Defeating Islamic Totalitarianism by Andrew Bernstein

gregster's picture
Submitted by gregster on Sun, 2013-08-25 07:47

Andrew Bernstein on Facebook, July 17, 12:57am:

“ARI paid me well to analyze heroism and hero worship. What could be better than that?”

I suggested: “The analysis of the antithesis. Islam. And what a country should do to prevent creeping Sharia.”

Bernstein replied “Greg, did that already. See the chapter on Islamic Totalitarianism in my book, “Capitalist Solutions.”

I had to buy Andrew’s book to see for myself. From the steady criticism from some channels here, one would be forgiven in thinking that OrgOists had gone over to the dark side, and Rand’s philosophy was being diluted to the extent of being immoral and impractical.

May I reassure SOLOists that Bernstein’s Defeating Islamic Totalitarianism chapter puts to death that thought. In future when I see direct criticisms of the nebulous "OrgOism" I will demand the evidence.

A flippant critic of OrgOism creates his own contradiction. Objectivism could not lend itself to a Vatican-styled succession of moral pronouncements for its faithful. It is about individuals exercising their own judgements. OrgOism (ARI in particular) is the vehicle for promoting Ayn Rand’s philosophical insights for its rational interests and for the benefit of the world. It is not set up to be a papacy. Their good work shouldn’t be ignored.

On to Andrew’s book. Bernstein contrasts the defeat of Japan’s militaristic regime in WWII with the failing response against “fanatical sects engaged in jihad” and asks “What is the primary cause of such monumental differences in outcome?” “What is, morally and practically, the right step for the United States to now take—and with what intended result?”

“Full military victory today can be achieved much more quickly than America’s triumph over Japan—and with minimal loss of life.”

“.. the American prosecution of World War II in the Pacific is instructive. The Japanese had conquered the Philippines and much of the South Pacific. They invaded China. They threatened Australia. Recognizing the US Navy’s capacity to impede their advance, they savagely bombed Pearl Harbor in attempt to annihilate that obstacle.”

[…]

“[Japan’s] explicit philosophy called for military conquest, a holy duty to vastly expand the Japanese Empire, and need to obliterate all who dared oppose them.

What were America’s goals in defending itself from such danger? First and foremost: there would be no negotiated settlement with the Imperial Japanese Government; the Americans would not leave the emperor, his ministers and their militaristic philosophy in political authority. Unconditional surrender, dismantlement of the regime, and excising of its philosophy were the outcomes recognized as necessary to ensure protection of America and American lives. The first step towards safety lay in inflicting crushing military defeat on Japan.”

“The devastating military defeat inflicted on Japan [..] was indispensable to shake Japanese thinkers to their philosophic core; to discredit, indeed, disgrace their militarist ideology; and to cause Japan to radically alter course. This is how a free country “pulls the fangs of the predatory animals of the world.” This is the way a war of self-defense against a murderously aggressive foe is properly executed.

This is what today must be done to the Iranian regime.”

Bernstein writes that America must demand “an immediate unconditional surrender, and, in event of that regime’s obdurate recalcitrance, must be willing to deploy the full might of its military—including, if necessary, nuclear weapons—to destroy the country’s political leadership, its fanatical mullahs, and its armed forces. As with Germany and Japan in 1945, so Iran today must be mercilessly hammered until and unless its government agrees to America’s terms.”

[…]

“Crushing the Islamist state of Iran accomplishes three major goals: it eradicates the main enemy; it demonstrates American resolve to use all necessary means to gain total victory; and it sends shock waves of terror through jihadists worldwide, who then know they can be next. Briefly such terror existed after 9/11—but only because of the enemy’s fear of what American response could (and should) have been; once America’s weak-willed rejoinder became manifest, such terror immediately (and understandably) dissipated.”

[…]

“Should we wait to defend ourselves until they swell in numbers and/or possess nuclear weapons?”

“The Pakistani regime will be told—not asked—that American aircraft, missiles, and bombs will be deployed in that country to whatever degree is necessary to obliterate surviving Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters; the same holds true of Afghanistan or any other country in which jihadists seek sanctuary. The Saudi regime will be ordered to shut down the mosques and madrassahs that preach virulent anti-American hatred; the alternative is that American forces will do so and, at the same time, take back the oilfields developed by Western companies, now to be restored to their proper owners.”

[…]

“America must understand that just as the good of a rational individual is to pursue his self-interest, so the good of a free society is to do the same; especially when the alternative is to be implacably assaulted by vicious savages impelled by a philosophy straight from the Dark Ages.”

“From Objectivist principles, the current struggle matches America, objectively right but repudiating objectivity, against religious zealots, objectively wrong but embracing (a false view of) objectivity. The American people are, generally, intellectually better; but in terms of each side’s leadership, the current struggle, rendered in terms of epistemology, is; cultural relativism versus religion—or a mushily “compassionate,” timid brand of emotionalism versus a dogmatically, aggressively certain one.”

This is nothing new, but the impracticality is apparent if one takes the Open Immigration view. Even self-confessed humanity-diminisher Neil Parille is correct that if America bombed their mosques & madrassahs back to hell, America would potentially, subsequently face greater losses of life via the Islamic immigrants already legitimately on American soil. So how does Bernstein treat this matter?

“It would be irresponsibly immoral on the part of the U.S. government to subject Americans to graver danger by failing to rigorously screen immigration from the Arab-Islamic lands that spawn America’s enemies.

[…]

“Until the day that America obliterates Islamic Totalitarianism [..] it must be made increasingly difficult, although not impossible, for individuals from Islamic lands to emigrate to America.”

[…]

“A generally open borders policy is morally right—but open borders do not necessitate unexamined immigrants.
Indeed, protecting the rights and lives of Americans requires that immigrants be examined more scrupulously than ever.”

Andrew Bernstein is faultless in his appraisal. His solution would work.

As for others known as OrgOists: Leonard Peikoff has spent some years offering his views as best he can—and that’s very well in my opinion—on the matter of Islam. He, to my knowledge, has never minced his words. He has just put out an unscheduled podcast (usually they’re every Monday), and this one re-iterates his regularly stated position, from his point of view as an experienced Objectivist thinker. Peikoff.com The question: Is it moral for a person to expose secret government programs which violate citizens’ individual rights, even if this may harm strategies which the government states are essential to national security? In other words, what is your estimate of the NSA now?

There actually is no inconsistency among the better known Oists on Islam and how to kill its threat. Even Harry Binswanger may have come around to a common sense non-rationalist position in the time since I was an HBL subscriber. He was then a straggler. An HBL subscriber Ed Powell described his own frustration here on Doug’s thread “Attention Mainstream Objectivism: Islam's "Rule of Numbers"

Harry Binswanger makes it plain his definition of Objectivism in his email to newbies:
“It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or she included in her anthologies. Applications, implications, developments, and extensions of Objectivism--though they are to be encouraged and will be discussed on my list--are not, even if entirely valid, part of Objectivism. (Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.)”

There are fatal flaws in the West's approach to militant Islam. I do not see any originating in Objectivist circles.


.

gregster's picture

.

Doug, you may be right

gregster's picture

I've given the first two a read, but today haven't had time to think about this. I'll listen again to Yaron. Was my 97 year old grandmother's funeral.

Yaron Brook is Wrong on Islam

Doug Bandler's picture

Greg and anyone interested, read the following:

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot...

Also:

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot...

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot...

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot...

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot...

These are very good posts getting at the tribal nature of the Islamic world and why American Foreign policy is not reality focused. This also applies to the ARI views on foreign policy and immigration. Muslims bring their culture with them, as well as their religion. Both are inimical to America and the West.

Further OrgOist coherence

gregster's picture

Thanks for your first contribution Nosy. That was slightly better than Tore's one: "deleted" "deleted" Please persevere, I'm sure you'll shake that writer's block.

***************

Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have more to say on the 'slime:
Leonard Peikoff interviews ex-wife Amy on the NSA programs.

Why does the British government protect Muslims?

Leonard's interview with Amy Peikoff has been out for a little while but to gather it all here.. He's good here too. Go to the last part on Immigration of DemocRat supporters, then imagine if these were Islamic DemocRats.

Bernstein is obviously a

nosyfred's picture

Bernstein is obviously a Yid... Sticking out tongue

Yid is a derogatory name

RationalMan's picture

Perhaps the sheepherders of NZ are not aware of it, but Yid is a derogatory name for Jews and should be taken down.

Disclaimers, again....

Craig Ceely's picture

I am involved with the ongoing Egypt thing, among other, um....difficult things.

No, Richard....

Craig Ceely's picture

Given what you've just posted, we're good.

And no, having lived there doesn't make me right -- certainly not automatically. But I wouldn't ask that anyway, and why would I? And why should I expect you to let me get away with that?

What I'm arguing here is that it has provided me with direct evidence, with facts on the ground, with people I knew (and still know). That's what we call induction, isn't it?

No worries, Craig. Also, my

Richard Wiig's picture

No worries, Craig. Also, my Robert Fisk comment wasn't to compare you to him. That would indeed have been an insult. I was just pointing out that living there doesn't automatically make you right. Your view can be tested against the facts, not against whether or not you've lived there.

Critics....

Craig Ceely's picture

Sorry, Richard. I may have gotten a bit hot and misinterpreted your 'critics of the critics' comment.

You've lost me, Craig. What

Richard Wiig's picture

You've lost me, Craig. What charges? I haven't made any charges against you.

And...

Craig Ceely's picture

Are these charges you are bringing against me, Richard?

To be added to defender of dhimmitude and beheadings and whatnot?

Beyond any of this, your "So has Robert Fisk" comment is beyond insulting. Cheapest of cheap shots. You'd compare me to a guy who defended his own ass-beating at the hands of Muslims? I've not only faced Hezbullah in the field (a phrase many here are becoming weary of, I'm sure), I've defended Rowan Atkinson as a free speech hero against Islam on my own blog, and I've participated in the Draw Huhammad Day and I've defended the Danish cartoonists, too, in every case using my own name -- something apparently not required here, at least. And I've been doing it for years.

According to whom,

Richard Wiig's picture

According to whom, Richard?

According to Islamic scholars.

But beyond that, "Jihadist" is not what I wrote. I have become a bit sensitive, on this site, to folk putting words in my mouth and then arguing from that. I'll not tolerate it.

You wrote Islamist, meaning, a proponent of political Islam? Muhammad himself was a proponent of political Islam. He didn't divide it between Islam and Islamism. It was, and still is, just Islam. The political and the social are integrated as one. Note that that is the case regardless of whether anyone is taking it seriously or enforcing it. When people lapse in their religion it doesn't mean that the religion now equates to their lapse.

But that is exactly my argument. They are calling their fellow Muslims to the straight path, as they see it.

Yep, which means they are not trying to deceive anyone that the Muslim world is in lock-step. Their aim is to unite the Ummah under a Caliph. A Caliph is the only one who has the authority to call the entire Ummah to war against the Kuffar.

Further, I own plenty of Islamic literature, published in Saudi Arabia and in English, making exactly that claim, that "pretence," as you call it. They are out there, Richard. This is the propaganda to which I refer.

Making the claim that the Ummah is united in lock-step, or ought to be united in lock-step? I know there is propaganda directed at non-Muslims by Islamic groups but I have only seen the kind that says pretty much what the leftists say. I have seen no claims that the Ummah is in lock-step.

But I've lived there, Richard.

So has Robert Fisk.

Muslims -- blow off sharia law all the time. Prayer calls, especially morning prayers, beer and other alcoholic beverages, haram foods, you name it.

Which doesn't mean that blowing it off becomes Islam. It means that those particular Muslims are not strictly observing Islam.

Every time you buy into the "all Muslims are exactly the same,"

I haven't bought into that, and I don't think anyone here has bought into that. It is not something I have ever said or even thought, but it is the constant claim of critics of the critics. That, along with charges of bigotry, collectivism, hater, Islamophobe, etc.

The fact that Muslims come in

Tom Burroughes's picture

The fact that Muslims come in all types and sizes surely is what the Islamist fundamentalists fear: they know there are moderate Muslims who are sympathetic to aspects of life in the secular West, realise that fundamentalism is a disaster for them, and want to get on with their lives. (That is why the greatest killers of Muslims are other Muslims, usually fanatics who are trying to keep what they see as the "pure" way).

What Objectivists and other secularists should be doing is focusing on this, using different stategies to reach out where possible, while taking a hard line against the fanatics. (This may have to include immigration policy, etc.) But "they are all the same" just isn't true, any more than it is true of Christians, Jews, or so on.

Pretense and propaganda

Craig Ceely's picture

Richard, you write:

"You wrote Islamist while at the same time calling for the facts. The fact is Jihadist is the proper term."

According to whom, Richard? Are you a Muslim?

But beyond that, "Jihadist" is not what I wrote. I have become a bit sensitive, on this site, to folk putting words in my mouth and then arguing from that. I'll not tolerate it.

Me: The Islamists want you to think that they are all marching in lock-step.
You: They make no such pretence. They are quite open in calling their fellow Muslims to the straight path.

But that is exactly my argument. They are calling their fellow Muslims to the straight path, as they see it. Further, I own plenty of Islamic literature, published in Saudi Arabia and in English, making exactly that claim, that "pretence," as you call it. They are out there, Richard. This is the propaganda to which I refer.

But I've lived there, Richard. Beirut and Jounieh. Jeddah and Ta'if. Alexandria and Giza and Cairo. People -- Muslims -- blow off sharia law all the time. Prayer calls, especially morning prayers, beer and other alcoholic beverages, haram foods, you name it. Sure, morons here claim that my "autobiography" means nothing, but I've been there, spent time there, and these are large, important cities, and this behavior is widespread.

Me: They are promulgating and actively doing evil in the world and they are being abetted by people in the bosom of western civilization who should know better.
You: No one here is abetting them, at least not since Leonid was ejected.

Every time you buy into the "all Muslims are exactly the same," every time you spread that, you are abetting the evil you claim to reject. You are standing behind the Islamists. That is my point. You haven't come up with anything to counter that.

You wrote Islamist while at

Richard Wiig's picture

You wrote Islamist while at the same time calling for the facts. The fact is Jihadist is the proper term.

The Islamists want you to think that they are all marching in lock-step.

They make no such pretence. They are quite open in calling their fellow Muslims to the straight path.

They are promulgating and actively doing evil in the world and they are being abetted by people in the bosom of western civilization who should know better.

No one here is abetting them, at least not since Leonid was ejected. If you want examples of Obleftivists who are abetting them, take a look at OL. Obama is King though.

Parrots and propaganda

Craig Ceely's picture

First of all, did I write "jihadist?" Your choice of words, Richard, not mine.

Beyond that, how many of you really believe that all Muslims, all inhabitants of Muslim nations, believe all of the same things and to the same degree? We know, for example, that in the US, the cities of Louisville, Charleston, and Baltimore are Catholic and revere the Pope and his authority over all secular matters. Oh, El Paso and Miami, too, and let's not forget Boston.

Yes? Fucking insanity.

The Islamists want you to think that they are all marching in lock-step. Oh, behind them, naturally. And some of them are, actively, jihadists of course, which makes it even worse.

They are promulgating and actively doing evil in the world and they are being abetted by people in the bosom of western civilization who should know better.

Who here is parroting

Richard Wiig's picture

Who here is parroting jihadist propaganda?

A Modest Proposal

Craig Ceely's picture

How about stop parroting the Islamist propaganda, in favor of facts?

Might be a good first start. Surely a secular individualist wouldn't object to such a thing.

But I'm not putting my money on that bet....

It is needless, and I suggest

Richard Wiig's picture

It is needless, and I suggest contrary to your job in government. You are to defend the individual rights of your citizens, not gallop across the globe on vendettas. I don't care about "blowback" and am all for the full use of force where necessary (Irans nuclear facilities currently being very necessary) but there's no reason to go beyond what's needed for the job. You are wrong anyway about Muslims only following the regimes. The cartoon furore wasn't orchestrated by any of the regimes that you want to nuke. It was whipped up by a couple of clerics, from Norway/Denmark of all places, who toured the mosques of the world whipping up a frenzy. This was independent of any regime. I think you underestimate the Ummah. I know that nuking Shia Islam, a mere 5% of the Islamic world, will not put and end to the Ummah, which exists independent of any regime.

It is not needless, and most

DonH's picture

It is not needless, and most of them are not innocent.

The consequences would be that they would learn not to harm Americans, or else suffer massive death and destruction in their country.

Now I know your next question will be some form of "what about the blowback from Muslims in the west?" The answer to that is, arrest anyone who participates in this, if it happens.

The US military retaliates against threats outside the country, and the police protect against any riots/terrorism/reprisals within the US. Both functions are appropriate.

And what do you think might

Richard Wiig's picture

And what do you think might be the unintended consequences of needlessly massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Unleash the sledgehammers

DonH's picture

That is not really what containment means, but thank you for the clarification of what you mean. So what you are saying is to ignore them, don't sanction them, let them rot on their own. I am absolutely 100% all for that - EXCEPT for the fact that they have already attacked us. We must to respond to those past attacks, we cannot just let Americans be murdered, while pretending that its all part of a grand strategy.

I do want to crack nuts with a sledgehammer, I suppose. It will not take long, and there wont be much left of the nuts. But again, I only want to bring out the sledghammer because those nuts have attacked us!! The nuts have slaughtered Americans by the thousands!

It cannot be allowed to stand unanswered.

Islam cannot stand on its own

Richard Wiig's picture

Islam cannot stand on its own two feet. It's a perfectly reasonable strategy to withdraw the support that enables it to stand, which is merely what "containment" means. You appear to want to crack nuts with sledgehammers.

Pretend strategy

DonH's picture

The immigration and containment centric view is nothing but a pragmatic way to step in and out of reality as needed, to pretend to be for self-defense, but not to actually do it.

containment

Neil Parille's picture

I see it primarily in terms of immigration.

Neil - "If a country does

DonH's picture

Neil - "If a country does support attacks on the US or its troops, punitive strikes should be utilized."

They have, Neil!
Step out of the world of theory, and apply it to reality. Iran HAS supported attacks on the US and its troops over, and over, and over. They have gone unpunished for 3 decades!

Islam is weak

DonH's picture

Based on dealing with many typical Iraqis and Afghans over the years, I view the vast majority as cowards and Peter Keating types. Their devotion to Islam is nowhere near as strong as you think. These people are incredibly weak ideologically. They simply follow the leader, plain and simple.

Their war against us has only lasted because of our own disgraceful self-sacrifice.

This is why I believe targeting Iran, and maybe a few others is all that would be necessary to neuter this zero of an ideology once and for all. The Ummah is a house of cards. It doesn't matter that said house has been standing since 622 - there just hasn't been a strong enough breeze to come through and blow it away.

If the west would ever abandon altruistic appeasment and kowtowing to their bullshit, their leaders be terrified of us, and would do anything we told them to. The Karzais, the Assads, and the Khameinis and the Achmadinejads of the world would be on their knees begging us to spare them.

Muslim agents within the US are the same way. If we defeat the cause they fight for, and stop tolerating their BS, then their motivation will utterly evaporate.

But if you don't agree and you still want to insist that this horde of dedicated true believing muslim 5th columnists will just keep coming relentlessly, then by all means arrest them! Shut down their mosques! Deport them! Hell, execute them! Hasan (Ft Hood) should have been executed years ago!

Containment is not a solution

DonH's picture

Neil-
You are trying to have your cake and eat it: isolate/quarantine the middle east; but that somehow won't mean putting soldiers in harms way.

The terms being you are using (isolate, contain, etc) have military implications. Quarantine implies that no one goes in, and no one comes out. You cant pretend that this won't be a very large and risky operation.

Are you talking about naval blockades? No-fly zones? Any troops on the ground in any countries? These troops/sailors/pilots are going to have to be housed somewhere, and those sites are going to be vulnerable to attack, as we have seen in Lebanon, the USS Cole, etc.
Tit-for-tat "punitive" retribution is not enough, the enemy rightly laughs at this and calls it weakness.

When soldiers are attacked.

Richard Wiig's picture

As in Fort Hood? As in Lee Rigby? How would you respond?

"Immigration is NOT the

Richard Wiig's picture

"Immigration is NOT the central front. The military component is primary and vital"

The Islamic world is militarily weak compared to the west, but its hand is strengthened with each new Muslim that settles behind enemy lines. Immigration is a major front and the military really is minor. The only reason we've spent so much time on it is because of altruism. Now we are set to help Al Qaeda by attacking Assad all in the cause of altruism. It's going from bad to worse.

Containment

Neil Parille's picture

Under the approach I advocate, there would be relatively little need to have troops in harms way.

If a country does support attacks on the US or its troops, punitive strikes should be utilized.

I'm still curious how bombing Iran in, say, 2009, would have prevented the Boston Massacre.

Containment

DonH's picture

For the proponents of containment/isolation of the umma -

How would we respond when our soldiers doing the containing are attacked?

"I'm all in favour of nuking

DonH's picture

"I'm all in favour of nuking Iran. I'm also in favour of keeping Islamofilth out. I daresay I'm in favour of privatising fish, too—but this last is not a priority."

I agree, in that order of priority.

Bombing Iran

Neil Parille's picture

Don H,

All analogies go limp at some point. It seems pretty clear to me that Japanese Shintoists are not cut from the same cloth as Muslims. That they would react one way when occupied in their country and Moslems in the West would act another way if their home countries are bombed is quite reasonable to me. Just look at the riots in UK and France in recent years. They weren't even in response to attacks on their countries.

Ive also mentioned the economic consequences to the US of endless wars. We would almost certainly see an oil boycott by Saudi Arabia, among other countries. Our economy is still in a recession. Oh, I can hear the O'ists - just occupy their oil fields. And if Al Quaida moves from country x to country y, then bomb country y. Russia can't even stop terrorism even though it is being grown in its back your (if not its own country). I guess we will have to bomb Russia at some point. Isolate and quarantine is the only viable strategy.

I don't know exactly what Iran is up to when it comes to supporting terrorism, but if the US didn't meddle in the mid East and didn't have Moslem immigration we would not be at anywhere near the same level of risk for terrorism that we are now.

-Neil

Doug

gregster's picture

Thanks for reappearing, my friend.

Bombing Iran right now as the world is currently organized would result in severe economic hardships for America and the West and would result in Muslim blowback all over the West. That America hasn't made itself energy self-sufficient attests to the fact that it has been run into the ground by its political class, and dimwit citizenry. Not bombing Iran will cause greater economic hardship as it will gift Iran nuclear weapons capability.

You would have to end immigration AND start a program of out-migration of Muslims I agree about the immigration, but many Muslims who've arrived may be the type of immigrants attempting to escape tyranny. Hardline domestic surveillance would be a more rights-respecting approach. If Moslem immigrants attended anti-American events, in this time of a war of their making, then they should be deported. I do agree, and have said before that quarantining these death-worshippers, pig-penning them, would be ideal. They would go under via their own evil. It requires proper profiling (and that won't happen any time soon).

Then you would have to systematically close the Mosques and deport all open Islamic 5th column parties. We wouldn't miss a thing. What did they ever contribute anyhow? But let's be sure about one thing. A man can hold to whichever crackpot ideas he wishes, but once he acts against another individual, or poses an objective threat, then he would be treated as any other criminal. You can't say that every Muslim (especially once naturalised) is a threat, but I agree absolutely that aggregates are. We know they believe, via the paedophile Mohammed, via archangel Gabriel, transcribed from Allah, that the world ought be conquered by the sword.

If the West were largely empty of Muslims then you could aggressively wage war against problem Muslim countries. No doubt a lot easier.

But I don't know if it would even be necessary. I still think a quarantine and contain policy is superior to a regime change strategy. Periodic bombardment to destroy Jihad strongholds followed by some strict ultimatums and the subsequent quarantinement of the Islamic world. It would be even better.

And of course get Muslims out of America and Western nations. Severe separation of religion and state would do the trick - like it did with these pesky Goblians.

Lindsay

Grant Jones's picture

"Orgoism would rather talk about privatising fish, and sweet Muslim nannies." Way too funny and sadly true. I wonder if anyone wants to wager on whether ARI/Orgoism will just ignore Peikoff's poscast.

Grant

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So pleased to learn that Leonard has seemingly irreversibly reversed himself on his fatwa:

"And the other thing I want to say that's going to come as a bombshell to Objectivists, and that's too bad, you can stop listening, as far as I'm concerned, I am against the immigration bill 100%, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason: it happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of a dictatorship, it happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democrat, so if you are talking about a bill, I don't care whether it's fair, unfair in any other respect, if you are talking about a bill that infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country, that is what immigration means today. And there's no use asking me in theory what do I think, we're at the end, so it's a question of buying time, that's it."

A major advance on voting Dem-scum across the board because America is teetering on the edge of a Goblian, Republican theocracy. I wonder how comfortably it sits with the ARI? And with the ARI shills here in NZ who were silent through the fatwa?

So, even if the US nuked Iran, the ummah would still be coming for us kafirs using non-linear strategies. The Arabs fought four conventional wars with Israel, then they wised up. They're in it for the very long haul, as we need to be also.

Bravo! "Long haul" is what Obleftivists and other hippies shy away from. Islam is longterm evil, through and through. Orgoism would rather talk about privatising fish, and sweet Muslim nannies.

I'm all in favour of nuking Iran. I'm also in favour of keeping Islamofilth out. I daresay I'm in favour of privatising fish, too—but this last is not a priority.

The World War II analogy is

Grant Jones's picture

The World War II analogy is beyond lame. Islam has been at war with civilized existence since 622. The place to begin is with an analysis of Islam, its strategies for aggression, and its ultimate purpose. The fact that Bernstein and the rest of the OrgOism are thinking in terms of nation-states demonstrates that they haven't properly investigated the nature of the enemy. We are at war with the ummah, not any particular nation-state.

The main problem the West has with Islam is the fact that millions of Moslems are in the West/America. With the end of mass immigration, and the deportation of Moslems, 90% of our problem would be solved. Then we can deal with nation's that get out of hand like Iran on a purely punitive basis. But, that shouldn't be necessary very often. A much better analogy is the Cold War. While the Soviet Union was the main enemy, those with a clue understood that Communism was the real problem. The policy of containment actually worked against the Red Empire. Just quarantine the dar al-Islam and let it collapse of its own evil. A proper policy means that Islamic pathologies aren't our problem.

In other news, heads are exploding all over OrgOism land. Leonard Peikoff said this in his last podcast.

"And the other thing I want to say that's going to come as a bombshell to Objectivists, and that's too bad, you can stop listening, as far as I'm concerned, I am against the immigration bill 100%, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason: it happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of a dictatorship, it happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democrat, so if you are talking about a bill, I don't care whether it's fair, unfair in any other respect, if you are talking about a bill that infuse into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country, that is what immigration means today. And there's no use asking me in theory what do I think, we're at the end, so it's a question of buying time, that's it."

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/08...

P.S. Don, what you want is irrelevant. The United States Army wanted a decisive, short war in Vietnam. But, guess what? The enemy gets a say. Unless you are prepared to nuke substantial parts of not only the Middle East but also Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia containment is the only way to go. It will be messy and it will be long. But, it's the nature of the enemy and warfare that determines strategy. Trying to shoehorn the Western Way of War into conflicts with non-Western opponents is a recipe for disaster. They have no intention of fighting our war. So, even if the US nuked Iran, the ummah would still be coming for us kafirs using non-linear strategies. The Arabs fought four conventional wars with Israel, then they wised up. They're in it for the very long haul, as we need to be also.

P.P.S. Using the phrase "Islamic totalitarianism" is a confession of general cluelessness on this issue.

DonH

Richard Wiig's picture

"I (and ARI, as far as I can tell) want a decisive war, with clear and defined goals, objectives, and a clear end-state."

What end-state would that be? A transformation of the Islamic world into what? How do you propose to maintain that state, whatever that state is, once you've attained it, assuming it is something attainable? The only reason to act militarily is if there is a clear and objective threat, such as Iran's nuclear facilities. For any lesser reason you are surely unnecessarily putting peoples lives on the line.

Re Doug Bandler - "The ARI

DonH's picture

Re Doug Bandler -

"The ARI plan and to a lesser extent the Tracinski plan both involve constant never ending war with the Muslim world. The better strategy is to quarantine the Muslim world and have little to do with it."

I (and ARI, as far as I can tell) want a decisive war, with clear and defined goals, objectives, and a clear end-state. Crush every single threatening regime, and be done with it. After that, leave. End of story, end of war. This is not constant and it is not never ending.

It is you who advocates an open ended, never ending situation - a "quarantine" of the muslim world. Does this include Africa, or just the middle east? Is there an end-state for the quarantine or does it go on indefinitely?

I seriously suggest you reevaluate. You are falling victim here to the same leftist pragmatism that you so often condemn.

Immigration is far from central

DonH's picture

I agree that Islam is a political/military movement - I advocate a political/military response. The idea of being attacked over and over again across decades, without retaliating militarily is insane. A serious military campaign must be conducted in answer to the repeated attacks against our own military.

So I find the emphasis on immigration to be very strange. Immigration is NOT the central front. The military component is primary and vital. Geert Wilders is a hero, but this emphasis on immigration is all wrong. I am certainly in favor of shutting down mosques, and deporting, and turning off immigration, so far as it is practical to do so, but ONLY as a small component of the wider strategy. Pulling up the drawbridge is short term thinking. It might be fine if this were a potential threat only, but after we have in fact been attacked (repeatedly), we have to go on the offensive here.

I suppose I would take your strategy over what we have now (which is worse than nothing), but immigration tweaks are only marginally better than appeasement.

The comparisons to Japan are apt. The Japanese religion of the 30s/40s was the same kind of political/military movement that Islam is today. Japan was not secular, or high IQ (whatever that means) at the time in question. I would argue that the entire population was far more devoted to their mysticism than modern Muslims are to theirs. See Saipan, where droves of civilians committed suicide. See also the situation in mainland Japan where the entire population (including women and children) was preparing to die in service to the emperor-god.

Absolutely arrest all Islamic 5th columnists, close their mosques, etc. But the idea that you could get all or even most muslims out of the US (and keep them out) is a fantasy. Could you explain how to do this? And how to maintain it? This is an honest question on my part.

Don

immigration is central

Doug Bandler's picture

The only true long term solution is indeed that advocated by Bernstein/Brook, et al. Bomb Iran, plus all other countries who do not immediately cease supporting terrorism.

This is the ARI view that this conflict can be solely won by war overseas; i.e. that this is purely a military issue. It is not. Its a cultural one and the chief center of this war is immigration. The existence of Muslims in the West will always lead to problems. That is because Islam is not simple religion. It is a political / military movement. The ARI plan and to a lesser extent the Tracinski plan both involve constant never ending war with the Muslim world. The better strategy is to quarantine the Muslim world and have little to do with it.

Bombing Iran right now as the world is currently organized would result in severe economic hardships for America and the West and would result in Muslim blowback all over the West. You would have to end immigration AND start a program of out-migration of Muslims, something that Geert Wilders has advocated for Europe. Then you would have to systematically close the Mosques and deport all open Islamic 5th column parties. If the West were largely empty of Muslims then you could aggressively wage war against problem Muslim countries. But I don't know if it would even be necessary. I still think a quarantine and contain policy is superior to a regime change strategy. Periodic bombardment to destroy Jihad strongholds followed by some strict ultimatums and the subsequent quarantinement of the Islamic world. And of course get Muslims out of America and Western nations.

Really, in a sane world, i.e. a non-left-liberal world, this would be obvious. But a suicidal approach to equality (the left) and liberty (libertarians and Objectivists) prevents the obvious from being obvious. And that is that the problem is with Islam and Muslims. Comparisons with Japan, a high IQ largely secular people are out of place.

Bombing Iran, etc.

DonH's picture

I have lurked at SOLO for some time, but I must join the fray to respond to some patent absurdities by Neil Parille:

The litany of attacks against the west by Iran is well known. An overview can be easily found on wikipedia and elsewhere.

But Mr. Parille specifically asks what attacks Iran has funded "in the US". I believe he phrases the question that way in order to discount the obvious examples of attacks on the Iranian embassy and the Hezbollah strikes in Lebanon. He implies that only attacks occurring within the continental US are relevant.

When Hezbollah attacked the barracks in Lebanon, over 200 US Marines were killed. Iran's other attacks, such as Khobar towers, and the support for the Iraq insurgency, have mostly killed/maimed US military personnel. Why are these attacks not relevant to Mr. Parille?

There is a widespread view that US military personnel overseas are somehow legitimate targets, and killing them is justified. This view is based on moral equivalence between American Soldiers and Muslim jihadists. Mr. Parille's phrasing has led me to believe that he subscribes to that view. If I am reading something into the remark that isn't there, then I apologize.

Further points:

Simply ending Muslim immigration is a half measure, and it would not work over the long term. Doing so could be helpful as part of a wider strategy, but is worthless by itself.

The only true long term solution is indeed that advocated by Bernstein/Brook, et al. Bomb Iran, plus all other countries who do not immediately cease supporting terrorism. Which others specifically? That requires a much longer post, you would have to make a list and evaluate whether each country poses a threat, and how much of one.

But Iran is obvious. We should have declared war on them back in 1979, as Rand stated. But instead, President Carter appeased. Our chain of appeasement since the embassy incident is what led to 9/11, Ft. Hood, Boston, etc, etc, etc, etc, and who knows what the next attack will be.

Most of the civilians that would be killed by bombing are not innocent. Not at all. Not in any way.
They support their governments materially and morally. That being said, yes, some actual bona-fide innocents (children and political dissenters) would be killed in a war, as is the case in all wars. The idea that this would result in some kind of "open season" (i.e. blowback) from Muslims in the west is totally absurd.

I ask Mr. Parille to clarify the open season remark and elaborate on what form he thinks it would take.

As evidence for my case that there would be no significant blowback from muslims in the west, I offer the following comparison: Japan was nuked (twice) in WWII. Civilians both innocent and guilty were bombed on a massive scale. The racist FDR even went so far as to place Japanese in internment camps in America (I do not advocate this). So where was the blowback? Where was the "open season" on non-japanese during or after the war? Why did this not happen in the WWII case, but will supposedly happen with Muslims today?

The bottom line is to have a principled foreign policy with regard to the middle east, not just bombing Iran. Cease all appeasement.

Don

bombing iran

Neil Parille's picture

I'm agaknst it because of the deaths of innocent civilians. And if we were to bomb saudi arbia and ither countries the ensuing oil biycott would probably push the economy over the edge.

And as ive noted we have milluons of moslems in the west. There are cities in europe whose moslem population approaches 20 percent. It would be open season on non moslems.

Ending islamic immigration is a better solution.

What terror attacks in the US has Iran funded?

It bombing Iran were to happen

gregster's picture

it would take a departure from today's doomed appeasement. Properly de-fanging Iran until surrender, and then on to the next jihad supporter if necessary. This departure from failing policy should be accompanied by scrupulous domestic surveillance of suspects. Don'tcha think? Those two plots would then have been easily detected. You wouldn't have Muslims in your army in the first place. And the proper profiling of suspects would have nailed the Boston brothers.

To spell it out more slowly, you wouldn't just bomb Iran. You'd take coordinated measures.

GD

Neil Parille's picture

I still don't understand Bernstein's point.

How would bombing Iran have stopped the Fort Hood Shooter or the Boston Massacre?

-NP

NP

gregster's picture

Neil, it’s about identifying the enemy and declaring war, not repeated appeasement playing whack-a-mullah.

More from Andrew's book:

“Hezbollah butchered 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 [..] President Reagan’s response was to pull U.S. forces from Lebanon—not to obliterate the foe.”

“..Roosevelt identified the enemy as Fascism [..] and waged all out war to achieve [..] unconditional surrender.”

“President Bush refused to identify the enemy [..] neither requested nor received a declaration of war [..] leaving the primary foe—Iran-physically unscathed; indeed, strengthened by the overthrow of its regional enemy—the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Now your current administration, as Peikoff describes in his podcast linked to above, refuses to admit any connection those attacks have with Islam, and disguises every incident. The Fort Hood Muslim fuckwit admitted everything in his own defense, saying it was done for his Islamic beliefs but the appointed corrupted judge won’t accept that, and the farcical ‘trial’ is ongoing. The war crime put down as work-related, meaning victims cannot claim compensation against the army. Obamullah has everyone under illegal surveillance (continuing what Bush began), and pretends this is in the name of national security. In the face of that—then sweet FA will be done in your towns to prevent similar. The Obamullah administration had Tsarnaev removed from the suspicious list via FBI policy prior to the Boston atrocity. Bombing Iran won't happen while this philosophy continues. Anyway Obamullah will be busy directing the lies about those WMDs that turned up in Syria from Iraq.

Commander

gregster's picture

You're right, and it is. There was a turn out of 600 when Yaron Brook gave this speech 9/11 One Year Later: Why America Is Losing the War!.

The WWII Analogy

Neil Parille's picture

Can anyone explain the rationale for this? How is stopping Islamic terrorism equivalent to stopping the Axis and the Japanese?

How would bombing Iran have prevented the Boston Massacre or Fort Hood or 9/11 (for that matter)?

-Neil Parille

This is good, Gregster, but

Richard Wiig's picture

This is good, Gregster, but why did you have to buy his book to find it out? It should be loudly and publicly proclaimed so that no one is in any doubt.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.