about the principle that an American has the "moral right" to do exactly that. Anyway, this is completely consistent with other quotes from Brook that we've seen here, from which it is clear that he thinks that it is OK to kill people for the ideas they hold.

I've seldom heard such a lame excuse as that from Brook for not telling what he had said; Perigo: he asks that I not quote him in this context since to do so would grant the premise that the Barbaras of this world are open to rational argument and proceed in good faith. What a cowardly evader... No doubt the inmates of Solo will swallow uncritically this excuse and not ask difficult questions but instead point accusing fingers at Barbara for daring to suggest that there may be something rotten in the state of ARI.

ARI sullies Ayn Rand's name just by existing by turning her into the intellectual equivalent of that thing in Lenin's tomb. If all the arguments and premises of PARC are granted and the Brandens have done and are doing great harm and injustice to Ayn Rand, that'd still be only fractional compared to what the ARIans have done over the years. Specifically in this case it is not even neo-conservative hogwash, for the neo-conservatives don't provide ideological cover for genocide."We can do it if we want to, if it's necessary, in fact it would be immoral not to do it" is not a moral argument, but a pragmatic ejaculation letting the horses run wild. This destroys the moral heart of Objectivism if it is Objectivism, which it isn't. Certain people should return to their monastery and study Objectivism for another 30 years.

--Brant

Edited October 21, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[reason.on]

Never mind, of course, the consequences of nuclear fall-out in the region, and the world for that matter. For example, what would happen to oil production, and consequently the world economy in the event of nuclear attack in the Middle East? Who wants radioactive oil? What about all of the other nations in the geographic region? And just how far is Israel from Iran? Nuclear winter? EMP?

Carl Sagan and his colleagues in their studies found that a war in which 100 megatons were exploded in low-yield airbursts over cities could ignite thousands of fires. The smoke from these fires would be enough to generate a Nuclear Winter, darkening and chilling the earth and reducing world food crops.

By no means challenging your thrust that, thank (whatever), ARI-type folks aren't in a position from which they can make the military decisions, but you might want to do some checking about the idea of "Nuclear Winter." As best I understand -- and I hasten to say, I haven't studied this; I'm reporting what I hear from a subset of physicists I know (including Larry) who have done some studying of the issue -- the idea of "Nuclear Winter" has strong features of a scare-tactic idea, like anthropogenic global warming. This of course is not to say that the consequences of using nuclear weapons in the Mid-East would be anything but bad in terms of harm even to those attempting to "defend" themselves by the use of such weapons. But you might want to research the idea of "Nuclear Winter." Dan Ust on A2 might be a good person to ask re that idea (also re Carl Sagan's scientific rep more generally speaking).

I had this thought as I was writing the post (both with regard to nuclear winter, and Carl Sagan's status), and in fact, in my original draft I left it out completely. Then I put it back in, as something to consider...but, I didn't do any further looking to see how valid the idea of nuclear winter actually was. I'll do some more research. In the meantime, I'll revert to my original edit, and take it out, it isn't necessary for the point to carry.

I'll say something else I was thinking last night, but didn't write: Brook does pay lip service to the notion that he isn't in a position to make military recommendations, "What specific military actions would have been required post-9/11 to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism is a question for specialists in military strategy," However, it is difficult, if not impossible to read the full of Brook's text (which is consistent with other ARI writings) and not think that he was indeed making very specific military recommendations (nuke them all), and he has indeed already "objectively reviewed the facts", and come to a conclusion about what is necessary to pacify the Islamists, which Brooks makes perfectly clear in the same sentence (successfully talking out both sides of his mouth).

"but even a cursory look at history can tell us one thing for sure: It would have required the willingness to take devastating military action against enemy regimes—to oust their leaders and prominent supporters, to make examples of certain regimes or cities in order to win the surrender of others, and to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations, who enable terrorist-supporting regimes to remain in power."

RCR

Edited October 21, 2006 by R. Christian Ross

[sjw]

Ross: Ellen's right, and more so: all that stuff you said about radiation was wrong too. We could drop a bunch of nukes and it would have little consequence except for what would be destroyed. All that stuff they taught us in high school about how using nukes would poison everything is all nonsense.