THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[Robert Campbell]

Michael et al.,

A passage from Brook and Epstein's article in the first issue of The Objective Standard proves depressingly enlightening. (For the whole article, see http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp)

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.)

[The next paragraph quotes a familiar statement from Ayn Rand Answers, concerning the alleged complicity of every Soviet citizen not confined to a labor camp in the depredations of the Soviet regime.]

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.

Despite her statement about Soviet civilians--which I take, more than anything else, to express her utter contempt and disgust for Russian culture--I cannot imagine Ayn Rand ever writing the two paragraphs in which Brook and Epstein claim to net out its implications.

That is because their frame of reference is pure nationalism. Each individual Iranian is a mere fragment of the Iranian nation, inseparable in principle from the ruling council of ayatollahs, from the ruling council's chief flunky (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), or from any of the evil acts of that ruling council and its underlings. Even those who, at risk to life and limb, have fought against the theocratic regime are mere fragements of the same "aggressor nation," as much to blame for its behavior as those who wield the political power in Iran.

Brook and Epstein's nationalism obviously renders them incapable of making much sense of what is happening in Iraq. For if Iraqis are all components of a single nation, such minor details as the effective separation of Kurdistan from the rest of pre-Gulf War I Iraq, and the possible separation of Sunni and Shi'ite-dominated regions through civil war, entirely resist assimilation. (And in fact such matters are never mentioned in the article.)

More deeply, of course, it is pure collectivism.

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.

Any true freedom fighter caught in America’s fire understands the nature of the situation his nation has put us in, supports our cause, hopes for the best, and blames his government and fellow citizens for the danger he is placed in. He recognizes the principle that any innocent deaths in war are the sole moral responsibility of the aggressor nation.

Given the priorities that prevail among ARI commentators on this issue, the concessions made in these paragraphs are either hypothetical or hypocritical. The baseline, in a war against the "Iranian nation," would be killing every last Iranian. Any departure from that baseline could be justified only if it could be guaranteed that not killing some Iranians would leave total American casualties at the same level that killing every Iranian would--a number that Brook and Epstein presumably reckon as close to zero.

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.

Would they conclude that nuking wide swaths of Iraq, and the entire territory of Iran, are morally mandatory acts?

And if they didn't, what would actually stand in the way of such a conclusion?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I am not sure I understood your post. I hope I am wrong, but I understand the following:

1. It makes no difference to you whether a person is a Muslim or Islamist. They are all collectively the enemy.

2. You think I mewl.

Dayaamm! (That last one hurt...)

You write of Iranians:

If, knowing the homicidal philosophy of their rulers, they choose to remain under that rule without protest, are they not appeasing or condoning the philosophy that threatens our well-being here in the West?

There is protest, but you ignore it.

Another point first. Have you ever heard of SAVAK? This was a secret service organization that murdered and tortured droves of Iranians. This is what America offered Iran as the philosophy of the West. Years and years of it.

I know something about what it feels like when things are bewildering and cruel and foreign. I remember feeling the following in Brazil at times when things would got terribly unjust for me and didn't make any sense at all. This was at the time of the Vietnam war and before I learned Portuguese.

I would think, "This is the blues. I can't make any sense of all this damage, why people do this, and I can't make any sense of all that damage from that damn war and demonstrations and stuff back in the USA. If life is not going to make any sense, I might as well go back to the USA where it does not make any sense in English."

I have a feeling that there are many in Iran who accepted the erection of a fundamentalist Islamist system after overthrowing the Shah not because they "appeased," but simply because they chose the lesser of two evils: the choice being either SAVAK (USA sponsored) or the Islamist whip. At least they could read the Koran and try to make sense of it. They couldn't make any sense of SAVAK at all.

Regardless of how much you ignore the protest issue, there is an underground movement in Iran. We need to work with it and help it. The fact is that the situation is a holy mess over there and we strongly helped to create it. As with all messes, it is messy. Cleaning up will be messy. Going for an oversimplified solution - indiscriminate mass killing - runs the risk of committing very grave injustice. Such injustice creates long-standing hatred like it did with SAVAK and it creates other messier messes like you wouldn't believe.

Mass killing doesn't work anyway unless it is total or near-total. I find justifying this policy with examples from the Civil War or from bombing Japan in WWII silly. Look more to what Russia succeeded in doing with mass killing of Muslims in different places and see if that worked. It didn't, of course.

There is an intellectual war to be fought. Our military and, hell, even Bush, are doing a wonderful job so far. I don't like the occupation of Iraq, but I sure as hell liked the way Saddam's structure was dismantled. That goes for Afghanistan, too. So I say, let the military do their job. Iran's turn is coming. And I strongly disagree with ARI about how our military has performed.

We have another job to do. If we don't learn how to diffuse this Islamist situation on an intellectual level, it will always be with us and the price will be far worse down the road than today. Our inventors, bless their hearts, are coming up with more and more deadly and smaller lethal weapons every day.

Guess who will want to use them?

Look at the legacy we will give our children if we default now, or worse, make a bad mistake. If you want a notion, look at what we inherited from all the crap from the past.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Whether we are talking about children or adults, individuals or groups, nations or cultures, ultimately the only way to win a conflict is to win the will of those you are in conflict with. The only justifiable physical act against another is in self-defense. Intentionally bombing a nation or a culture out of existence can never be rationally justified as an act of self-defense. The main course of action must be to persuade those within aggressive regimes who are not aggressors, but are also victims of the aggressors, to reevaluate and reinvent their perspectives.

It is the very same principle that applies to good negotiating and good child rearing. When butting heads means everyone looses, recognize the reality of the other side's perspective, and negotiate to get the other side to willfully agree to cooperate with your desired ends to mutual benefit. This is how the Cold War operated for years until the victims of the regime finally came to understand the nature of their mistake and found their voice. This is not so different from how Michael is running OL and has come to approach situations with SOLOP and his dealings with Victor and Brant. (btw-- Michael, for your handling of this, you have my deepest respect.)

I'm not saying negotiate with the aggressors. I'm saying the innocent victims under the rule of the aggressors need to be educated and persuaded to understand that acting in their own interests is acting against the aggressors. If you don't give a shit about the people who are being abused everyday by some bastard, you will not win the will of those people. If you don't win the will of those people, if they don't see your actions as the one's that are to their benefit and the aggressors as the one's that will destroy them, then you will never win. If you are viewed as the aggressor, no matter how many you kill, there will always be others to rise up and fight. Is this not the lesson of the IRA?

We need to wake up and realize the war is not fundamentally about good and bad people. It is not about right ideas and wrong ideas. It is about beings who's nature includes free will. It is about the psychology and the philosophy of persuading that will in individuals to act for mutual benefit. The western values associated with freedom have evolved from the belief that human nature contains free will. If we do not honour this perspective in our dealings with other cultures, how can we expect to communicate it?

Destroy the aggressors. Collateral damage is an ugly fact of war. It should not be the goal.

But are they truly innocent? If, knowing the homicidal philosophy of their rulers, they choose to remain under that rule without protest, are they not appeasing or condoning the philosophy that threatens our well-being here in the West? And if they are doing so, doesn't that make them complicit in their leaders' goals and actions? Don't people have a moral responsibility to rise up against -- or at least to leave -- an aggressive slave pen?

I think it tends to conflict with their moral responsibility to stay alive. Probably, the development of their value systems is not complete. It's a funny thing about psychological beings; they are not born fully developed. As with their species, as with their culture, they are constantly in a process of evolution. Should we kill everyone who hasn't developed our values yet?

This exposes another little point about AR that stirred my drink the wrong way. If we are fundamentally philosophical, rather than psychological beings-- if philosophical premises are the foundation of our psyche, then we are good or evil based on whether or not our premises, especially those at the base of our values, are in alignment with our nature. Leaving aside the issue of discovering exactly what that nature is (Dragonfly keeps demonstrating that science points to something different than Objectivism tells us), this justifies the destruction (at least psychological destruction-- meaning the ignoring, devaluing and excommunicating) of anyone that does not share our premises if we deem (rationally or irrationally, with or without enough evidence?) them to oppose our values.

If we are fundamentally psychological beings-- if we develop a view of ourselves and our existence by evaluating, inventing, reevaluating, and reinventing our perspective, then we are constantly evolving beings who can more properly be assessed on a scale of healthy to unhealthy. We are not good or evil, as such, based on the nature of our premises. We are correct or mistaken based on the conclusions we have drawn from our experience. When we recognize we are all in this state of being, we attempt to understand and persuade others to reevaluate and reinvent their perspective when they oppose our values.

Bottom line, adopting AR's lens causes us to see others as being premise based machines, not evolving, exploring, self-creating beings. This is true even though it conflicts with other parts of AR's perspective. This opens the door for dehumanization in Objectivism. This is what we are witnessing with ARI, with SOLOP, and with the perspectives of some members here. This is what we witnessed in the excommunications of so many from AR's inner circle. This is one of the premises we need to correct.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert (Robert Campbell, that is),

I believe ARI tries to found "moral responsibility" for dictatorships and oppressive governments on all citizens on some of Ayn Rand's statements in her Q&A sessions as given in the recent book Mayhew edited (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q & A). On the ARI website, there is a section called Q & A with Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War. Here are the three Rand quotes given there:

Ford Hall Forum 1972: "A Nation's Unity"

Q: What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. The majority in any country at war is often innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves. Our only concern should be who started the war. Once that's established, there's no need to consider the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.

Ford Hall Forum 1976: "The Moral Factor"

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.

Ford Hall Forum 1977: "Global Balkanization"

Q: Can you defend one country attacking another?

AR: The source of this kind of statement is the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals, and if some poor, noncommunist blob in Soviet Russia doesn't want an invasion, we mustn't hurt him. But who permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war, and the citizens of that country keep their government in power. This is true in the worst dictatorships. Even the citizens of Soviet Russia—who did not elect the Communists—keep them in power through passivity. Nazi Germany did elect its dictatorship, and therefore, even those Germans who were against Hitler were responsible for that kind of government and had to suffer the consequences. Individual citizens in a country that goes to war are responsible for that war. This is why they should be interested in politics and careful about not having the wrong kind of government. If in this context one could make a distinction between the actions of a government and the actions of individual citizens, why would we need politics at all? All governments would be on one side, doing something among themselves, while we private citizens would go along in happy, idyllic tribalism. But that picture is false. We are responsible for the government we have, and that is why it is important to take the science of politics very seriously. If we become a dictatorship, and a freer country attacks us, it would be their right.

Rand's comments here are way too rationalized. Barbara's comments in Post 63 on this thread need to be repeated (and repeated as often as necessary).

As for the idea that the citizens of a statist country in some sense implicitly support their government, I consider this preposterous. Do you support our anti-trust laws? -- or universal health insurance? -- or the mess that is our public education? Should you be held responsible for them? And note that in Soviet Russia, Rand did not join the underground. Did that mean she supported the Communist regime? Did her family, who also did not rebel and who did not attempt to leave Russia, support it? I've never understood how she could say that the citizens of a country are responsible for their government, and should be held responsible for it. This seems to me to fly in the face of the reality of a dictatorship.

Back to Robert. You wrote:

Brook and Epstein's nationalism obviously renders them incapable of making much sense of what is happening in Iraq. For if Iraqis are all components of a single nation, such minor details as the effective separation of Kurdistan from the rest of pre-Gulf War I Iraq, and the possible separation of Sunni and Shi'ite-dominated regions through civil war, entirely resist assimilation. (And in fact such matters are never mentioned in the article.)

If ever there were an argument against the efficacy of mass killing breaking the spirit of a people, Saddam Hussein's own policies are such a refutation. They should have resulted in a pretty docile group over in Iraq. The sad truth is that the people were docile under him because he killed and killed and killed. But the only way he could stay in power was to keep killing and killing and killing. Why? Because the docility was not from being convinced but from fear. (Paul's post above is very good in focusing on the extremely important point of needing to convince people, not just subdue them.) How a victory by preemptive mass killing is continued in reality is only by continued killing.

On a ligher note (entertainment), you might be interested to know that on Noodlefood, in an entry dealing with Iranian President Ahmadinejad's silly saber rattling "bow and surrender" comment, the strangest thing happened in the reader comments. Justin Raimondo of all people showed up and started kicking their asses with simple questions. Typical answers, instead of dealing with the issues, were things like "Raimondo, you're a pig."

These people are so tribe-oriented that they don't see how this appears to outsiders - meaning that it appears like they simply don't give any answer of substance because they don't have one.

I am not a fan of Raimondo because of two reasons. The first is that his hatred of the US government is so strong and virulent that it is suicidal. The second is that his reasoning is the opposite of ARI's but he commits the same mistake: oversimplification. To him, the whole reason for the West's troubles with Islamism is that "we are over there." Nothing more. He does not see the goal of world conquest inherent in radical Islamism, or violently enforced anti-reason leading to deep hatred of the West's reason-based secular life, as a problem. (I also don't like professional denouncers. They are usually people with nasty temperaments who do not promote joy in living and what I have read of Raimondo puts him squarely there.)

He is an excellent source of "we are over there" type information, though, and what the USA has been doing over there all these years actually is one of the critical problems among several.

Noodlefooders to the rescue! Er... say what? Dayaamm! Unfortunately, Hsieh's claque, and even she, are simply not up to snuff to answer Raimondo's simple question of what America's real interest is in a possible war with Iran. Also, his charge that ARI's criticism of the just war theory is "a moral obscenity" is not even answered. There is merely more name-calling and bad-mouthing of libertarians.

How's that for intellectual ammunition properly used in a war of ideas to change the world?

Michael

[Dennis Hardin]

Paul,

I’m delighted that you found the quotations from Pipes (and the little Iranian pipsqueak) valuable. Not much has changed in the last 1000 years. I keep hearing the refrain from a Bob Dylan song about the insanity of war: “With God on their side…”

Roger,

I completely agree with you and that other person whose eloquent words were quoted in the last several posts. (I think her name was Rand or something like that.) She seemed to be arguing that we have the right to do whatever is necessary to keep our nation safe, and that it is immoral (i.e., altruistic) to try to minimize civilian deaths in aggressor nations if doing so could lead to the deaths of our own citizenry. (Jeez! What a wild-eyed radical!!)

NOTE to all of you eagerly sharpening your knives to carve me up for that last sentence: there is a difference—a major difference of emphasis—between minimizing (reducing to a minimum) and doing no more than what is deemed necessary to assure our national security.

Michael,

Thank you for your nice comment about my status as an “honored” friend. I sincerely appreciate that. You continue to do a commendable job of keeping this Objectivist forum respectable. It is wonderful to have a place to post my comments and not have to hold my nose while doing so. At the moment, however, my choice is between answering all of your points or getting a decent amount of sleep. In the selfish interest of my health, I will have to limit my response to the following:

Biddle consistently refers to Islamists and Islamism in his various statements about the proper actions to take against Iran. It is quite clear whom he wants to target. And, for the record, he did not explicitly advocate “nuking” anyone. On the other hand, I am sure he would not be opposed to using nukes if that were the most efficient means of obliterating the Islamists.

I completely concur with the content of the ARI editorials you have cited. I honestly do not see evidence of tribalism or genocide. (Do you seriously believe that a so-called Palestinian state would be used for anything else but a base of operations for a sustained attack on Israel?) As I have often said elsewhere, I genuinely wish that TAS possessed the moral self-confidence to speak with a similarly strong voice. I think the articles speak for themselves. They do not need a defense from me. I would simply recommend that people read the articles if they have not done so already.

(You assail Epstein for using “the tribal collectivist phrase ‘superiority of Americanism’." Wow! Tribal collectivist? Really? I honestly cannot bring myself to believe that you said that. Have you given out your password to any multiculturalist-libertarian nihilist-postmodernist pedagogues lately?)

There is an appropriate context for “doing business with” dictators and other countries that are considerably less than free. The private oil companies who provided their own technology to develop the oil in Arab countries did so to benefit western nations, including the United States. They have a legitimate property claim to the money, equipment and scientific ability they invested.

We often have to deal with corrupt or despicable governments--compensating them financially for use of their land, getting approval to use their air space, etc.--because we have no practical choice. The key point here is that we were the main beneficiary of such transactions. I agree that it would be morally wrong for a private company to give financial support to a slave state simply to expand its global reach or enhance its profit margin. In the case of oil, though, we are talking about the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The principle involved is that of our national self-interest.

(Of course, Biddle proposed using force to take back the oil fields which were previously stolen--"nationalized"--from private industry, not buying them.)

In a prior post, you invited me to join with you in “a war of ideas to change the world” as the best solution to world terrorism. My first post noted that fully half of Muslims world-wide openly support Osama bin laden. Of the rest, how many do you suppose sympathize with him, to some degree? Persuading even moderate Muslims to our point of view will require that they do a philosophical U-turn on a Rial and suddenly discover that life is more valuable than death. Lots of luck with that ambitious project, my friend.

You say that you are ready to advocate hard-line military strategy, but you appear to want to postpone that until all of our noble efforts to persuade the good Muslims have failed. In other words, until you and I have long since perished from the face of the earth. If it’s all the same to you, Michael, I would sorta like to do something now.

Dennis

[Roger Bissell]

I agree with the above post by Dennis. I don't find evidence of tribalism or genocide in ARI's foreign policy statements either -- nor in Rand's writings on the subject. They (ARI) make enough obvious mistakes without having to postulate ones that aren't there. At the very least, Michael et al have been going beyond the evidence in their allegations of tribalism and genocide or "territorial expansionism."

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

We will not convince each other, but at least we can keep each other honest. I appreciate your comments, even the ones I do not agree with. These issues are of crucial importance to our world right now and passions are running high. If we don't keep each other honest, we both run the risk of going too far in the irrational direction. Reality is the most important standard to keep before us, both of us. (I mean our sides of the issue, not just you and me.)

You asked:

(Do you seriously believe that a so-called Palestinian state would be used for anything else but a base of operations for a sustained attack on Israel?)

I actually believe I am in a position to say something about that because I personally know several Palestinian immigrants in Brazil. I used to know them real well (we have since drifted apart for reasons of normal life courses going in different directions). One even taught me most of what I know about making motion pictures.

How many Palestinians, immigrants or otherwise, have you ever talked to?

To answer your question, I agree that there would be a strong risk of a Palestinian country becoming a base of operations against Israel and safeguards would have to be put in place. I have a real problem with your "anything else but" comment. This is where I see collectivism creeping in. There is no possibility in your thinking that there might be a workable solution.

There certainly is a workable solution with the Palestinians I know. I know for a fact that my friends in Brazil, who have family over there, would either go back to live or visit frequently and they would vehemently oppose the use of the country for the purpose of waging guerrilla warfare or any other kind of warfare against Israel.

Also, as given in the ARI letter-to-the-editor, you don't seem to find waging war against an entire people, not just the government, a war of genocide. We certainly don't agree on definitions.

I also see you approve of doing business with dictators. Well, that comes with a reality and it is foolish for anyone who wants to do business with a dictator to ignore that reality going in. In the case of some countries, I see huge losses to American companies, but in the case of the Saudi Oil fields, it might be profitable to reflect on what actual loss has been suffered by American companies and personnel. What I see is they merely lost a piece of paper saying the companies own the fields. But those companies are still there and profits still look awfully good. Do you really want to kill people over that?

We actually agree on something.

I agree that it would be morally wrong for a private company to give financial support to a slave state simply to expand its global reach or enhance its profit margin. In the case of oil, though, we are talking about the lifeblood of our industrial economy.

Dennis, the reality is that "giving financial support to a slave state simply to expand global reach and enhance profit margins" is precisely what goes on out there. Atlantis does not exist.

You talk about oil. Ha! In Brazil they have an alcohol program where almost half the cars down there run on alcohol. It is cheaper to produce than oil, it doesn't pollute and it is replaceable. You can make alcohol out of many things, including garbage. The only reason it hasn't expanded is because the Brazilian government keeps the price artificially high with taxes to appease the oil companies (all of which, incidentally, produce and sell alcohol in Brazil - even the American companies there).

Bush finally woke up to this with his "addicted to oil" statement. Forgive me for saying so, but the lifeblood of oil companies is not foreign oil. Instituting a change in fuel would entail a collective effort with automobile manufacturers, but it is doable and not any more costly than oil exploration. Oil companies are addicted to keeping their government-protected monopolies in foreign countries in place for as long as they can get away with it. That is the real addiciton. (btw - This government protection of monopolies is often done by dictator governments.)

The final point you state shows me that I have not yet communicated well an idea.

You say that you are ready to advocate hard-line military strategy, but you appear to want to postpone that until all of our noble efforts to persuade the good Muslims have failed.

Whoever said wait? I certainly didn't. My point is that two efforts are needed. This first is a military effort and the second is an intellectual effort. They need to run side by side, not one in lieu of the other. (I will start some initiatives on OL before too long to show exactly what I mean.)

The USA needs to wage a war of ideas in addition to military actions. It has failed horribly with the Muslim population and even got into all kinds of trouble with the world population with things like preaching "weapons of mass destruction" where this threat seems to have been minimal.

But ARI? Dayaamm! ARI doesn't see a need whatsoever to sway Muslims. Just kill them and instill fear is fine. ARI is explicitly preaching military action ONLY, indiscriminate mass killing "if necessary," and no intellectual persuasion at all. ARI, as an intellectual organization, is a horrible failure in the war of ideas.

I stand by my tribal collectivist accusation against ARI. I have shown clearly where that tribal collectivist message is being preached and I will further back up my evaluation with more in-depth analyses of ARI literature as time goes on. It's ugly.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

ARI doesn't see a need whatsoever to sway Muslims. Just kill them and instill fear is fine. ARI is explicitly preaching military action ONLY, indiscriminate mass killing "if necessary," and no intellectual persuasion at all. ARI, as an intellectual organization, is a horrible failure in the war of ideas.

I stand by my tribal collectivist accusation against ARI. I have shown clearly where that tribal collectivist message is being preached and I will further back up my evaluation with more in-depth analyses of ARI literature as time goes on. It's ugly.

Michael

Michael, you seem to be forgetting one very important point. The radical fundamentalist Muslims explicitly state their intentions, and they back it up with action, of killing those who disagree with them. Three words: "Theo Van Gogh." Nuff said? How about: "Danish cartoons"?

You want to dialogue with these people? You hope to exert "intellectual persuasion" on them?

Come on!

The only thing they understand is force or the threat of force -- because that is their philosophy! Got it? They believe in the initiation of force, because Allah tells them to kill the infidel, to wipe out those who offend them.

As for the genocide/tribalism issue...do you or do you not think that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "tribal and genocidal"? If so, we need to talk. If not, you need to rethink your position about ARI vs. Iran.

Iran has attacked us. Up until now, we haven't really fought back. But if we attack Iran tomorrow, would that constitute an initiation of force, in your mind? Or would it be -- ill-advised or not -- a retaliation against their decades of attacks and assisted attacks, for the purpose of the defense of American rights?

In my mind, the ~only~ consideration about whether to attack Iran is whether we can topple their regime without involving U.S. troops and weapons and endangering more American lives. If so, then the ~only~ consideration about whether to use a few big bombs rather than many small ones (bullets) is whether we can defeat them and protect American lives without the big bombs.

Collateral damage happens in war, and insofar as we are acting in self-defense, it is not our fault, as long as it is the minimum reasonably ascertainable use of force in order to defeat the enemy. I am not surprised that ARI thinks that wiping out governmental and higher educational institutions is included in that minimum amount of force. I am not surprised either to know that they think nukes should be considered as an option.

No one would be happier than I if, tomorrow, the Iranian people rose up and threw out their ~truly~ genocidal leaders (who want to obliterate Israel, not just defeat it). But do you honestly think that "intellectual persuasion" is going to make that happen? Hah. Try waving a big stick instead. That ~might~ work. If not, then start using it. I don't think ARI is saying any more than that.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

It must be something in the way I am saying it.

Michael, you seem to be forgetting one very important point. The radical fundamentalist Muslims explicitly state their intentions, and they back it up with action, of killing those who disagree with them. Three words: "Theo Van Gogh." Nuff said? How about: "Danish cartoons"?

You want to dialogue with these people? You hope to exert "intellectual persuasion" on them?

I have explicitly stated that I do not want "dialogue" (please read it in a post above - it's there as big as brass). Also, I have explicitly stated that my target for persuasion is not radical Islamists.

Yet here you are explicitly asking if I want "dialogue" with "radical fundamentalist Muslims." (Your words.)

What do I have to do to get the idea across? Seriously. Am I the one you are really arguing with?

If you can't understand what I am saying on this very elementary level, we have no basis for rational dialogue with each other. So let's start with that. Do you have any idea of who I am talking about addressing? Then we can move on to the rest.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

A single question to anyone who cares to answer: Is the voice of Biddle and ARI of “one mind” on this issue? Most everyone seems to speak in such a way as to discredit an individual by merely waving a wand over them and saying "he supports ARI" [regardless of that specific individual’s stand] and that is meant to make their credibility and moral stature disappear.

Personally, for the record, what I have read and know of Biddle...makes me sick. And this is coming from someone who does not shy away from wishing the most horrific death to those who are *truly* evil, the big E evil. I’m not a pacifist…and yet I loathe Biddle’s stand.

[Rich Engle]

Eh, I guess we shouldn't worry about him too much. Looks like your standard issue chickenhawk to me. These kind are always around. Somewhat of a PR nastiness for ARI, I would suppose. Maybe?

These ones are always around, one way or another. Let me as you a question: do you think he is prominent enough to actually make any of that dreck happen? I'm guessing no.

[Victor Pross]

Rich,

You asked:

"These ones are always around, one way or another. Let me as you a question: do you think he is prominent enough to actually make any of that dreck happen? I'm guessing no."

Rich, I asked a fairly similar question regarding the significance of Biddle's profile in the public eye.

Barbara answered the question very well, and so I commit her response to you for consideration [in case you missed it before].

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

Victor

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

It must be something in the way I am saying it.

Michael, you seem to be forgetting one very important point. The radical fundamentalist Muslims explicitly state their intentions, and they back it up with action, of killing those who disagree with them. Three words: "Theo Van Gogh." Nuff said? How about: "Danish cartoons"?

You want to dialogue with these people? You hope to exert "intellectual persuasion" on them?

I have explicitly stated that I do not want "dialogue" (please read it in a post above - it's there as big as brass). Also, I have explicitly stated that my target for persuasion is not radical Islamists.

Yet here you are explicitly asking if I want "dialogue" with "radical fundamentalist Muslims." (Your words.)

What do I have to do to get the idea across? Seriously. Am I the one you are really arguing with?

If you can't understand what I am saying on this very elementary level, we have no basis for rational dialogue with each other. So let's start with that. Do you have any idea of who I am talking about addressing? Then we can move on to the rest.

Michael

Michael, I'm sorry I got off track talking about persuading the fanatical Muslims, as though that were your view. I was bouncing off something that Dennis wrote, and I didn't refresh my understanding of the context before writing my post.

Now, I'm well aware that you talked in post 123 about trying to persuade the "good Muslims" to publicly take a stand supporting secular Western values. But I think this is worse than useless. It is suicidal for any "good Muslims" to do this, and it is cruel to even think of asking them to do so. I couldn't believe you were serious in advocating it.

Why? Because the results would be a kind of bizarre marriage of jihad and whack-a-mole. Any "good Muslim" that pops his or her head up to endorse Western secular values and rights will promptly have it handed to his next of kin in a grocery bag. That is what the fundamentalists do to those who flout them, most ~especially~ those who claim to represent their faith.

The ~only~ possible value in talking to "good Muslims" about the Muslim vs. Western culture problem is to try to convince them that, unless Iranians figure out a way to depose their fanatical leaders, all is lost for Iran's regime, and a good number of those who do not get out of harm's way before it is too late. But deposing the madmen running Iran will not happen by trying to get moderate Muslims to public endorse McDonald's and voting for women and free speech.

We have been fed the illusion for years that if only we are patient enough, the liberalizing, Westernizing trends in Iran (and the Arab World) will bring them around to tolerant, civil governments and foreign policies. These trends are grid-locked, and the reason is that Muslims of less-than-fullscale jihadist sentiments are scared stiff to say anything for fear of being beheaded or worse. And this will continue to be the case as long as the ayatollahs are running things, and the U.S. does not adequately kick ass.

I know there are protestors and dissidents in Iran, but I'm afraid that they are and will be impotent, as long as the regime is not faced with imminent disaster. And that disaster is what we should be focused on bringing about, with as little loss of life, especially American, as possible, but with whatever is necessary to do the job.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

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.

It's a big world out there. ARI feeds are not enough to get proper information on it. They are tribal collectivists and provide distorted information on purpose to further their tribe. (For proof, look at the information in ALL the other areas where ARI provides information about the world, from the writings of other philosophers, to science, to the arts, to the Brandens, and so on. Misinformation and biased "pruning" of information are their habitual fare.)

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Victor,

I wouldn't assume that every member or affiliate of the Ayn Rand Institute subscribes to the same brand of bellicosity as Craig Biddle.

But I see near-complete consistency between Biddle's recent bloviations on total war and the long article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, earlier this year, opposing "just war" theory. I see substantial agreement between Biddle and Leonard Peikoff, in that full-page ad in the New York Times from 2001. (Substantial but not total, as Dr. Peikoff was then agitating for an invasion of Iran by American ground troops, which Mr. Biddle would presumably find too costly in American soldiers' lives.)

And, unlike some organizations, ARI has designated spokespeople and a party line, on a wide range of subjects. Mr. Biddle appears to be expressing the party line on matters military. (If he were not, I would expect, at the very least, a sharp public critique of his views out of some highly placed ARIan. And I know of nothing of the sort.)

Needless to say, neither Craig Biddle nor anyone else at ARI is in a position to influence the foreign policy or the military plans of the US government. I suspect that some of the reckless disproportionality that is evident in Mr. Biddle's formulations has come about precisely because he doesn't expect anyone in a position of authority to listen to him. (This is not to deny that persons in authority in the USA will sometimes pay heed to wacky views--otherwise, how could one account for the leverage attained by someone like Paul Wolfowitz?).

Obviously Mr. Biddle's sanguinary editorializing does make Objectivism look bad, in the eyes of many who accord legitimacy to the Ayn Rand Institute's pretensions to represent Objectivism. But ARI's leaders and spokespeople do quite a few other things that make Objectivism look bad, to just about anyone who is not an ARI acolyte.

The deeper question isn't even whether Mr. Biddle's views should be considered expressions of Objectivism, or of "Objectivist philosophy". Their status as such is debatable, under the ARIans' own stated criteria. His remarks are consistent with certain themes in Ayn Rand's thought--and grossly inconsistent with others that present company, at least, would consider sounder, as well as more fundamental.

The deeper question is whether Mr. Biddle's views are right.

Like several other participants here, I'm prepared to argue that they are deeply wrong.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

As a complement to Robert Campbell's post, let me add that Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard.

I don't know if there is any official tie-in between this magazine and ARI, but major senior ARI writers contribute to it, including Yaron Brook, president and executive director of ARI. John Lewis is Contributing Editor of the magazine. Here is a list of other The Objective Standard writers given on the TOS website:

Andrew Bernstein

Dianne Durante

Alex Epstein

Alan Germani

Gena Gorlin

David Harriman

Elan Journo

Edwin A. Locke

Keith Lockitch

Richard M. Salsman

Larry Salzman

C. Bradley Thompson

Lisa VanDamme

Craig Biddle also has a website: Craig Biddle: Objectivist Speaker & Writer.

You asked:

Is the voice of Biddle and ARI of “one mind” on this issue?

In light of Robert's post and the above information, what do you think?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Roger and Dennis,

It's important to distinguish between Islam, which has been around for nearly 1400 years, and Islamic fundamentalism, whose variants go back less than 100 years.

In her book The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong points out that Islamic fundamentalism has in common with Christian fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism the fact that it is not a genuine return to older and presumably "purer" versions of the religion. Much about it is of recent origin, developed in reaction to modern trends that threaten the faith. The doctrine that legitimizes the present theocracy in Iran--Velayat-e-Faqih, or rule by the top Islamic jurist--was invented by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It has affinities with past Islamic endorsements of authoritarian rule, but is not identical with any of them.

Islam per se has plenty of problems with it. As do Judaism and Christianity. (If you read her book, you will see that Armstrong is inclined to sanitize all three religions, in somewhat different ways. But these biases aren't too difficult to correct for.) In no case, however, should any of these religions should be identified with its fundamentalist versions.

With fanatics who crave the establishment of a new Islamic empire, or fancy themselves part of an Islamo-Leninist revolutionary vanguard, efforts at persuasion will be useless. But most Muslims do not appear to be committed to Islamic imperialism or Islamo-Leninism. They might even prefer to live their lives without being ordered around by empire-builders and bloodthirsty revolutionaries.

Robert Campbell

[Roger Bissell]

Roger and Dennis,

It's important to distinguish between Islam, which has been around for nearly 1400 years, and Islamic fundamentalism, whose variants go back less than 100 years.

In her book The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong points out that Islamic fundamentalism has in common with Christian fundamentalism or Jewish fundamentalism the fact that it is not a genuine return to older and presumably "purer" versions of the religion. Much about it is of recent origin, developed in reaction to modern trends that threaten the faith. The doctrine that legitimizes the present theocracy in Iran--Velayat-e-Faqih, or rule by the top Islamic jurist--was invented by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It has affinities with past Islamic endorsements of authoritarian rule, but is not identical with any of them.

Islam per se has plenty of problems with it. As do Judaism and Christianity. (If you read her book, you will see that Armstrong is inclined to sanitize all three religions, in somewhat different ways. But these biases aren't too difficult to correct for.) In no case, however, should any of these religions should be identified with its fundamentalist versions.

With fanatics who crave the establishment of a new Islamic empire, or fancy themselves part of an Islamo-Leninist revolutionary vanguard, efforts at persuasion will be useless. But most Muslims do not appear to be committed to Islamic imperialism or Islamo-Leninism. They might even prefer to live their lives without being ordered around by empire-builders and bloodthirsty revolutionaries.

Robert Campbell

Robert, I thought I ~was~ distinguishing between the Islamo-fascists aka fanatical fundamentalist Muslims on the one hand the reasonable, "good Muslims" on the other hand. I certainly agree with what you say in this post.

Except you suggest that some sort of persuasion of the reasonable, "good Muslims" is necessary (for what?) and possible. If you mean, we should try to get them to "come out" and publicly support free speech and secular Western values like rights and civility, how long do you think it will be -- if they are at all effective and well-spoken and get decent publicity -- before the jihadists will do a Red Queen number on them? Never was a group more understandably deserving of the term "Silent Majority." Indeed, they well ~may~ "prefer to live their lives without being ordered aroundby empire-buildersand bloodthirsty revolutionaries." But say it out loud? You want to persuade them to do ~that~?

We are too used to our largely free society to have much of a feel for what it must be like to live in Muslim-dominated societies -- or even societies with a large Muslim minority, like France. Topless bathing outlawed. My god, what's next? Well, we know what happens if you make a cartoon or a movie that pokes fun at Mohammed. "Off with their heads!"

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

(1) 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. (2) Once you learn more (should you ever learn someday), I am certain that you will wonder what on earth you were thinking.

I am all for evidence and learning facts, and I'd appreciate hearing some instead of just references to them. But I'm also all for logical coherence, and certain things just don't make sense to me. For once thing, the opening paragraph of your post (quoted above). Specifically, I am curious as to how you reconcile comment (1) with comment (2). Seems more catty than anything.

I am also curious as to how you would explain away or minimize the significance of Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, and the Mohammed cartoons in regard to hoping to ally the reasonable Muslims as public supporters of Western secular values (rights, civility, etc.) and public opponents of the Islamo-totalitarians.

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Victor,

I wouldn't assume that every member or affiliate of the Ayn Rand Institute subscribes to the same brand of bellicosity as Craig Biddle.

But I see near-complete consistency between Biddle's recent bloviations on total war and the long article by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, earlier this year, opposing "just war" theory. I see substantial agreement between Biddle and Leonard Peikoff, in that full-page ad in the New York Times from 2001. (Substantial but not total, as Dr. Peikoff was then agitating for an invasion of Iran by American ground troops, which Mr. Biddle would presumably find too costly in American soldiers' lives.)

And, unlike some organizations, ARI has designated spokespeople and a party line, on a wide range of subjects. Mr. Biddle appears to be expressing the party line on matters military. (If he were not, I would expect, at the very least, a sharp public critique of his views out of some highly placed ARIan. And I know of nothing of the sort.)

Needless to say, neither Craig Biddle nor anyone else at ARI is in a position to influence the foreign policy or the military plans of the US government. I suspect that some of the reckless disproportionality that is evident in Mr. Biddle's formulations has come about precisely because he doesn't expect anyone in a position of authority to listen to him. (This is not to deny that persons in authority in the USA will sometimes pay heed to wacky views--otherwise, how could one account for the leverage attained by someone like Paul Wolfowitz?).

Obviously Mr. Biddle's sanguinary editorializing does make Objectivism look bad, in the eyes of many who accord legitimacy to the Ayn Rand Institute's pretensions to represent Objectivism. But ARI's leaders and spokespeople do quite a few other things that make Objectivism look bad, to just about anyone who is not an ARI acolyte.

The deeper question isn't even whether Mr. Biddle's views should be considered expressions of Objectivism, or of "Objectivist philosophy". Their status as such is debatable, under the ARIans' own stated criteria. His remarks are consistent with certain themes in Ayn Rand's thought--and grossly inconsistent with others that present company, at least, would consider sounder, as well as more fundamental.

The deeper question is whether Mr. Biddle's views are right.

Like several other participants here, I'm prepared to argue that they are deeply wrong.

Robert Campbell

As far as Objectivism is concerned it is irrelevant if they are right or wrong. It is wrong to take the name of a dead philosopher of stature and pretend that somehow your views would have been her views if she were alive. Maybe yes, maybe no. But she is dead and it is absolutely illegitimate to pretend in any respect otherwise or to give your personal views her gravitas. Okay to say they are consistent with Objectivism, although that would not be my personal frame of reference, but don't throw her name directly into it by creating and using an "Ayn Rand Institute."

His views are deeply wrong because egoism has no commonality with Nazism, which more than any one thing is associated in the public mind not with totalitarianism or socialism or even war-mongering, but with genocide. Linz damned Barbara Branden for this and he damned her for that, but he never damned anybody for infesting his Web site with such advocacy. Instead he celebrated it as "KASS." And it's not even justified militarily, so it was completely gratuitous. Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students. It is possible that pilots could be given such bombing coordinates not knowing what the targets actually were. But I doubt that the responsible officers would give out such coordinates even by a direct order from the Commander-In-Chief who would be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office in a heartbeat. It is only some nuts associated with an institute in Southern California called the "Ayn Rand Institute." Lastly, imagine a John Galt or Howard Roark going into a religious school and machine-gunning the students. Something wrong with your imagination?

--Brant

Edited September 27, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Victor Pross]

Brant wrote:

"His views are deeply wrong because egoism has no commonality with Nazism, which more than any one thing is associated in the public mind not with totalitarianism or socialism or even war-mongering, but with genocide. Linz damned Barbara Branden for this and he damned her for that, but he never damned anybody for infesting his Web site with such advocacy. Instead he celebrated it as "KASS." And it's not even justified militarily, so it was completely gratuitous. Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students. It is possible that pilots could be given such bombing coordinates not knowing what the targets actually were. But I doubt that the responsible officers would give out such coordinates even by a direct order from the commander-in-chief who would be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office in a heartbeat. It is only some nuts associated with an institute in Southern California called the 'Ayn Rand Institute.'"

Um...Mr. Bissell....sir? Um....isn't Brant's point, here, what the real issue is all about? This is what we are talking about. Just a thought.

[Rich Engle]

I don't spend much time attempting to understand the ARI party lines on anything, but I do notice more of the same nastiness in O-world in general. Look at how it got started up over on SOLOP:

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

They're all enjoying fantasizing about blowing up various monuments and ancient seats of civilization.

It's easy to be cavalier, and callous, when you're a chickenhawk. If you look at all that ivory tower saber-rattling, it's not any different from fanatical groups talking about blowing up things over here. All very sad, really.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Thanks for the reality check. After reading a lot of material recently heartily and gleefully proposing massive bloodshed - and essentially blaming it on the victims, I started wondering where sanity was going. But you reminded me of just how great this country is, where even soldiers in battle will do the right thing without needing any convincing.

Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students.

God bless America.

(Guess where that came from?)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Let me say this: There is not a single US military unit that would go into a school or church and machinegun clerics and students.

That's it, really. That's the difference between the civilized, and the murderous animals of the world. The second you cross over, you become them.

Unfortunately, whatever the solutions involve are always much more complex than just lobbing your junk into the village and baking the locals. If it were only that easy; it's not. Not if you are not an animal.

I'm telling you-- all this stuff is not a bit different than when you hear self-proclaimed tough guys talking smack in a bar about how they handle things. Most of 'em, you poke them in the eye and they cry like little bitches.

How do I know that? I've had to poke a few in the eye, and they cried like little bitches.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

In any case, Biddle’s pedagogical blood-thirsty blustering bombast is pathetic for two essential reasons: [a] he is not a military strategist and he is not an intellectual heavy-weight—but rather An “Objectivist” catechist of the True Believer ilk.

Biddle makes me cringe with embarrassment. He sounds like any garden variety low-life white trash that you might come across at the local tavern --except he wears a tie and has a larger vocabulary. Biddle, shut your pie-hole!

Edited September 27, 2006 by Victor Pross