Objectivists should come off as charming and charismatic

[BaalChatzaf]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Unfortunate. Cromwell was a bad general who wasted a the lives of his own people unnecessarily.

He only had one strategy. Breach the walls and the target town or city in two or more places, then have a lot of people run through the breaches.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Samson Corwell]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Sort of a morbid fact of life. I'm trying and failing to find a relevant quotation for this. I disagree with the tenet of Objectivism that says altruism is the cause/sanction of totalitarianism. Delusions of grandeur among the leader(s) and delusions of salvation brought by a messiah are the two things needed for a government or a movement to turn out terribly.

[caroljane]

"For how can man die better than when facing fearful odds/

For the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods?"

[Brant Gaede]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Sort of a morbid fact of life. I'm trying and failing to find a relevant quotation for this. I disagree with the tenet of Objectivism that says altruism is the cause/sanction of totalitarianism. Delusions of grandeur among the leader(s) and delusions of salvation brought by a messiah are the two things needed for a government or a movement to turn out terribly.

I'd say not the cause but the sanction. Religious and secular. And there seems to be a (tribal?) kowtow built into a lot of human psychology. (Ironically, a lot of people kowtowed to Rand. Not good for them and not good for her.) The cultural re-enforcement is massive*.

I was one of many tens of thousands of men who willingly went to war (Vietnam). After one year and knowing we weren't fighting to win, I left (1967). All the dead bodies I saw didn't help. Later--24 years later--I was even thinking of a way to get into the first Gulf War (1990-91). After 9-11 and Afghanistan I knew Iraq, before the invasion, was a crock and little Bush was American-religious pig-headed stupid-evil tough. (Not stupid and not evil. Stupid-evil.) Just a kind of negative synergy, each somewhat ameliorating the other. Figure that one out. I can't. Hitler was stupid and evil with positive synergy or stupid with evil deluxe. Looking back, my ideal job in WWII would have been as a 20mm anti-aircraft gunner on an American battleship in the Pacific. Highly dangerous but not too uncomfortable. In my actual case I didn't spend weeks in the field and we had servants. Cooking, housekeeping, laundry. I was almost killed. I wasn't an officer. I could have been, but the price was too high. Extra time in service. You had to either return almost everybody's salute or salute almost everybody and brown-nose. In WWII I'd have actually been an officer. If my eyesight was good enough I'd have piloted a B-17 into Germany and likely killed. I don't have that extra stuff--eyes--to be a fighter jockey or I'd have stayed in college, got a commission and rode one into North Vietnam. In 1964 when I left college there was no formal conflict and it would have been that kind of flying for its own sake. When I get the money I'm going to Russia and buying a ride in a fighter jet. I want it stood on its butt and accelerated straight up. I love that excitement and I'm not even an adrenaline junky, but I want that. It's a natural, hormonal thing for many young men. For them, going to war isn't so much about killing people, it's the damnable, focused excitement. (I can't speak for the guys in the rear--I don't care for the rear deal. I do know they were a lot saner about it all than I was.)

--Brant

*and controlling people with moral guilt

[BaalChatzaf]

My ambition as a young boy was to be a bombardier and drop 500 lb h.e. bombs on the germans and kill them dead. Alas, the war ended in 1945 and I realized I never would get to drop bombs. i think I cried. However things work out strangely. I worked for several years making thermonuclear devices and I had a hand in designing guidance systems for cruise missiles that were actually used in combat. Indirectly, I have blood on my hands and I am proud of every drop I helped to shed.

Ja. Vee build zem good in the Vaterland.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

In war you do tend to personalize the enemy. Killing Japs, killing Krauts. But that's on the ground or for civilians' imaginations. In the air it's generally about destroying a target. Same on the sea. That's because the man and the target are usually one on the ground. But a tank is a target. You want to destroy it. You don't think about killing the crew beforehand. The target is always primary.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Baal and Brant, you can both stop hinting now. Yes, you come across as charismatic and charming. A little crazy maybe, but definitely not boring.

[Francisco Ferrer]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Unfortunate. Cromwell was a bad general who wasted a the lives of his own people unnecessarily.

Ba'al Chatzaf

All wars are a waste of lives. By any fair estimate the Royalists should have won the Civil War: they had every material advantage. The Roundheads had very little going for them other than religious fervor. Cromwell, a man with virtually no military training, made the best of matters. See in particular this work.

[Francisco Ferrer]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Sort of a morbid fact of life. I'm trying and failing to find a relevant quotation for this. I disagree with the tenet of Objectivism that says altruism is the cause/sanction of totalitarianism. Delusions of grandeur among the leader(s) and delusions of salvation brought by a messiah are the two things needed for a government or a movement to turn out terribly.

Perfectly true, all of it. The fact remains: history is made not by the gods or economic forces but by great leaders.

[Samson Corwell]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Sort of a morbid fact of life. I'm trying and failing to find a relevant quotation for this. I disagree with the tenet of Objectivism that says altruism is the cause/sanction of totalitarianism. Delusions of grandeur among the leader(s) and delusions of salvation brought by a messiah are the two things needed for a government or a movement to turn out terribly.

I'd say not the cause but the sanction. Religious and secular. And there seems to be a (tribal?) kowtow built into a lot of human psychology. (Ironically, a lot of people kowtowed to Rand. Not good for them and not good for her.) The cultural re-enforcement is massive*.

Naw. The person who steps up to the plate and has their own self-serving title (Führer, Dear Leader, Chairman, Gardener of Human Happiness, and so on) delivers one message to the crowds who are suffering a crisis: "I'm going to save you.". The masses, whether starving, miserable, or both, look upon him as a shining ray of hope. A way out of the darkness and into the light. People accept his cause because they think it will help them.

When a few brave--or stupid--individuals decide to ask questions or criticize some portion of the elite's plan of action, they are ostracized or shamed and postured.

"Don't you realize that's bad?"

"That'll only help the enemy."

"You're a traitor!"

*and controlling people with moral guilt

And of course, they succeed by playing with people's emotions.

I was one of many tens of thousands of men who willingly went to war (Vietnam). After one year and knowing we weren't fighting to win, I left (1967). All the dead bodies I saw didn't help. Later--24 years later--I was even thinking of a way to get into the first Gulf War (1990-91). After 9-11 and Afghanistan I knew Iraq, before the invasion, was a crock and little Bush was American-religious pig-headed stupid-evil tough. (Not stupid and not evil. Stupid-evil.) Just a kind of negative synergy, each somewhat ameliorating the other. Figure that one out. I can't. Hitler was stupid and evil with positive synergy or stupid with evil deluxe. Looking back, my ideal job in WWII would have been as a 20mm anti-aircraft gunner on an American battleship in the Pacific. Highly dangerous but not too uncomfortable. In my actual case I didn't spend weeks in the field and we had servants. Cooking, housekeeping, laundry. I was almost killed. I wasn't an officer. I could have been, but the price was too high. Extra time in service. You had to either return almost everybody's salute or salute almost everybody and brown-nose. In WWII I'd have actually been an officer. If my eyesight was good enough I'd have piloted a B-17 into Germany and likely killed. I don't have that extra stuff--eyes--to be a fighter jockey or I'd have stayed in college, got a commission and rode one into North Vietnam. In 1964 when I left college there was no formal conflict and it would have been that kind of flying for its own sake. When I get the money I'm going to Russia and buying a ride in a fighter jet. I want it stood on its butt and accelerated straight up. I love that excitement and I'm not even an adrenaline junky, but I want that. It's a natural, hormonal thing for many young men. For them, going to war isn't so much about killing people, it's the damnable, focused excitement. (I can't speak for the guys in the rear--I don't care for the rear deal. I do know they were a lot saner about it all than I was.)

--Brant

Damn. How old are you, if I may ask?

[Samson Corwell]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Unfortunate. Cromwell was a bad general who wasted a the lives of his own people unnecessarily.

Ba'al Chatzaf

All wars are a waste of lives. By any fair estimate the Royalists should have won the Civil War: they had every material advantage. The Roundheads had very little going for them other than religious fervor. Cromwell, a man with virtually no military training, made the best of matters. See in particular this work.

Were it not for the English Civil War, there likely would've been no Glorious Revolution, and with that no classical liberalism. America and the world owes everything to Britain's political legacy.

[Francisco Ferrer]

In many respects the rebels did not go far enough. Had the Levellers prevailed, political privilege would have ended, natural rights given more emphasis, and Great Britain might have had a government resembling the early American Republic.

[caroljane]

I disagree that there would have been no Glorious Revolution without the Civil War. The forces of Protestantism vs Catholicism would still have remained strong and in opposition. The crucial factor was the childlessness of Charles II. If his father had retained the throne and Charles married off young to a fertile wife, bonehead James would never have been king and needed to be booted out.

[caroljane]

Also, England would not have been in hock to France through those secret loans, and there would have been little Continental interest in reclaiming England for Mother Church.

[caroljane]

Unlike ff I do not subscribe to the "Great Man Theory" or any theory of history, as it is not a science or an art, but it is interesting to look at this period and see how crucial the women were, if only as pawns. The three Catholic queens became the focus of Protestant fanaticism. Henrietta Maria for her influence on Charles 1; Catherine of Braganza as Titus Oates target (and as I mentioned, her not having an heir, and Charles II refusing to divorce her) and Mary of Modena reinforcing James's Catholicism. Of course it was all the fault of "the wisest fool in Christendom" for not marrying his heir to a Protestant princess in the first place.

[Samson Corwell]

In many respects the rebels did not go far enough. Had the Levellers prevailed, political privilege would have ended, natural rights given more emphasis, and Great Britain might have had a government resembling the early American Republic.

There's something unique about Great Britain, methinks. Culturally, they were relatively free of the monarch-worship suffered by other peoples in Europe. The citizenry of that country always had something of an everyman disposition.

[Samson Corwell]

To amend FF's "Great Men" theory, I'd suggest that leaders are necessary in some cases, but that there are also other people in any given movement who could be swapped into the top position. Lenin lead the Bolshevik Revolution, but his "comrade" quickly came to overshadow him. Though, Mustachio wasn't blindsided by the other Mustachio's prowess and ambition. A la Wiki:

About the Communist Party's General Secretary (since 1922), Joseph Stalin, Lenin reported that the "unlimited authority" concentrated in him was unacceptable, and suggested that "comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post." His phrasing, "Сталин слишком груб", implies "personal rudeness, unnecessary roughness, lack of finesse", flaws "intolerable in a Secretary-General".

I don't think Lenin should've been surprised. If you're the leader of an influential movement, you need to be aware of those who envy your power, which is why being a leader makes you a target.

[Brant Gaede]

Let's not overlook Lenin as the first class SOB he was.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

In many respects the rebels did not go far enough. Had the Levellers prevailed, political privilege would have ended, natural rights given more emphasis, and Great Britain might have had a government resembling the early American Republic.

There's something unique about Great Britain, methinks. Culturally, they were relatively free of the monarch-worship suffered by other peoples in Europe. The citizenry of that country always had something of an everyman disposition.

This is a very important insight. Some historians have traced the English people's distrust of absolutism to the relative democracy of early Anglo-Saxon tribes, whose leaders lived among them and ruled largely with their consent.

[Samson Corwell]

Let's not overlook Lenin as the first class SOB he was.

--Brant

I have absolutely no intention of doing that.

[Samson Corwell]

In many respects the rebels did not go far enough. Had the Levellers prevailed, political privilege would have ended, natural rights given more emphasis, and Great Britain might have had a government resembling the early American Republic.

There's something unique about Great Britain, methinks. Culturally, they were relatively free of the monarch-worship suffered by other peoples in Europe. The citizenry of that country always had something of an everyman disposition.

This is a very important insight. Some historians have traced the English people's distrust of absolutism to the relative democracy of early Anglo-Saxon tribes, whose leaders lived among them and ruled largely with their consent.

This is new to me. I didn't think of looking back that far. The Norman conquest of England most likely only served to reinforce it.

[caroljane]

In many respects the rebels did not go far enough. Had the Levellers prevailed, political privilege would have ended, natural rights given more emphasis, and Great Britain might have had a government resembling the early American Republic.

There's something unique about Great Britain, methinks. Culturally, they were relatively free of the monarch-worship suffered by other peoples in Europe. The citizenry of that country always had something of an everyman disposition.

This is a very important insight. Some historians have traced the English people's distrust of absolutism to the relative democracy of early Anglo-Saxon tribes, whose leaders lived among them and ruled largely with their consent.

This is true, but to my mind something of a romantic notion. The brutal imposition of the Norman feudal system after the Conquest destroyed that form of democracy, although folk memory (Robin Hood etc, although he was transposed from two centuries later)and later popular insurgents solidified a new English individualism.

[caroljane]

Going back even farther, Alfred the Great was the founder of England, and he was the least charismatic character you could imagine. Sickly, pious, a reluctant soldier, suffering constantly from a vague but debilitating ailment of the bowels. Yet there w0uld be no England without him (or his sons), and he is justly the only English monarch ever called the Great.

The other deserving of that name, needed no other than Elizabeth.

[Selene]

We should never underestimate the importance of a commander's personality in convincing men to throw themselves into the heat of battle. In that regard, Cromwell was brilliant.

Sort of a morbid fact of life. I'm trying and failing to find a relevant quotation for this. I disagree with the tenet of Objectivism that says altruism is the cause/sanction of totalitarianism. Delusions of grandeur among the leader(s) and delusions of salvation brought by a messiah are the two things needed for a government or a movement to turn out terribly.

Perfectly true, all of it. The fact remains: history is made not by the gods or economic forces but by great leaders.

Silly me, I heard it was made[written] by the victors. Winston Churchill whispered it in my ear one night in an awake dream. How he and Carlos Castenada got in our bedroom is beyond me.

[Francisco Ferrer]

This is a very important insight. Some historians have traced the English people's distrust of absolutism to the relative democracy of early Anglo-Saxon tribes, whose leaders lived among them and ruled largely with their consent.

This is new to me. I didn't think of looking back that far. The Norman conquest of England most likely only served to reinforce it.

The Normans actually suppressed de-centralism, giving the head of state allodial title to all property in the kingdom: an early form of government land monopoly. As a precaution against reprisals, the Norman overlords also placed some distance between themselves and the Saxon commoners, administering them from behind high stone walls. The Tower of London and a great many other fortified seats of power were built in the years after the Conquest. This was in stark contrast to the Saxon kings who ruled from the same level as their subjects.