RoR: Forum

And one other things, regarding Ms. Branden's essay:

There is coming a time in the very near future when all the rational and objective justifications for fighting Islam will all have been given, and those who still "remain unpersuaded" will be those who really had an adamantine anti-American emphasis inside them all along, and who were only ever pushing for the explainers to exhaust themselves trying... their strategy all along would then be to cite that exhaustion as "evidence" that the explainers really never had a leg to stand on, and thus were "wrong".

But I can decide to "prove" you wrong that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, by simply letting you try to show and explain it to me, and simply lie and say that "I still don't understand". The truth is -- and always has been -- that I understand perfectly, but I want to use lies of posturing to trick you and everyone else into believing that I really don't. We have to begin to see these oily sorts of mind-fucks for what they really are, and stop blaming ourselves... because that's exactly what these kinds of scumbags rely upon: our constant striving for good conscience while they operate completely unrestrained by any such thing.

In the end, all the rational arguments only ever served to bolster those who already knew better, and help the decision-making process for those who had yet to hear anything that actually made sense to them.

Past the point where our argument has been adequately made to those two groups, we should see those who still "fail to see" our point for what they always were: corruptly agenda-ed all along. We should then begin to stop talking and then simply start fighting these Tokyo Roses and monkey-wrenchers, but not before we have exhausted the rational argumentation option to its fullest. That cannot be overstated.

And yes, it is Islam we're fighting here, because the Islamofascists are the only ones truthfully adhering to the nightmare code that really is Islam, and hence it is only they who are really Muslims, and therefore it is real Islam that we're fighting. In other words, it is proper to say that we are really just fighting Islam.

Post 41

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 12:10pm

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 12:15pm

See below.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 10/16, 12:48pm)

Post 43

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 12:29pm

Andrew, Lindsey, Barbara,

Whether a given policy is or is not anti-American is NOT a matter of subjective opinion. Our objective knowledge of reality includes the fact that Americanism is individualism applied to politics: the objective fact that every man has a right to live his own life according to the judgement of his own mind, based on his own knowledge of the facts of reality, induced by his own mind from the evidence of his own senses.

By that criterion, George W. Bush has done more against America - against America as Americanism - than any President since John F. Kennedy. Josh Zader has invited me to write an article for Atlasphere on a related topic. That article should be published within the week; when you read it, please follow the hyperlinks to the evidence.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 10/16, 12:46pm)

Post 44

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 12:45pm

There is much to digest here, but let me just answer Mr. Stock for the moment:
Bush understood that to fight back against terror, we needed to get the Al Qaeda members AND to dismember state supported terrorism. He identifed the axis of evil as N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq. They surely are three of the biggest problems. However, N. Korea is a remnant of the war against communism. Evil? Yes, but not a case that particularly needs to be made today. Iran is certainly the biggest problem in the world today. However, Iraq was ruled by a man universally hated with a track record of killing his people, invading his neighbors and defying international law (which, sometimes, is a bad thing). With the outcry Bush received for invading Iraq, can you imagine the world reaction if he had pick Iran instead? I think that the statement against state supported terrorism had to be made against an islamic country, because..well, because that is where the problem is today and in the forseeable future. Iraq is an example, and after we get past the opportunissm of the Democratic Party in this election cycle, I believe that it will be clear that Iraq was the right choice. With Bush in the White House, know that the Iranian leaders are experiencing some sleep problems. They ought to be. Bush understands that they may have to be next and the Iranians understand that he understands.

Post 45

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 1:21pm

Derek McGovern wrote:

But naive though his Christian Fundamentalist view of Islam may well be, it is nothing compared with the frightening naivete of leftists and (many) libertarians alike who still maintain that the Islamo-fascists would have called it a day had Bush not retaliated after 9/11.

Which libertarians do you have in mind? I agree with that assessment, but to whom are you referring?

Post 46

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 3:09pm

"Yes, some of what Barbara describes fits many on the left and, perhaps, a few libertarians as well. But I don't think it defines the whole of either; neither the left nor the libertarians are a monolith, ideologically, philosophically, or culturally."--Chris Sciabarra

Well, this is a bit much. Barbara Branden refers to "a great many libertarians" and lefties vilifying America and attributing terrorism more to American foreign policy than to the ideology and choices of the terrorists. A great many do; this observation requires no assumption of "monolith." The following bit from Charley Reese, whose columns are published at LewRockwell.com, is typical of what you'll find at LRC. Reese believes that subjugating a province and liberating it from a dictatorship are exactly equivalent, morally. Now, perhaps one can argue that LRC libertarians are "just a faction," but if so, it's a fairly large faction. Like many libertarians, _context_ is one thing Reese feels unconstrained to consider when evaluating such an action of use of military force.

"What is the difference between Adolf Hitler's invasion of Poland and Bush's invasion of Iraq? There is no difference. Both were unprovoked attacks in violation of international law. Both were blatant attempts to achieve political objectives by force -- in Hitler's case, the annexation of Poland; in Bush's case, regime change. Morally, there is not a thread's difference between the bombing of Warsaw and the bombing of Baghdad."--Charley Reese

Post 47

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 3:19pm

What a ridiculous argument. It's like saying: because the United States didn't do enough to combat the 21years of declared war by terrorist states, the United States is to blame for 9/11. Is Leonard Peikoff 'blaming America' when he says that the problem of Islamic terrorist states might have been prevented if the U.S. stopped the nationalization of oil in these countries? No.

There is no doubt that the foreign policy of the U.S. has contributed to terrorist support. This is not to say foreign policy is the only thing to blame. It is still a culture war, and the terrorists still hate us because of our values. There is also no doubt that many Libertarian's don't think it's a culture war (blame Islam), but that's not a big deal because Bush doesn't either, that's why he attacked Iraq. Essentially, the only culture war that Bush is fighting is the one in America: the jihad against secularism, individual rights, and homosexuals.

Libertarians are voting for America.

Post 48

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 4:15pm

Jeanine,

You are not a good businesswoman. You should not have unleashed such eloquence--for free. Just when I was about to call you up to ask you how much you charge, you provide me, through the brilliance of your words, an experience far more ecstacic than anything I could ever expect from mere contact.

The pleasure of your elegance has drained me. But you are the poorer for it.

Alec

(Edited by Alec Mouhibian on 10/16, 6:08pm)

Post 49

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:23pm

Adam, you wrote: "Whether a given policy is or is not anti-American is NOT a matter of subjective opinion."

Certainly that is correct. But I didn't use the term -- although I referred to Revel's book on the subject. I was speaking of those who are "against America" in two senses: that they accuse America of flaws of which she is not guilty; and that their accusations do not serve the legitimate interests of this country.

Barbara

Post 50

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:25pm

Alec, sometimes a comment which perhaps was intended as humor, comes across as unattractive and nasty.

Barbara

Post 51

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 6:07pm

Barbara,

I am afraid that my comment was not intended as humor. It was the only response I could make to Miss Ring's post, that suppressed the true nastiness that it warranted.

I am sorry, however, that it offended you, and so I have de-vulgarized it.

Alec

Post 52

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 7:31pm

Jeremy Johnson wrote:

But naive though his Christian Fundamentalist view of Islam may well be, it is nothing compared with the frightening naivete of leftists and (many) libertarians alike who still maintain that the Islamo-fascists would have called it a day had Bush not retaliated after 9/11.

Which libertarians do you have in mind? I agree with that assessment, but to whom are you referring?

I was referring to libertarians who opposed Bush's war on the Taliban.

Post 53

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 7:42pm

Oh, yes, and please stop acting like Bush is actually tough on Islamic theocratic terrorists. Bush let the Northern-Alliance fight most of the ground war in Afghanistan, and has threatened the national security of the United States by attacking Iraq. In attacking Iraq, a country that was not linked to UBL or Al Quada in any way and would not have posed a threat to us even if Saddam had WMD, Bush has over extended our military to a point that it cannot target the REAL threats to this country.

*btw, WMD have been found in Iraq, and have been used by terrorists in Iraq. Bush's war has put WMD in the hands of terrorists, something the war was supposed to prevent. It is not Saddam who has given terrorists Serin gas artillery, but instead Bush's mistake.

Voting for an American-Jihadist, -misleading-, half-assed socialist is not a vote for America.

Post 54

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 12:52am

quote I didn't say either of those things, did I? In fact, I didn't think either of those things.

Jeremy, I'm glad to hear that. But your original post didn't say, "it's against America to vote for George Bush." (I think there are plenty of good arguments to be made that that's the case, and I'm sure we'll be hearing many of them from Adam soon.)

However, your post _did_ say, in essence, "it's against America to make the argument that not voting for Bush is against America." So I was perfectly entitled to assume that you were trying to place a certain argument outside the realm of patriotic discourse, and call bullshit.

I didn't enjoy voting for George Bush; I care a lot about legal abortions, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives, and the new Republican affinity for big government. And as someone who would like to live forever, I also want to see lots of stem-cell research, and other science that causes religious handwringers to form disingenuous "ethics panels"--led by self-anointed ivory-tower pseudophilosophers like Leon Kass--that exist more to obstruct science than consider it.

However, I also plan to live in Manhattan some day, and all the stem cell research in the world won't mean a goddamn thing if a nuclear bomb detonates a mile from where I live. I think we're in a real sorry mess when the only remotely hawkish candidate on the ballot is Bush, but that was the ballot I faced, and I voted accordingly.

I've heard all the Objectivist arguments that Kerry would fight a better (i.e. more secular) war, and I don't buy them. Forget his line about the "global test." Were you watching during the debates when he said we need to buy Iran off by giving them nuclear fuel and open bilateral talks with the North Koreans? What does he want to say to Kim Jong-Il that he can't say in front of South Korea, Japan, or hell, even China?

And Kerry's domestic agenda isn't all peaches-and-cream, either. Sure, Bush has his lame-assed attempts to pass an FMA, and his faith-based initiatives are a joke that ought to be defunded in order to buy bullets for our troops. But Kerry refuses to reform Social Security or Medicare, and even said we should commit ourselves to making them "pay-as-you-go" entitlements; he wants to further socialize American health care, which will cause far more harm than Bush's refusals to fund stem-cell research; his campaign rhetoric is riddled with protectionist nonsense, including the demagoguing of outsourcing and attacks on "Benedict Arnold CEOs"; he is all but guaranteed to accelerate the federal land grab by designating new wilderness areas and swamps (ahem, "wetlands") off-limits. I could go on. Hell, he can't even say he's pro-choice without spending 3/4ths of his time equivocating and blathering on about his Catholic faith. (And if there's one thing I respect less than a Christian, it's the poseurs who know that religion is horseshit and still manage to keep shovelling it in their mouths, all the while grinning as if it is the best thing they've ever tasted.)

RussK cites what he believes are Bush administration blunders in the war on terror, I suppose as reasons why we should either refrain from voting, or vote for Kerry or Badnarik, so we can switch from tactical blunders to outright strategic self-flagellation and retreat. Yes, the Bush administration let the Northern Alliance do much of our fighting for us. If they hadn't, post-war Afghanistan might have been much less welcoming toward a large occupying U.S. force. There may still be some religious elements in the new Afghani government, but if the recent elections--where women comprised 40% of the turnout--are any indication, it won't be recede into another Taliban-style theocracy. He states that Iraq "was not linked to Al Qaeda in any way," apeing a manufactured media lie. On this matter, see page 66 of the 9/11 Commission's report, www.9-11commission.gov/report/911report.pdf One of the many damning pieces of evidence: Iraq offered Osama bin Laden safe haven in 1998.

Post 55

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:01am

Derek wrote:

I was referring to libertarians who opposed Bush's war on the Taliban.

Oh, excellent. I agree. I'm glad to see you did not include Iraq.

Andrew:

One simple, completely benign question. The answer may--may--change my mind about not voting for Bush:

At what point do we not compromise any longer? Because, frankly, I see no end to the threats America faces. I don't have an answer for this. I've been searching for one for a long time, because I know that you guys aren't anti-life statists like Bush and must have some idea of when Bush isn't acceptable any longer. I don't miss much when it comes to the important things, and I haven't heard any mention of "Okay, here and here is where we stop, because such and such will be over with."

The only answer I can see to the raging tide of death steadily growing against the United States is to actually have a United States--the one that was intended. In all the arguments for Bush, or for Kerry, I haven't heard a single one that's for libertarianism--the political atmosphere that provides for a defense of America while leaving Americans free. Meaning, that ideal that's supposed to represent so much to us, that ideal we can't wait one second longer to have because it's been strangled by the kindly hands of compromise for so long.

So...where's the ending?

Post 56

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 1:58am

Pete, you wrote:

"Iraq is simply part one of a larger neocon program of global military domination. Mind you, it's not exactly a policy of conquest and imperialism, rather, it's more a view that the United States should spread democracy and serve as world's policeman (and reap the economic benefits and clout that such a position manifests)."

Sure, we want to dominate the globe militarily just as we dominated the other countries we helped, such as Germany and France. And the economic benefits of the Iraq war have been overwhelming: $120 billion spent, to say nothing of more than a thousands soldiers killed. As for clout, yes, the world is certainly afraid of us, which is why our supposed allies, France and Russia (not to mention China), were selling arms to Iraq which have been used to kill Americans, while we wondered why they refused to help us.

Jeremy, I really hoped my article would be READ before it was disputed. I did not say any of the things you suggest, such as that you must vote for Bush or be an appeaser of terrorism. I was referring to a particular type of liberal and libertarian who have devoted themselves to damning everything American and who blame most of the ills of the world on us, including terrorism.

And yes, Andrew, you are quite correct that I think a vote for Kerry is, to say the bare minimum, not in America's self-interest. Great line from your post: "So why is it that you get to accuse us of handing the U.S. over to religious fundamentalists, but we don't get to accuse you of--well--handing the U.S. over to religious fundamentalists?"Your posts are very good indeed.

Derek, thank you. I'm glad you liked my article.

David, the quote from Charley Reese is most appropriate: it is the reductio ad absurdum of the attitude I was criticizing.

I think the Dufur report, and the investigations that will proceed from it, should finally quell the insistence that Iraq was not a threat to us. It should, but it probably will not. Too many liberals and the libertarians to whom I referred, are true believers, which means that they will not be reached by reason .

Barbara

Post 57

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:10am

Barbara, I did read your piece. I'm not a psychic, and I'm not an idiot--why would I comment on something I hadn't read?

I agree with you. I think a vote for Kerry is detrimental as well. I just happen to also believe a vote for Bush is no better. It's this I singled out from the rest of your article:

It is George W. Bush, not Jacques Chirac, who understands the threat of Islamo-fascism. It is George W. Bush, not Vladimir Putin, who stands against the massed hordes that demand our extinction. If we turn against him and against America, as so many libertarians are doing, we will surely deserve whatever happens to us.

"If we turn against him". That means I deserve to be annihilated by terrorists should I "turn against" GWB, correct? Unless that first part only matters if I also turn "against America" (meaning I blame America for everything)? If so, and just thinking GWB doesn't deserve my vote will spare me because I don't also blame America for everything, then I'm safe and you're correct.

However, I was much more comfortable with my first assessment: that people who don't vote for Bush--or just don't think he's all that great--deserve whatever happens to them. And I don't give a fig about the context of the rest of the article--that last paragraph was a defense of Bush, laced with a moral ultimatum, and totally separate from the context of the rest of the article. Before that, the article was a good defense of America--mostly--and I didn't have much of a problem with it. (There were a couple of mentions of Bush in the second paragraph, but I didn't have a problem with those.)

What I find most astonishing--I suppose--is that when a man known to be a libertarian/Objectivist-type steps out and says "Hey I don't think that anti-life, statist Republican is such a great choice--in fact he's as bad as the rest" it's automatically assumed he's coming from Left-field. When did that happen? I'll happily criticize Kerry along with all the Bushites here-abouts, but Kerry wasn't the topic of the article--and he certainly wasn't the focus of that last paragraph.

(also, the title of the article says voting against America...I assumed that indicated the Presidential election...)

And if any other supporters of GWB are willing, I'm still open to an answer to the question I posed with Andrew.

(Edited by Jeremy on 10/18, 10:19am)

Post 58

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:46am

Jeremy, I want to remark about how enlightened that question (posed to Andrew) is. I think that - in reasonable discussions of politics - it deserves an answer.

An adequate answer will involve both enumeration (how many lives will be affected/lost by each of many action plans available) and gradation (how important are the variously protected ideals, over-and-above the lives now endangered by the many action plans).

There are ideals to protect and lives to protect (and ideals, protected, eventually save lives, just like the direct protection of lives saves lives).

We can run the numbers on expected lives lost, or affected, by action plans that lead to a variety of expected ideals lost or gained. We can estimate the effect of losing or gaining various ideals on the eventual outcome in terms of life-value.

Don't shoot me for sounding utilitarian here, don't confuse me with the unprincipled pragmatism of an appeaser/compromiser. Principled pragmatism (ie. Objectivism) is where it's at (we just have to be explicit and appropriately discerning about what it is that we are gambling with each action plan, and what probabilities does reality dictate for the losses or gains with each plan).

Don't fall into the mistake of stale thinking that "reason limits options" - reason opens up options and prioritizes them, furnishing the clarity of thought that distinguishes some options as decisively superior to other options. A man of reason can tell you about where each option leads - and how and why it leads to where it does.

Ed

Post 59

Monday, October 18, 2004 - 9:24am