About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Thursday, January 25 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

South Korea and Japan are financially rich and scientifically advanced nations. So are Germany, Britain, France, and many others in Europe. Despite their current perceived and actual weakness, they can easily use their immense wealth and technological expertise to create extremely powerful militaries with which to defend themselves. There's absolutely no need for America to violate George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's dictum against forming "entangling alliances" with them. There's absolutely no need for America to have military bases in their countries, and to give treaty promises to defend them at a far higher level than they can decently repay. There's absolutely no need to treat them like helpless women in a rainstorm and protectively place them under America's "nuclear umbrella".

These bases and promises embarrass and humiliate them. They make South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, etc. deeply resent, secretly resist, and openly hate America. In 1991 the Philippine Senate condemned the U.S. bases there as "a vestige of colonialism and an affront to Philippine sovereignty". As Cato Institute scholar John Glaser noted in 2016 "such resentment can be extreme" and "can linger for generations".

These insulting military bases and patronizing treaty promises cause these natural Western Civilization friends and allies -- which share so many values and have so many common interests -– to become de facto enemies and traitors to each other. This phenomenon is outrageous and absurd. And so unnecessary. The natural, normal, healthy, happy unity and harmony of the West is being crushed by it.

Moreover these unneeded and counterproductive bases and promises emasculate South Korea, Japan, Germany, et al. They take natural warriors and heroes, and turn them into craven weaklings and submissive sissies. They make them passive and defeatist. But if the inappropriate bases were withdrawn, and the treaties radically rewritten, then these potentially noble and respectable Western powers would almost immediately acquire a backbone. They would almost instantly grow a set of much-needed testicles. No longer would these massively superior nation-states be desperate to surrender to the first disgusting communist country or pitiful Muslim state they could find. All these Western powers would rise up mightily and become a military colossus, with an irresistible will to triumph, which the non-Western savages and barbarians would respect, fear, and fawningly tremble before.

No longer would South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, and the rest be abject and impotent appeasers of evil. No longer would they be and repellant and bizarre "surrender monkeys" eagerly seeking out weak and failed commie and muzzie nations to servilely bow down before and shamefully submit to.

Once these great Western nations became far more equal to America, and far more self-loving and self-respecting, then the personal friendship and military alliance between them would blossom and surge dramatically. The mutually-beneficial partnership between these relatively civilized and heroic nations would become far more stable, trustworthy, formidable, and awesome. But it can't happen until these accursed, one-sided, dependence-creating, feminizing, corrupting, subverting, bases and treaties are terminated. Such a bold act would be a psychological game-changer for the whole world. It's high time America both lets and makes her friends and allies stand on their own two feet!



Post 1

Saturday, January 27 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I hope my foreign policy essay above didn't overly shock everyone! Ultimately, I have a lot of confidence in Europe and the non-American West. I'm baffled that they haven't fought back far harder against the Communists and Muslims since 1945. I can't believe America is the only worthwhile or decently heroic nation left on earth.



Post 2

Sunday, January 28 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I agree with Washington and Jefferson's warnings on foriegn entanglement.  But, there might be a value to the American citizen's safety by having a base on this or that foriegn soil - purely for the military advantage it provides and that is the way it should be decided.  Ships move slowly and benefit from forward staging.  Aircraft have limited  range and they to benefit from foriegn staging.

 

Also, I doubt that the nations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, etc. are all feeling patronized, are embarrassed, humiliated, insulted, and emasculated.  I also believe that removing all of these bases would not immediately cause those nations to "instantly grow a set of much-needed testicles".  What goes on in their nations is as much a matter of factions and a clash of opposing opinions as it is in our country.  Ideas in their cultures are driving their issues.  Moving bases out wouldn't provide the change you predict.

 

Mostly, I think that America's focus must be on effective military defense and not attempt to forecast what would change the foriegn policy and patriotic energy in other countries.  We would both agree that there is no moral need to defend other nations with our military - each nation must defend itself, and only itself and has no right to spend the treasure and lives of its citizens defending others.

 

I believe that Western powers COULD and SHOULD "...rise up mightily and become a military colossus, with an irresistible will to triumph, which the non-Western savages and barbarians would respect, fear, and fawningly tremble before."  But, I think that would only follow a change in America's political culture where we threw out the Marxist and fundamentalist Islamic ideas and stood firmly, and knowingly behind individualism and a vigorous defense of our individual rights.  Then we become the visible, living proof of what a country, and its government, can and should be.  Then other nations have an example that they can follow (although some will resist even stronger).



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, January 28 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve, why did you mention Islamic ideas and not Christian ones?  In the U.S.A., Christianity is a far more powerful influence than Islam for religious faith and altruism.  Collectivism and statism are fruits of altruism, and faith interferes with reason.



Post 4

Sunday, January 28 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, I don't understand why you would have to ask that.  Really.  Think about it.  Reason is abandoned for fairy tales, for astrology, for Christianity, and for many other irrational pursuits.  But right now, at this point in history, only Marxist thinking, and the political pursuits of fundamental Islam are serious threats to freedom.  You seem to have a real blind spot for your enemy.   You attacks are on people, like me, who are pointing out that there are other people who are trying to kill us - based upon their Islamic beliefs.  I imagine that you are someone who holds a particular kind of political correctness - faithfully - above critical thinking in this area.



Post 5

Monday, January 29 - 5:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This thread is not about the threat of violence and where it comes from.  This thread is about American culture and the actions that express it.  We argued on another thread about the threat of violence and where it comes from and I see no reason to repeat that argument here.  

 

What we are dealing with here is current American culture, which is badly contaminated with altruist ideas and their fruits.  Christianity, Islam, other religions, Marxism, and New Age foolishness are all sources of such ideas.  Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are very similar in this respect.  But in the U.S.A., Christianity is the biggest enemy of reason, human life, and America, and is therefore the one that most needs to be mentioned.



Post 6

Monday, January 29 - 9:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

...in the U.S.A., Christianity is the biggest enemy of reason, human life, and America....

 

Doug, if you believe that, you have no perspective. 

 

How many Americans have been killed in recent years by Christians in the name of Christianity?  

 

Do you seriously believe that American Christians advocate the destruction of our liberties more than the far-left Marxist progressives? 

 

How can you call Christianity a greater enemy of reason here in the States than progressivism's political correctness which is actively destroying freedom of speech and the teaching of anything on any American campus that isn't politically correct?

 

Here is today's American Christianity re politics in a nutshell: 

1. It will NEVER be a sound basis for capitalism because of its foundation of faith and altruism

2. In today's political context, where the overwhelming danger is the advance of political correctness/progressivism, only a tiny number of Objectivists, a tiny number classical small-government liberals, a tiny number of non-religious conservatives, and a large number of the religious right have shown themselves to be immune to political correctness.

3. If it weren't for the strong opposition to progressivism that is coming from the religious right, we would have Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders as the president and be replacing ObamaCare with socialized medicine, and instead of tax breaks we would be getting "soak-the-rich" tax increases, instead of reduced regulations we would be getting a massive increase in regulations.  The constitution would no longer be relevant to individual rights given a Hillary/Bernie nomination to the bench.  Progressivism's long, long march towards a democratically installed socialism would be a done deal.

 

In politics, strange as it sounds, the religious right is less altruistic than the progressives.  The contradiction that is held by the right is that they think that they can blend political freedom with altruism.  The vast majority of the Christians don't believe in forcing their altruism on others.  Contrast that with the foundational beliefs of the left: that altruism and collectivism are a natural match (they just have to get rid of any traditional religion so they can implement their 'religion').

 

Wake up, Doug.  Until you get past your politically correct emotional reactions and those canned talking points, you won't see where the real battle is being fought.  You know you favor reason over faith and individualism over collectivism, but those will only be like floating abstractions in your mind since in today's crazy reality, Objectivism's traditional enemy, religious faith, is doing battle with Objectivism's greater enemy: Marxism, disguised as progressivism and fighting to be the new religion where political correctness is the faith-based revealed truth - a joining of faith and force that is deeply hidden in a series of lies.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, January 29 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

When I called Christianity the biggest enemy, I was measuring size by the number of people in the movement.

 

I was also thinking on a more fundamental, long-term basis than you are.  Christianity is the main source of altruistic thinking in this country.  Christianity is the main upholder of religious faith in this country.  On both counts, it is the main source of the fundamental ideas that are destroying us.  This is true even though many Christians oppose a more virulent form of those ideas.

 

Also, while many Christians oppose political correctness, many others, including many that are considered "mainstream" Christians, support it. 

 

Also, you indicated that fundamentalist Islamic ideas are leading America's political culture astray.  Whatever their contribution to the threat of violence may be, they have had very little influence on American political culture.  Christianity has had a very big influence on American political culture.



Post 8

Monday, January 29 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

6 facts about faith and the inauguration

3 . Trump will be sworn in with two Bibles – one that Abraham Lincoln used at his 1861 inauguration, and a personal one given to him by his mother. Obama also used two Bibles – the Lincoln Bible chosen by Trump and one owned by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Four presidents, most recently George H.W. Bush, were sworn in on the King James Bible used by George Washington in 1789.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/19/6-facts-about-faith-and-the-inauguration/

 

Majority of states have all-Christian congressional delegations

As has been the case in prior Congresses, the 115th Congress is more Christian than the U.S. population as a whole. The vast majority of the nation’s federal lawmakers (91%) describe themselves as Christians, compared with 71% of U.S. adults who say the same, according to a recent Pew Research Center analysis of congressional data compiled by CQ Roll Call.

 

The U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine, but the same cannot be said of the nation’s state constitutions. In fact, God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. -- http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/17/god-or-the-divine-is-referenced-in-every-state-constitution/

 

 

The share of U.S. adults who describe themselves as Christians has been declining for decades, but the U.S. Congress is about as Christian today as it was in the early 1960s, according to a new analysis by Pew Research Center.1 Indeed, among members of the new, 115th Congress, 91% describe themselves as Christians. This is nearly the same percentage as in the 87th Congress (1961 to 1962, the earliest years for which comparable data are available), when 95% of members were Christian. --- http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/03/faith-on-the-hill-115/

More than 80 countries favor a specific religion, either as an official, government-endorsed religion or by affording one religion preferential treatment over other faiths, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data covering 199 countries and territories around the world. 

Islam is the most common government-endorsed faith, with 27 countries ... By comparison, just 13 countries (including nine European nations) designate Christianity or a particular Christian denomination as their state religion.

But an additional 40 governments around the globe unofficially favor a particular religion, and in most cases the preferred faith is a branch of Christianity. Indeed, Christian churches receive preferential treatment in more countries – 28 – than any other unofficial but favored faith.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/10/03/many-countries-favor-specific-religions-officially-or-unofficially/



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, January 29 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve writes in post #2:

 

"I agree with Washington and Jefferson's warnings on foreign entanglement."

 

Me too. Just as war should pretty much always be a last resort in foreign disputes, so too formal defense treaties and foreign bases should pretty much be a last resort. But there's something very strange in the world today which I didn't mention in my essay. The Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union no longer exist, but NATO lives on, and is bigger than ever. That makes no sense. Russia has a right to feel threatened. Those new and old NATO countries have a right to be slackers and parasites who let America carry almost the full load of military defense. This is bizarre! In my view, we need to get the hell out of their countries. They can easily defeat Russia if they put even half of their mind and will to it. We should 'force' then to grow up, and "be a man", and start taking responsibility for themselves and their defense.

Steve also writes:

 

"Also, I doubt that the nations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, etc. are all feeling patronized, are embarrassed, humiliated, insulted, and emasculated.  I also believe that removing all of these bases would not immediately cause those nations to "instantly grow a set of much-needed testicles".  What goes on in their nations is as much a matter of factions and a clash of opposing opinions as it is in our country.  Ideas in their cultures are driving their issues.  Moving bases out wouldn't provide the change you predict."

Maybe. I agree that philosophy drives them a lot, and their philosophy is somewhat worse than America's. But I think it's worth a shot! Maybe France or Italy will fall to the communists or Muslims, and then everyone else in Europe will learn a terrible lesson, and turn into that needed military colossus I referred to earlier.

 

Steve also writes:

"Mostly, I think that America's focus must be on effective military defense.... We would both agree that there is no moral need to defend other nations with our military - each nation must defend itself, and only itself and has no right to spend the treasure and lives of its citizens defending others."

Exactly!

 

"I believe that Western powers COULD and SHOULD "...rise up mightily and become a military colossus, with an irresistible will to triumph, which the non-Western savages and barbarians would respect, fear, and fawningly tremble before."  But, I think that would only follow a change in America's political culture where we threw out the Marxist and fundamentalist Islamic ideas and stood firmly, and knowingly behind individualism and a vigorous defense of our individual rights.  Then we become the visible, living proof of what a country, and its government, can and should be.  Then other nations have an example that they can follow...."

Exactly.



Post 10

Monday, January 29 - 11:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug wrote:

 

When I called Christianity the biggest enemy, I was measuring size by the number of people in the movement.

 

There are a tiny majority of Christians who would force their religious views into law and are actively pursuing just that.  Those deserve to be called "enemy", but the vast majority of Christians are just people who hold mistaken beliefs.  Beliefs that have little to do with their day to day lives.
-------------------

 

Christianity is the main source of altruistic thinking in this country.  Christianity is the main upholder of religious faith in this country.  On both counts, it is the main source of the fundamental ideas that are destroying us. 

 

Christianity is one implementation of altruism.  Islam, Marxism, progressivism and almost every single organized set of either religious or political beliefs are also implementations of altruism.  Altruism only harms those who hold it as a belief - UNTIL it is forced on others.  The enemy to focus on is any and all attempts to force beliefs on others or control their behaviors... for the sake of God, for the sake of one's fellow human, for the sake of some common good, or for the sake of society.  Altruism is the end and force is the means.  Without force, altruism only screws up the lives of those who believe in it.

 

Faith is just one form of the irrational.  Emotionalism is another.  Psuedo-science and political correctness are other forms of irrationality.   Today in America, psuedo-science, emotional rants and personal attacks, with political correctness as the form of thought-control combine to create a form of 'faith' that is much more dangerous than religious faith.
---------------------

 

Also, while many Christians oppose political correctness, many others, including many that are considered "mainstream" Christians, support it. 

 

When you say that you are mixing up that very small number of orthodox Christians who are totally committed to that orthodoxy and the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, but may only go to church now and then and don't make the practice of their religion a significant part of their life.  That is a huge difference. 

 

In the minds of the orthodox Christians, their deeply held beliefs make it impossible for political correctness to take root (which doesn't mean they don't agree with this or that progressive position).  Please note that I didn't say they "oppose political correctness" - I said that they are immune to political correctness.   They have already estabished a foundational set of beliefs that occupy the 'mental' space that political correctness would need to occupy.  I haven't the room in a forum post to give this "immunity" and the reasoning behind it the explanation it deserves.

---------------------

 

I consider political correctness, taken in as a fundamental way of thinking, when engaged with sufficient intensity, and for long enough, to cause a serious mental/emotional disorder in a person.  I mean that quite literally.  Political correctness can be viewed as a mechanism that "intends" to transform our political and cultural environments.  That could be called its goal, but its psycho-epistemology carries psychological consequences.  It has the effect of cutting a person off from grasping reality.  Progressivism, in this sense, is a steady progress towards a mental disorder.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, January 30 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I said Christianity is the enemy, not individual Christians.  Christianity, Islam, and many other belief systems are enemies of reason, human life, and America.  In America, most individual Christians and Muslims are well-meaning Americans who have made a bad mistake in their choice of ideas.

 

In the realm of physical violence, the enemy is anyone who initiates physical violence.  In the realm of ideas, the enemy is not so much individuals as bad ideas.  The realm of ideas is the most important in the long run.

 

"The vast majority of people who call themselves Christians, but may only go to church now and then and don't make the practice of their religion a significant part of their life" nevertheless tend to default to Christianity as their fundamental guide in the realm of ethics, even if they tend to be more rational in matters of natural science, in their work, and in practical decisions about details.  This is why altruism and its fruits dominate American culture and why so many people think faith must be the foundation of morality.  Political correctness is one of these fruits of altruism.  In this fundamental sense, Christianity (not individual Christians) is our biggest enemy.  



Post 12

Tuesday, January 30 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There are no Christians as a floating abstract... only as a collection of individuals. with beliefs in common.

------------------

 

Political correctness is one of these fruits of altruism. 

 

No, political correctness is way of controlling thought - changing how people think - as the means of transforming the culture and our political system.  It is so effective that it actually transforms people.  It is the single most powerful tool for building a collective.  It the main tool under progressivism.  Progressivism uses altruism - USES, not believes in.  None of the leading Progressives want to make sacrifices, they want to force you to make sacrifices.



Post 13

Tuesday, January 30 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve, why do you mention a floating abstract?

 

Most people who say they uphold altruism are guilty of some degree of hypocrisy.



Post 14

Tuesday, January 30 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug, when I said "floating abstraction" it was to point out that the variety of Christians is so great that it doesn't make much sense to refer to "Christians" unless you have a commonality in mind that contrasts them with all non-Christians.  Think if I said, "All women..." or "All Americans..." - there are logical contexts where thoughts begun like that could  make sense, but there are also many, many ways to predicate those subjects that amount to treating them like a floating abstraction - unconnected to reality.

 

You were talking about altruism and faith.  Both of which we are opposed to as Objectivists.  But there are Christians who may hold, in some foggy, distant, distracted way the idea that one is supposed to take Christian teachings on faith and to make sacrifices.... and they would be sincere in saying so, but those things aren't remotely related to their day to day lives.  It makes no sense to see them as a driving force in the philosophical realm.  They have compartmentalized their religion to a tiny corner of their mind.

 

To be opposed to "Christianity" is to look at the issues to shallowly.  Ayn Rand once pointed out that Objectivists and Christians have these tenets in common: That there are moral values that are absolute and universal, that man must discern the good from the bad, the right from the wrong, and that man has choice in those issues, and that imposes a responsibility for each individual.  Notice how that places Objectivism and Christianity opposite of progressivism which claims that moral values are subjective and relative, that man has no choice (determinism) and therefore can't be held responsible.

 

Like you, I'm opposed to altruism and to faith.  But in today's context, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll say that our number one enemy is progressivism and political correctness (aka thought control) and on the international political front: Islamic fundamentalism.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, January 31 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I have been talking about Christianity, not individual Christians.  The substantial majority of Americans still get their ideas from Christianity, even if their actual lives deviate substantially from those ideas, and this makes Christianity the dominant influence on American ideas and therefore on American intellectual culture.

 

In the realm of ideas, our enemy is the altruist morality and various attacks on reason, including religious faith, polylogism, subjectivism, determinism, and thought control.  Christianity is the biggest source of support for altruism and religious faith and has helped open the door to other attacks on reason.  Christianity is an important influence on American culture.  Islam has had very little influence on American culture.  Since this thread is about American culture and where it comes from, Christianity needs to be mentioned much more than Islam does.

 

Violence and international politics are a different issue which we argued about on another thread.  I see no reason to repeat that argument here.

 

To improve American political culture, we need to fight Christianity, Marxism, Kantianism, and any attempts at thought control.  We don't need to worry about Islamic fundamentalism's influence on American political culture because there is very little.

 

In the realm of violence and international politics, we need to worry about Islamic fundamentalism, which is not the same as Islam, and authoritarian governments.  But this is a different issue from American political culture.



Post 16

Thursday, February 1 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Doug,

 

We don't appear to have any fundamental differences.  But, it doesn't seem like you appreciated what I've already written.  And I really don't have anything more to add. 



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, February 7 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In a general way, I agree with Doug Morris. Christianity is embedded in our culture of (coercive) altruism, a cultural force that sanctions endless American aggressive war making around the world. 

 

We were all raised on the doctrine of American imperial power--American "greatness"--as virtuous, despite literally millions of helpless foreign individuals ground to dust in the wake of our "fighting for freedom." But that doctrine is a perfect example of the viciousness of collectivism, justified by lies and false ideals. On the right, this collectivst doctrine of "freedom fighting" was promoted successfully by Bill Buckley, who admitted individual freedom in the USA could not exist along side the garrison state necessary to advance his agenda. 

 

The essential problem with the war making is that it violates individual rights, of Americans sacrficed to the various crusades; and of helpless foreign people who are wiped out by the millions. Objectivism is a philosophy that defends the moral value of the life of every individual. But some people on this site who believe themselves to be objectivists support the wars and killing. Sometimes they admit to too much carnage in this or that instance, but fundamentally, they are in favor of US aggressive wars as somehow defending individual rights through literal aggression. 

 

In Vietnam alone, one of many such murderous wars of liberation, I have read estimates of from two millions to six millions murdered by incessant carpet bombing, joined with other means of killing. And of course, nearly sixty thousand American young men, who were enslaved to go to war, were murdered; plus hundreds of thouands maimed, crippled and traumatized. In Iraq, I have read estimates of a couple million killed due to our military invasion--which number may include civilian deaths attributed to terrorist murders after Saddam's fall from power. The war between Iraq and Iran, that our government actively promoted and supported with tax dollars, in a big way, killed at least two million; Saddam was "our" man. In the Korean war, American bombings killed something like 1/3 or more of the entire population of the North. Vietnam, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Panama...none of these countries posed a military threat to Americans in the United States. 

 

Defenders of the American war state often respond, or so it has seemed, with vitriolic accusations about "appeasing evil" or dishonest "exaggerated" numbers. It is not the responsibility of Americans, through their government, to roam the globe in search of monsters to destroy, paraphasing John Adams. If someone wants to fight ISIS or send money to support Israel, get a plane ticket or wire your own money. Leave others to make their own decisions. Regarding the issue of properly estimating the numbers of victims of various American invasions, it is not relevant to understanding whether or not they were, in fact, victims.

 

What is key in this debate is the proper meaning of aggression versus (self) defense. War hawks necessarily hijack those concepts to make American aggressive wars, and the carnage they cause, appear virtuous. These aggressive wars are never fought in behalf of individual freedom, but rather in support of Pax Americana--the world at peace on terms set by American war politicans and philospher kings.  But again, American "peace" has nothing to do with defending individual rights, of Americans or anyone else. Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi were vassals of the American state, as was Noriega in Panama and the Shaw of Iran (who defended his tyranny through torture and murders carried out by his secret police, SAVAK, that in turn had been trained by loveable CIA puppies.) 

 

The "argument stopper" used by war hawks today is 911. But 911 was an inside job, executed by the Bush cabal and the deep "national security" state. I don't know exactly what happened, but I do know what did not happen. Anyone who chooses to be honest and brave can easily discover absurdities in the official story. Dedicated war promoters refuse to think actively about 911, I think, because they sense they're on thin ice intellectually and emotionally. (Changing one's world view is emotionally upsetting.)

 

It is sad to encounter well meaning followers of Ayn Rand, who defend American war making as virtuous and just. The national war state is the most vicious of all U.S. government depredations, at home and abroad. But war-addicted objectivists will not accept facts that contradict the "virtue" of American wars, which is an example of the philosophical error of the primacy of mind over reality. Similarly, those who denounce reasoned refutations of the 911 fairy tale as "conspiracy theory", also implicitly assume that the "the correct attitude" about "conspiracy theory" nullifies facts they choose not to examine. Leonard Peikoff wrote about why the primacy of facts is fundamental to reason, and the primacy of mind is fundamental to irrationalism.

 

 

 

  



Post 18

Wednesday, February 7 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mark,

 

If there are absurdities in the official story, does this mean it is totally false, or could it mean that it has been tweaked?



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Friday, February 9 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Too bad that there is no way to unclick my approval for Post #17.  I agreed with the tenor of the first half before I got through the rest of it. Mark Humphrey spun farther off-axis and wobbled into nonsense. While the US government did interfere in the Iran-Iraq War on behalf of Iraq in order to get back at Iran, that did not make Saddam Hussein a vassal of the United States.  Similarly, while the 9/11 attacks can be explained in part as "blowback" from US meddling in the Middle East - and in that case specifically, I believe that Osama bin Laden's animosities were focused on American intrusions into the culture of Saudi Arabia (a different argument; I do not agree with his grievances) - 9/11 was not an inside job by the Bush Administration. I reject the conspiracy theory. So, I regret giving my approval to the post.  

  



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.