I happen to read both of the articles at the given address for the 6th Column site and coincidentally I recently read a very similar strategy as discussed in first article "The Very Messy Way In versus A Very Neat Way Out of Iraq".

From Arutz Sheva Link the article states that, "Kurdish organizations such as the Kurdistan Development Corporation have started an advertising campaign on American TV networks that underlines the fact that Kurds are grateful to the US for the liberation of Iraq and the realization of Kurdish self-rule there."

A Sunni and Shi’a civil war in Iraq could be just the thing to waste terrorist resources and occupy their time while the US waits for some real leaders.

Here is some interesting reading from the Objectivist writers at the 6th Column website. Especially the piece on "Why the USA has been failing in Iraq."

http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/gmason_p10.htm#failingIraq

Well, I just found it today

Interview with Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Sheikh </a>

I think so.

Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?

The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?

Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.

Chris, if you're suggesting that it would be a good idea to attack Iran, you'll find no one more eager to agree than Jeff. I've been advocating that since 1979.

As to radiation treatment... well, you have to be careful not to kill the patient don't you?

Jeff

has been discussed in many threads on Solo. But let me add one point that I think is crucial in the context of the present war. Islam is by far the more political religion. As James Valiant has been saying in the Mel Gibson thread, Christianity has within it (possibly by design of the Imperial Roman Court) an extreme form of submissiveness and pacifism. Christianity (New Testament anyway) is designed to make one servile. Islam is designed to make one a warrior of Allah.

In this way I think you can say of Islam what Ayn Rand said of socialism in comparison to fascism; its more honest in its aims and ends. Socialism is explicit nationalization of everything and the elimination of the private actor. Fascism allows private property and actors in name only, but only as cosmetics. Christianity has a great deal to say about love and equality and hope, peace, etc. But it leads to tyranny, poverty and death in practice. Islam has no such sugar coating. Its aim is conquest by whatever means necessary. Christ will devour your soul. Mohamed will cut off your head. Christianity will suck the life out of you from within. Islam will skin you alive.

Throughout the Quran and the Hadiths (perhaps more important than the Quran) the Muslim is called to Jihad and the conquest and subjugation of infidels. That's its essence. Christianity is not so unified and direct in its aims. To me, this makes Islam extremely lethal as a hostile ideology. Now it is true that it is so dangerous because of the Kantian, post-modern Left which has emboldened it for the last 60 or 70 years. But to fight this war effectively, Islam itself must be recognized for the evil that it is and it must be combated on many levels, intellectual and military (ie bombing mosques).

Ted Keer is right when he says the model of Communism as a worldwide enemy is a good (albeit not perfect) one to follow.

The war as it should be waged today isn't against any and all practitioners of the Muslim faith, but against states that institute and enforce Islam as an official religion.

There are some Objectivists that are raising some good questions about this. Namely that we not only face state sponsers of Islamic aggression but non-state actors as well. Even further, Islam has built into it a total manual for war and conquest with a variety of Allah and Mohamed (piss be upon him) sponsored tactics - immigration, dissimulation, deceit, etc. This makes any Muslim who takes Islam seriously a potential enemy.

While it is true as you say that we are not at war with all Muslims, we are at war with Islam in a very real sense. Which is why I don't like it when ARI qualifies Islam with "Totalitarian". This, to me, is a redundancy. There are "cafeteria Muslims", But they don't count because they are not pious. If they were to become pious and immerse themselves in what Hugh Fitzgerald calls the "atmospherics of Islam", they could easily become Jihadists. The majority of Jihadis that were involved with the London bombins were home grown! The same is true of the Jihadis that were planning to behead the Prime Minister of Canada.

Destroying hostile Islamic controlled enemy states is an important part of the "war on terrorism". But there are other tactics that need to be used as well such as strict profiling and monitoring of the Muslim population and strict guidelines on Muslim immigration, if not indefinite prohibition. The point that I believe was made earlier is that the libertarian (and thus rationalistic) view of rights must be rejected in this war. Much of what a libertarian would call the "initiation of force" will fall within valid and moral government action in a war-time context.

Jeff P: "To use a poor analogy, sometimes attacking a central tumor causes the cancer to metastasize, making it worse."

How 'bout if it's attacked full-on, swiftly and decisively with sufficient levels of radiation?

Maybe it is a poor analogy.

You asked: "Whom would Dr. Lewis recommend the U.S. military bomb in Iraq?"

That's not quite the point. First off, I take it that it's no secret that Iran is behind much of the sectarian violence in Iraq -- a covert act of war-waging, enough by itself for us to identify Iran as a legitimate target. At the least we could take the actions needed to cut off one major source of the violence.

That's what pisses me off about Iran -- its well-practiced methods of covert warfare that don't get explicitly identified as acts of war so that they are a clear legitimate target.

As for Al Qaeda, we've got an interesting state of affairs here now. Let us just suppose, counter to the facts, that Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't getting state support, sponsorship, or sanction from states elswhere, and is actually some independent rogue group not under state control. That would make (the area formerly known as) Iraq the central front in the war against Al Qaeda, yes? So what do the cut-and-runners propose doing about this, if they're also not proposing going after the states that (counter my counterfactual) support AQ?

Thanks to wngreen for including it in a provocative tagline to his posts.

The article is great -- it captures and clarifies the issue that so many were led astray with in Craig Biddle's call to bomb mosques. This article would call for the same thing with crucial qualifications and conditions that need to be met to make it happen: as long as the mosques are supported by a militantly Islamic state, they are fair game by any standard. But the point, of course, is broader: the proper war is against any state that supports or practices totalitarian Islam and Islamic terrorism. From there it's only a question of strategy whether to go after the mosques or other state or state-financed institutions.

The 1945 memo about Shintoism is spot-on. The war as it should be waged today isn't against any and all practitioners of the Muslim faith, but against states that institute and enforce Islam as an official religion. This isn't about suppression of Islam as a belief system, but as a state-institutionalized source of violence.

We have the case of Japan as a precedent. This article does well at cutting through all the bullshit and showing just what we need to do, and with just as much moral clarity and certainty as in the case of Japan. There is just no excuse to let the state of Iran, to name the most prominent instance, continue as it's been going. America, if it had its wits about it, should make its message strikingly clear, and issue the ultimatum against Iran on the same grounds that it ended the Japanese regime as it existed then. All it needs to do is abandon its official sanctioning of militant religious ideology, or we have the clear moral right to alter or abolish it.

Sadly, I don't see the present admin mustering the moral and intellectual fortitude to make the proper case for proper action.

Fred,

I agree with your post, and would add this. If I'm dealing with a person who tends to lean toward being very abstract, I'll tend to try to be more concrete and empirical. If I'm dealing with someone who tends to be too concrete, I'll encourage them (by the style of my arguments) to consider the wider picture.

I laughed at the example of the fellow who agreed that we shouldn't nationalize the steel business, then came back the next week and wanted to know why we shouldn't nationalize the oil business.

I thought Dr. Lewis' approach to No Substitute was excellent, for example. I was also impressed by the latest ARI press release that talks about Exxon-Mobile's threat from the eco-terrorist-friendly Senators. It reminded me of many of the discussions in The Objectivist Newsletter about the FCC, circa 1963.

Ha!

You ask a good question and it's one I struggle with often on Internet forums - even when I'm discussing issues with other Objectivists, such as here on SOLO.

Generally, if its appropriate in a given context, I try and tie a concrete issue to at least some higher level principle(s) - to the extent of my understanding of course. Obviously, I'm not Ayn Rand, nor are any of us. But I would take her as a guide in this regard to the extent of your own ability and knowledge.

If you are talking with someone who is not an Objectivist or even familiar with it, context is particularly important.

I've also learned a lot from seeing how other Objectivist intellectuals do it. I've always been particularly impressed with Harry Binswanger which is one of the great values I find in HBL.

Incidentally, I think ARI does a good job in its press releases (especially in contrast to TAS) in stating a broader principle(s) when they are addressing some concrete issue. In fact they select concrete issues which illustrate those broader principles - and also where they think ARI has a unique and distinctive approach (even to the extent of shocking people - hell, AR didn't shrink from that so why should ARI?).

Fred,

I have, and have read many times each, all of those publications. And I agree that her approach was stellar. I use it myself daily.

My question is this: Do you believe that is the only valid method for dealing with concrete social (and other) issues? Should all such discussions be only on that plane or take that approach?

If you want, for example, to argue with a semi-reasonble person about climate change, do you think the discussion should always be restricted to one about the fundamental philosophical ideas driving many to, say, report the issue in a biased way? Or is it, rather, sometimes helpful (perhaps equally helpful), to really study the science in order to know whether there is in fact anything to be concerned about?

Note, I am not trying to use any sort of rhetorical device to trick you into an inconsistency or implicit agreement. I'm trying to find out your actual views in order to avoid distorting them.

I just noticed that they have the video of the Moyers program "Is God Green" on the PBS website.

You can view it here:

"Is God Green?"

Jeff, one of these days when you get some free time I suggest you get hold of the back issues of The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter. You will see how Ayn Rand dealt with concrete political issues of the day, specifically how she was able to deal with an issue concretely but still clearly and succinctly tie it into its broader philosophical framework.

Take as just one example her essay, "The Anti-lndustrial Revolution" which later appeared in "The New Left: The Anti-lndustrial Revolution". She begins the essay as follows,

"Let us begin by translating an abstract idea into concrete, specific terms. A current trend proclaims that technology is man's enemy and should be restricted or abolished. Let us project what this idea would mean in practice."

If you read the essay, you know what she does next. She projects in some detail what a day in the life of an average modern American family would be like without modern technology. But she doesn't leave it at that. She then reveals the broader and underlying philosophical issues at the root of environmentalism.

For example, she notes that the New Left, "...instead of exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting the poor, they are now exhorting you to feel guilty of exploiting land, air and water. Instead of threatening you with a bloody rebellion of the disinherited masses, they are now trying—like witch doctors addressing a tribe of savages—to scare you out of your wits with thunderously vague threats of an unknowable, cosmic cataclysm, threats that cannot be checked, verified or proved."

Sound familiar? I mean sound familiar with its origins in
Christianity ,in form if not in detail.

She concludes, "One element, however, has remained unchanged in the collectivists' technique, the element without which they would have had no chance: altruism—the appeal for self-sacrifice, the denial of man's right to exist."

From where did they get that idea?

Last night, I heard a lecture from a philosophy professor who has been heavily involved in the environmentalist movement for something like 35 years. He mentioned faith-based environmentalism as one of three major ideological strands of environmentalism; he said that more and more people are increasingly interested in that approach. Also, he expects it to be a major force in upcoming decades.

I thought that noteworthy.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

As I continue the thread hijack...

While I continue to ponder Fred's lengthy post about the relationship between Christianity and Environmentalism, and plan to respond at length within the next few days, I have a few questions.

Fred, how would deal with the following?:
Viros Want Pork

Would you argue in relatively concrete terms against the legislation, perhaps citing concerns about violations of property rights? Would you engage your opponenents (or even your potential allies) in a discussion about the philosophical roots of environmentalism in Christian epistemology and ethics (faith and altruism)? Would you simply abandon the day-to-day world of events and legislation to the viros and those who currently oppose them, in favor of staying on the more fundamental level and worrying chiefly about long-term influences and long-term trends? If so, do you think everyone should do as you do?

---
Partial quote from the link:

"The viros are in the process of trying to ram through the lame duck Congress a guaranteed Federal entitlement for themselves. Their goal is to establish in law the principle that unlike other Federal expenditures, funding for viro land acquisition should be guaranteed, without having to go through the annual appropirations process competing with funding for other government programs.

In addition to wanting guaranteed taxpayer subsidies into what they call a "trust fund", this would also free up their lobbying efforts to concentrate on perpetually ratcheting up the funding in accordance with an already established premise and establishing new regulations and authorities to take over private property in more areas of the country. Without guaranteed funding, one of the major means to stop their land grabs is to try to block their funding, so the viros are trying to eliminate that as a possible means to fight them.

The guaranteed Federal funding would go to direct Federal acquisition, Federally funded state acquisition and subsidies to state-sanctioned "private" land trusts like the Nature Conservancy which fequently operate as a front for government. There are no limits in their legislation which would limit use of the money for eminent domain or for other coercive means of forcing people sell by regulations to deny owners the right to use their own property."

As if in response to one of the questions we are debating, PBS aired one of its "Moyers on America" episodes entitled, "Is God Green", in which he explores an apparent growing commitment to environmentalism among some evangelical and conservative Christians.

Is God Green

What is immediately striking is how easily they slip into the role.
One parishioner even goes so far as to ask, "What took us so long?"

Indeed.

Especially since - surprise, surprise - they all of a sudden have no difficulty finding ample support in the Bible.

Here's just one example:

Evangelicals discover environmentalism

I think I see what you're saying. So long as Christianity is not discredited in the broader culture, there will always be various competing visions of altruism. Almost like the "wack-the-mole" phenomenon; refute one and five take its place. You'll get no argument from me on that.

Well, you know what they say, Jeff:

“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" [James 4:6]

Bill, I'm not "reducing" them to Christianity. I'm saying that Christianity provides their fundamental philosophical root - not the only one, but the most fundamental one. The various tenets of Christianity, esp. as pertains to mysticism, faith, and self-sacrifice, of course pre-date Christianity. But it is Christianity which gives them their most prominent voice in Western thought and which results in them thus infusing our culture, even among non-Christians. (Islam got it from Christianity).

Altruism - especially in its most virulent forms (such as devoting one's life to the poor for its own sake) - I don't believe would be possible without a Christian base, even among those who ironically disavow Christianity, e.g. the Marxists. The Marxists take altruism as a pre-existent given only thanks to Christianity. It never occurs to them to challenge it. They only change the rationale for the sacrifices - from pleasing God to pleasing society or the state.

While I continue to prepare my reply to Fred, I thought (given the purpose of the thread) this might be of interest:

"Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." French writer, Jean Francois Revel (quoted in 1983).

I agree with you that socailism is a secularization of Christianity. But I wonder if it is a correct approach to reduce environmentalism, wellfare statism, and even marxism/socialism to Christianity. I think that it is altruism which is more fundamental than Christianity. True, Christianity is one of the main sources of altruism in our culture. But all of these systems are different versions and expressions of altruism.

While it is true that we need to fundamentally attack and discredit altruism in favor of egoism - and thanks to Ayn Rand this has already been done - I do think that each of the various versions of altruism in practice - environmentalism, socialism, wellfare statism, etc - need to be addressed in different ways relative to their specific elements all the while exposing their altruistic core.

Jeff, it's becoming a chronic pattern with you to grossly distort what I'm saying.

If I emphasize the *fundamental* influence and importance of Christianity in our culture, you somehow leap from that to declaring that I'm saying Christianity is the *only* influence on our culture.

You are simply repeating precisely the same errors in interpretation that Tom Rowland and I pointed out to you when we were discussing the fundamentality of philosophy in shaping the course of history.

I wonder why you are doing that.

Is it that you have difficulty grasping the concept of fundamentality? Fundamentality relates to what explains *most* and especially the *most important* factors which explain some phenomenon. It does not necessarily explain all of them. Rationality, for example, explains most and especially the most important aspects of human nature. But there are certainly other important factors, e.g. the opposable thumb, that we walk upright, that our young require care and nurturing for many years, etc. etc. etc.

Now, to some of your specific questions.

In regard to socialism/communism, you note that many of its advocates explicitly reject Christianity. Except you fail to note that socialism is fundamentally nothing more than secularized Christianity. (The early Christians were in fact avowed collectivists and many of its most prominent manifestations, e.g. monasteries, are based on collectivist premises). Where did the idea come from that "the root of all evil is money" or how about, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

The saints are the people they most admire, right? Name me one saint who achieved greatness in their mind because of his great technological or business achievements?

As for Christians who proclaim their support of capitalism and individual freedom, *they do not mean the same thing by it that we do* and if you think about it even for a second you will see that *they can't*. How can you have capitalism and individual freedom *divorced from reason*? To whatever extent the better of them, i.e. the more rational of them, approach the correct view it is only to the extent that they compartmentalize their thinking, separating their fundamental metaphysics from their ethics and political philosophy. It makes them profoundly ineffective in defending capitalism. Surely you've noticed that.

Now, going back to environmentalism, you acknowledge that "Environmentalism does not believe humans have a proper place on Earth. Christians most definitely do, even hard-core ones, even though their view of that place is repugnant."

This is perfect example of your not approaching this in terms of essentials. What - fundamentally - is different between a view which does not believe humans belong on earth and one which does but regards it as repugnant? And surely you must see how easily one gets from "our place here is repugnant" to "we don't belong here" in the first place.

Didn't God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

Socialism is not fundamentally a new or radical idea - even for the Marxists who explicitly rejected religion and considered it the enemy. Why? Because all they are really saying is, "We are the real Christians, i.e. the true embodiment of Christian values". Surely you agree with that, that they are. So they don't worship God, they worship society or the state instead. Like I asked you previously, "Do you really care upon whose altar you are sacrificed?"

P.S.: Another of your distortions of my position is when I say that we need to emphasize fundamentals, you reply, "Oh, you think we should ignore concretes?" I will say this though, if you ignore fundamentals you will get absolutely nowhere with the concretes for the obvious reason that you will be arguing in a philosophical vacuum (that's what the libertarians do).

Do you honestly think that if you fight faith and self-sacrifice in this way that environmentalism will simply wither away?

If you combine the words in a single sentence consisting of self sacrifice and faith, then surely they must metamorphise into fundamentalism, which will never wither away.

"Christianity (faith, mysticism, self-sacrifice)" Fred

This is beginning to look like a form of conversion fallacy. Are you saying that (at least in this country) anyone who embraces any form of faith, mysticism, and self-sacrifice does so primarily because of the Christian influence in America?

Did you actually live through the 1960s in America when millions of Americans explicitly rejected Christianity in favor of all manner of (even more primitive) belief systems? Or is this yet one more instance of the Freudian tactic - "Ah, you deny you want to sleep with your Mother. That proves you really do want to sleep with her."

So far we have:
Socialism = Communism = Christianity
and
environmentalism = socialism = Christianity

What's next? Islam = Christianity?

Are you suggesting that someone who explicitly rejects Christianity, but nevertheless embraces Communism (the overwhelming majority of Communists) is 'really' doing so only because American culture has a Christian influence?

Are you suggesting that someone who explicitly rejects Christianity but nevertheless embraces environmentalism (the overwhelming majority of Environmentalists) does so because Christianity has strong roots in American culture?

And what do you say about Christians (the overwhelming majority) who sincerely believe both that Christianity is good and that capitalism, individual freedom, and material success are good -- and who, by the way, despise environmentalism. Granted they are unable (even unwilling) to see the contradictions in their positions, does that make them less sincere? Does that make them not defenders of capitalism, or not Christians?

What about Judaism, which if I'm not mistaken is closely related -- historically and philosophically -- to Christianity. Does Judaism = Christianity?

Again, is there any form of evil (at least in America) that is not fundamentally the same as Christianity or an outgrowth of it? Further, even if it were true that these are all fundamentally the same, aren't the particular differences important?

Further, is it only valid to fight the fundamentals? Should each individual spend all of his or her "intellectual battle time" fighting those and only those? Should we never discuss or argue against some of the particular forms?

Do you honestly think that if you fight faith and self-sacrifice in this way that environmentalism will simply wither away?

Should we never challenge a court ruling or express dismay at a vote in Congress or argue against a proposed law that furthers environmental causes except by pointing out (to people who, reasonably enough, will not know what the hell you are talking about) "Hey, that's an instance of faith and self-sacrifice. Cut it out!"?

Should we never argue with anyone over the facts of climate change, but simply point out "Hey, that's an instance of faith that will entail self-sacrifice. Cut it out!"?

Should we never attempt to point out to any semi-reasonable person, who may just have some interest in their own well being and in retaining their property, that environmentalism has immediate harmful effects? Or should we follow your strategy and simply declare "Environmentalism is just Christianity in disguise. If you value your life and property, reject faith and self-sacrifice!"?

Just who in hell do you think you will convince that way, even if we accept your equation that the two are essentially the same?

Of course, they are not the same. Environmentalism is not Christianity. It does not have a two-world view. Even though some viros do believe in spirits, indeed that the Earth itself is a spirit, they believe these spirits are part of one world.

They are anti-materialists, that's true. But so are Hindus and Buddhists. Are those, too, 'the same as' Christianity?

Environmentalism does not believe humans have a proper place on Earth. Christians most definitely do, even hard-core ones, even though their view of that place is repugnant.

I could go on, but there's little point. You are simply glossing over a number of relevant differences, both philosophical and concrete, and declaring that there's simply no room for or no point in arguing over anything but the most basic philosophical premises. That's not the only, and probably not the best, way to change a culture.

"There's just no arguing with a man who sees Christianity, or 'faith and self-sacrifice' as the evil(s) responsible for every form of destruction in the world today. Nor, is there much possiblity of making headway with someone who is so pessimistic about the American people that he believes they can not be persuaded."

Who are you referring to?

"Am I misstating your views?"

Ya think? Just a teensy bit? Mebbe?

On the other hand, you can correctly say that I do believe that Christianity infuses our culture to a far greater extent than you realize - including it being the primary influence on environmentalism.

In short, defeat Christianity (faith, mysticism, self-sacrifice) and you pull the rug out from under environmentalism. It will have nothing to stand on. You know, Christianity has done everything in its power to undercut capitalism and the Industrial Revolution from its inception - even before anyone ever gave a thought to "the environment". Where does the expression "the love of money is the root of all evil" come from? Environmentalism? But is there an environmentalist who doesn't embrace it as one of his basic premises?

"The enviromentalists are just Christians in spotted owl feathers"

They might both have faith, Fred, but they are two entirely different creeds. If the environmentalists were to become christians, they'd have to stop being environmentalists.

Fred,

There's just no arguing with a man who sees Christianity, or 'faith and self-sacrifice' as the evil(s) responsible for every form of destruction in the world today. Nor, is there much possiblity of making headway with someone who is so pessimistic about the American people that he believes they can not be persuaded.

Am I misstating your views?

Jeff

Jeff, you're assuming that the American people will see the point of oil drilling vs. caribou any better than the environmentalists. Maybe they would have 50 years ago, but not today. They're sold. The environmentalists have done their (propaganda) job well over these decades and now they are ensuring their hold on future generations by indoctrinating kids in schools, starting in elementary schools (it's almost equivalent - if you consider the broader implications - of training them to strap bombs on their backs and blow themselves up).

The American people were easy to convince. They had already been softened up. And the environmentalists knew the fertile soil they were working with, just as they had previously with socialism: Christianity.

You can't get away from it. If you have a people who have already bought into "faith and self-sacrifice", it's just a question of getting them to accept which "gods" they are asked to sacrifice for.

In any event, the Republicans have been just as incompetent and ineffective in fighting the environmentalists as they have the Islamists.

I may have more extensive comments later, but just quickly:

"You can argue "the science" with them from now to doomsday and it won't make the slightest difference."

Not to them, no. But to the people that count, yes. The American people. They have enormous influence on politics. (Because the politicians suck up to them, and for other reasons.)

As far as arguments go, you can argue the illegitimacy of 'faith' and 'self-sacrifice' for decades and be ignored, too. Why? Many reasons, but not the least is that the way Objectivists use these terms mean literally nothing to the average person, whom I, for one, don't regard as a cultural zero.

"The practical arguments against environmentalism aren't any more effective than were the practical arguments against socialism."

I said nothing about the form the arguments should take. I would no more rely on 'practical' arguments alone, than I would rely on 'theoretical' arguments alone. But the combination is unbeatable.

"Environmentalism is actually the last refuge of the socialists who have abandoned any pretense of a practical defense of socialism."

Yes and no. True they are socialists, but that is a superficial manifestation of their hatred for the very pre-conditions of reason and thriving. I try to hit them on all levels.

"They conceded it when the Berlin Wall came down." Suddenly practical events matter?

"The enviromentalists are just Christians in spotted owl feathers."

Clever phrase, but yes and no. They share many things in common, but environmentalists are deeper, more vicious, and (once again) more immediately dangerous, not to mention more successful (for the last 30 years anyway). I can indeed fight them without bothering much about the Christians. Unless, as you do here, one puts the issue on such an abstract level that we are no longer talking about Christians and viros, per se, but any form of irrationalism -- and its ethical and political manifestations.

"...with that blatant threat to the nation staring them in the face, they will not allow drilling in ANWR at the supposed risk of upsetting a few caribou"

A stellar example of why I consider them so dangerous. I don't have to convince them of why that's ridiculous... only those they have convinced.

It's a question of fundamentality, Jeff. You may consider environmentalism more immediately dangerous but you really can't fight it without first fighting "Christianity" - not necessarily the specific doctrines of Christianity but its underlying philosophical premises, mainly faith and self-sacrifice.

The practical arguments against environmentalism aren't any more effective than were the practical arguments against socialism. Mises, you know, "refuted" socialism in 1922 but it didn't stop its steady march forward. It didn't even miss a beat. Environmentalism is actually the last refuge of the socialists who have abandoned any pretense of a practical defense of socialism. In fact they concede the argument. They conceded it when the Berlin Wall came down.

Now, you see, it is precisely capitalism's phenomenal success which they oppose! Why? Because that success is "destroying the planet".

You can argue "the science" with them from now to doomsday and it won't make the slightest difference. The science is just a veneer to give their "faith" an aura of respectability, similar to ID in the evolution debates.

The enviromentalists are just Christians in spotted owl feathers.

P.S.: If you need concrete proof that practicality is irrelevant to the debate then just consider our current energy dependency on the Mideast and the opportunities for blackmail which it affords the Arabs. In that light, with that blatant threat to the nation staring them in the face, they will not allow drilling in ANWR at the supposed risk of upsetting a few caribou. Q.E.D.

"Do you really care upon whose altar your life is taken?" Fred

I could quote The Lion In Winter "Jeffrey: What matter how a man falls? Richard:When the fall is all there is, it matters."

But I don't plan to fall. Beyond that, concretes matter and the fact is that environmentalists have much power to do actual harm right now, and for the next 20 years, than Christians do. When you're fighting philosophical battles, just as in real ones, you have to focus your resources somewhere if you hope to win. Napoleon knew that.

In any case, there are substantial philosophical differences between the two. A banana and an apple are both fruit but they are not the same thing. In my view, environmentalism is a hundred times worse, philosophically. Platonism and Kantianism may be 'essentially' the same, but I would argue that the latter is a hundred times worse and therefore will lead to more harmful effects and sooner.

Fortunately, it's much more vulnerable than Christianity, since it tries (more often) to cloak itself in the mantle of science. Expose it and we can have nuclear power plants throughout the country. That gives us less expensive energy, which is the single most important material factor economically and a big element in the most important foreign policy problem we face over the next 20 years.

But, by all means, if you prefer to fight Christinity in the Pacific while I fight environmentalism in Europe, feel free. I'll still argue with you to 'the President and Congress' about resources.

Jeff, Christianity or environmentalism - it's essentially the same thing, with a common philosophical root: death worship. Christians want us to sacrifice ourselves to God, environmentalists to nature. Do you really care upon whose altar your life is taken?

Philosophically - even if you don't think it has the political power - Christianity is far the more severe problem. Historically and culturally, it is the two deadly pillars of Christianity - faith and self-sacrifice - which are the guiding principle aimed at the heart of civilization. Nature-worship is merely a variation of it. Nature does replace God, but faith and self-sacrifice remain. And of course for many Christians who are also environmentalists, it's not even necessary to skip a beat.

"Every barrel of oil that the environmentalists have succeeded in getting the U.S. government not to allow to be produced, every ton of coal that they have prevented from being mined, every atomic power plant whose construction they have stopped, has served to make oil scarcer and more expensive and correspondingly to enrich OPEC and increase the funds available for the support of terrorism."

Finally, somebody with a more popular voice than mine has said what I have been saying for 20 years.

All those touting the Christians as the most severe problem of the future, listen up!

The Forum

Dem Win Big Boost For Viros

"There's no question that America's environmentalists won big in the midterm elections. 'We picked up twenty new environmental votes in the House of Representatives and five in the Senate, plus four governorships,' says Carl Pope, executive director of the
Sierra Club, who called 2006 'the most successful midterm election in the environmental movement's history.'"

Lol! Thanks for the endorsement.

Seriously though, I wish I could preserve myself in cryogenic freeze and be brought back in a few hundred years just to see how this thing with Islam works out and to see and hear what kind of speeches an Objectivist President or Secratary of defense would give. We live in a great time given the history of mankind. But in one sense, we were born too damn early.

It was the "Super Weapon" not the "Silver Bullet". Here is the link:

http://www.capitalism.net/articles/Super-Weapon%20Economic%20Freedom.htm

Here is an exerpt:

Indeed, it is implicit that had the United States pursued a policy of economic freedom with respect to energy production over the last thirty years, the conditions for OPEC’s success as a cartel would never have been present in the first place, and the accumulation of vast funds capable of supporting terrorism would never have been able to occur. Every barrel of oil that the environmentalists have succeeded in getting the U.S. government not to allow to be produced, every ton of coal that they have prevented from being mined, every atomic power plant whose construction they have stopped, has served to make oil scarcer and more expensive and correspondingly to enrich OPEC and increase the funds available for the support of terrorism.

Can you please tell me where I can find that essay by George Reisman?

Bill,

I don't like to swear in print. So, let me just say Bra-effing-vo!

Would that you were Secretary of State for that one post alone.

Jeff

Energy independence is somewhat misleading. Oil is a fungible good sold on a world market. If we don't buy Saudi oil, someone will. But that only underscores the importance of two important energy policies that would go an enormously long way in the war agianst Islam; one domestic and one international.

Domestically, the best thing we can do to fight the Jihad - and the easiest - would be to create a total free market in the domestic energy industries. I believe George Reisman wrote an essay discussing this saying it was a "silver bullet" against terrorism. He's right. Off-shore drilling, selling off the Alaska lands to private enterprise, eliminating environmental and anti-trust regulation imposed on drilling *and* refining; all of this and more would serve to radically increase American oil and energy production and lessen (I don't think it would totally eliminate though) the importance of oil from Petro-dictatorships.

Internationally, we should not let petro-dictatorships exist. Iran, Saudi Arabi, etc (and possibly even Venezueala) should have been dealt with long ago. The Middle Eastern oil wells should have been returned to the Western companies that made their drilling possible. It may have been neccessary to annex large sections of the Persian Gulf and maybe even create an American protectorate like Guam. There are options there. But the bottom line is that without Arab oil money, Islamic terrorism would not be the phenomenon that it is today.

Because of Western cowardice (and worse), the muslims and the Arabs have gained dominion over the most important commodity on the earth. That is the first mistake that should be corrected in the war against Islam whenever such a war is actually fought.

Jason brings up some interesting points. I think an uncompromising stance against governments that sponsor terror has to be coupled by a concerted effort to deprive those governments and non-state actors of the funds they need to operate. Economics drives a lot of terrorist activities. We need to develop energy independence, simultaneously work toward drug legalization and destroying opium crops of terrorist enemies and work to squelch black market arms deals that fund terrorists.

Jim

Awesome questions Dan! Thanks for taking the initiative.

Dan asks, "...once their state sanction is removed, (do they) wither and die?"

Not necessarily. But then that state becomes the terrorist's primary enemy, not us. That state then has rebels within its borders, which is not uncommon in various parts of the world today. We just have to keep an eye on the situation in the event that the rebels should succeed and topple the gov't. We may wish to help prevent a victory either by supplying aid and/or troops.

However, the situation in the Mideast will be hopeless in this regard if we do not crush the major source of terrorist support, most especially Iran and Syria - and so long as we tolerate the establishment of new Islamist states in the region, as we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Biddle and Dr. Lewis both wrote me back and expressed their intention to address my question (which Lewis calls the "stateless" objection") in the next issue of TOS.  I look forward to reading it!

--Dan Edge

Superior questions, Dan. Please let me know if you get a reply, and what it is.

Thanks,
Jeff

Dear Editor,

Dr. Lewis’s article “No Substitute for Victory” is the best work I’ve seen yet on the issue of Islamic Totalitarianism.  After reading his article, I have a question about applying some of the lessons learned from past wars to the current conflict with Iran.  Dr. Lewis argues effectively that, in a war against a determined aggressor, the defending nation must achieve complete victory in the form of unconditional surrender.  Historically, a surrender agreement is made with a nation’s government.  But in the case of Iran it is not necessarily the government that is directly waging war against us.  Many of the terrorist groups in the Middle East would not honor a surrender by their supporting nations.  What is the solution here?

Should we demand an unconditional surrender of Hezbollah and al Qaeda, and relentlessly bomb any country they call home?  Or do we expect that, once their state sanction is removed, they will wither and die?  If Iran’s government surrenders, and their shattered military is unable to stop the operations of militant Islam within their borders, must we consider the terrorist groups to be the de facto military and government of that country?  Iraq is in a similar state now, with a government partly unable and partly unwilling to stem the rise of militant Islam.  Do we leave and let them kill each other, ignoring them until they’re a threat again?  Or, if we continue to wage war in Iraq, from whom do we demand an unconditional surrender?

Thanks for any response, and keep up the good work.

--Dan Edge

"Ending this tolerance and American 1st Ammendment absolutist nonsense of protecting the freedom of killers and their supporters must end."

I could never quite fathom the support here for Abu Hamza and his vile words. Perhaps because I viewed him as an enemy of war (that is, to have no right to freedom of speech), whereas others did not.

Some regimes did use Christianity and some Churches did use the state to further their own goals, but this was always in direct contradiction to Jesus' own teaching and examples, and is considered heretical in fact, the Erastian heresy. With the Butcher, world domination through the initiation of force has been policy from day one. A calm but conclusive case can easily be put that freedom (action without the initiation of force) does not extend to the cutthroats, or their complicit co-conspirators. M*slim citizens cannot simply be deported without cause, but all immigration can be stopped, and all non-citizens can be deported. The proper analogy is with communism, not Christianity. The case needs to be made, and non-pacifist, non-anarchist (i.e., actual) Objectivists should not find it difficult to do. Justifying war is fine. Ending this tolerance and American 1st Ammendment absolutist nonsense of protecting the freedom of killers and their supporters must end. Constantly drawing an analogy between Christianity in the broad and cutthroatism is a tactical error and fails to acknowledge the more relevant comparison. It will retard the action of the West in the way that it has crippled Bush's efforts by blinding him for exactly the wrong reason. He wants to see the faithful cutthroats as religious, and hence not a real threat. We need to see them as essentially political, (whether religious or not) and an unmitigable threat.

The English word free comes from the same root as the word friend while the Arabic word isl*m which supposedly means "peace" comes from the same root as surrender and actually means submission. It is the diference between equals shaking hands and crying uncle to a bully.

Ted

image from tonyrogers.com

when you push here - enforced constitution wise - something pops out over there, and that makes all the effort futile. It's one thing to enforce a constitution on Japan - a geographically limited region with a particular kind of feudal system - and something else altogether to try and foist it upon the Umma, which knows no geographical limitations. The Umma can be thought of as the Nation of Islam. To bring that nation under an enforced constitution would require control of the entire muslim world, something that I don't think is at all possible.

"But once upon a time, Christianity was that way too."

With Christianity it was contextual to the time, and only to that time; with Islam it is for all time. Muhammad said, do this, Muhammad said, do that, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it shall ever be. Anything other than that is just not Islam.

"This is not a reality. But to me, neither is it a reality to think that the present day West can transformed the tribalistic, mystical, theocratic Middle East into an enlightened pro-freedom society." Bill

I'm just not sure. But Iran has many fine individuals and, at least prior to 1979, the country was partly on its way toward modernization. I remain optimistic, even in that case. Saudi Arabia, to the best of my mediocre knowledge, has never been anything but a cultural sewer. That would be a much tougher case.

"Patton was awesome but the Americans he is referring to are pre new left. I hope there are enough of us 'war-mongers' left." Bill

Bill, thanks for that wonderful quote. That's the one I had in mind. And, if you doubt there are still many such Americans left, I recommend you take a break from Manhattan and visit Idaho.

More broadly, take a look at the election maps on a county by county basis, not just a statewide basis. You will see that, although there are heavily populated pockets of blue, geographically the country is almost entirely red. Granted land masses don't vote, people do. Still, outside a half-dozen major urban population centers, the entire country is red. And red Americans for the most part very much want to kick serious Islamist ass.

Jeff

Good points. All of them.

It is after the sacking that no link between politics and religion should be tolerated... although the point has been made that the very nature of Islam IS politics and religion in one heinous package. But once upon a time, Christianity was that way too.

I agree with you completely. I used the word probably to cover my bases. We may have our differences elsewhere, but not when it comes to the true nature of Islam. Islam *is* a worldwide criminal conspiracy. And that's being generous. There are some Objectivists who I don't think understand this. Anyone who takes Islam seriously is a potential enemy and, IMO, can't be trusted. One other part of a rational war strategy I did not mention would be massive profiling of Muslims nationwide.

That was one of my points. Namely that a true war strategy would recognize the threat posed by all Mulsims not just hostile Muslim nation states.

"I think what Patton said is still true. Americans love to fight..."

I believe the actual quote is:

"Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans."

Patton was awesome but the Americans he is referring to are pre new left. I hope there are enough of us "war-mongers" left.

Bill Visconti:

"But if we indulge in fantasy then I think a proud, confident nation would have destroyed numerous Islam dominated [states]. It would have completely demilitarized the entire Middle East, and I mean all of it. It would probably have left a few strategic bases in the area for quick strike capability and destroying any new threats as they emerge. It would probably have [re-claimed the previously nationalized] oil fields and deprived the world of Islam any oil wealth. It would [certainly] ban or restrict immigration [by m*slims indefinitely]. It would [certainly] place many (if not all) mosques and Muslim organizations in America under heightened surveillance. There would also be imprisonment for all 5th column Muslim Americans and deportation for 5th column immigrants and [their] sympathizers [as well as capital trials for treaason]."

["Corrections" Ted's]

"I say "probably" to all of these because I haven't worked out all of the rights-based details involved. But I think in time of war all of this would be moral."

Isl*m, by its nature, the example of its prophet, and its explicit teachings and traditions is a traitorous criminal conspiracy when not in power and eternally at war when in power. The question of rights might apply to any so-called m*slim who would explicitly renounce sharia, jihad, dissimilation and the like. So far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is on them, and is quite a burden. Converts to isl*m are avowed would-be killers and warriors. In their case, no proof would be sufficient to convince me of their innocence. Rights do not apply to those who explicitly deny the concept and who act to deny it to others whenever given the chance. Let them live in their own reserves if they wish, but not with the benefit of stolen property (nationalized oil) and the weapons (nuclear technology) of our enemies (Vladimir Ilyich Putin).

Ted

Once the tie that binds political power and religious coercion has been broken and Muslims begin to experience freedom without fear of the death penalty, then smaller, privately funded Jihadists could become an alien ideology within their own nations and disapproved of by the majority.

The problem is that there is no separation (or history of it) between mosque and state in Islam. It would take a much more involved occupation effort to reform a Middle Eastern nation than it did in Japan. I’m not saying that it couldn’t be done but that it would involve policing a culture for at least a generation.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve read Polybius and Livy far too much and am emotionally biased towards a “Cartheginian Peace”. But I don’t think it would be necessary or advisable to attempt the type of cultural / governmental reformation that Dr. Lewis advocates. To be cruel and blunt, I think we should reform the Middle East by the sword (or its modern day equivalent). We should pound the Muslim hot spots into submission all the while trumpeting our own cultural superiority.

I know. This is not a reality. But to me, neither is it a reality to think that the present day West can transform the tribalistic, mystical, theocratic Middle East into an enlightened pro-freedom society.

Can someone point me to a reliable account of Giuliani's views, both on specific issues and, more broadly, political philosophy? I've seen lots of Objectivists suggest him as a better or more tolerable political candidate, though I've never been sure why.

- Mike

It simply needs to be contained.

Claudia said:

"I think this is one of Dr. Lewis's strongest points. Once the tie that binds political power and religious coercion has been broken and Muslims begin to experience freedom without fear of the death penalty,"

Islam and politics are inextricably entwined, and no constitution, or enforced constitution, will ever change that. Islam will still take hold amongst mentalities that want it. Many muslims do experience this "freedom without the death penalty", such as muslims in the west, such as the young muslims who blew up the London Underground, yet they are still adopting and moving closer to Islam. Why? Because that's the power of the ideology they're being inculcated with. The politics is inseparable, which makes Islam and Western freedoms like oil to water.

"[T]he "is" will never allow a true war against Islam to be fought." Bill

I can understand, and to a degree share, your discouragement. But I place my hopes in the American people. If someone, like Giuliani or better were elected President, it's possible that a stronger stance would be taken.

No Administration is likely to act on all the proposals you suggest, but I can readily see an invasion of Iran as a real possibility. If there were to be another 9/11 and it were well proved that Iran was behind it, it's possible, even likely. (Of course there will be lots of chanters of "WMD were never found" when he or she made the case to the American people.) In fact, Bush might even do that. He's been correctly his father's mistakes for six years now (while making many of his own). Dr. Lewis' appealing to the Democrats to do that, though, is truly tilting at windmills.

That alone would be a huge step forward, and a reversal of a very costly historical error.

I think what Patton said is still true. Americans love to fight -- when the fight is valid and the gloves are off. They don't like to lose, nor spend money and lives for a half-hearted effort.

Jeff

To begin to enshrine the inviolability of individual rights as the central principle of government, clerics of all kinds must be stripped of political power. There can be no freedom of thought and speech if those with claims to mystically derived ideas can enforce them coercively. Only by breaking the link between state power and religious belief can the state become a protector of each person’s right to worship or not worship as he wishes; only complete separation of religion and government can enable the government to serve its proper function: to protect each person’s right to think, speak, and act as he chooses. [Dr.J.Lewis]

I think this is one of Dr. Lewis's strongest points. Once the tie that binds political power and religious coercion has been broken and Muslims begin to experience freedom without fear of the death penalty, then smaller, privately funded Jihadists could become an alien ideology within their own nations and disapproved of by the majority.

Personaly, I'm a big fan of the "bomb them all into oblivian" solution.

But as I have been reading about this for years now I don't think the ultimate solution is as simple as defeating enemy nations. Over at Diana's blog there is a discussion going on in the comments section of her latest post in which Oaks (from Oaktree blog) has raised similar points. He's argued that our enemy is Islam and defeating it will require more than beating a hostile nation in a war and getting it to sign surrender papers. There is merrit to this.

I think that a successful strategy would entail a number of things, all of which are impossible in the current philsophical climate. Which makes all our arguments over this totally academic in one sense. We are trying to figure out the "ought", but the "is" will never allow a true war against Islam to be fought.

But if we indulge in fantasy then I think a proud, confident nation would have destroyed numerous Islam dominated countries. It would have completely demilitarized the entire Middle East, and I mean all of it. It would probably have left a few strategic bases in the area for quick strike capability and destroying any new threats as they emerge. It would probably have annexed the oil fields and deprived the world of Islam any oil wealth. It would probably ban or restrict immigration from Muslim lands for a significant stretch of time. It would probably place many (if not all) mosques and Muslim organizations in America under heightened surveillance. There would also be imprisonment for all 5th column Muslim Americans and deportation for 5th column immigrants and there sympathizers. I say "probably" to all of these because I haven't worked out all of the rights-based details involved. But I think in time of war all of this would be moral.

And this is only for starters. I'm sure there is much else that would need to be done. As for an American style occupation like WWII, it may or may not be warranted. I can see an attempt at what John Lewis proposed and I can see a total "smash and leave" strategy which is closer to my heart.

"Islamic Totalitarianism is a worldwide movement. The first step in defeating an enemy is recognizing it"

I don't know anyone who does not now know this, though a small number are in denial.

"Islamic Totalitarianism is a worldwide movement. The first step in defeating an enemy is recognizing it"