Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Enderw

unread,
Sep 7, 2005, 11:53:39 PM9/7/05
to
I just got back from a lecture by Dr Yaron Brook of the ARI and
enjoyed it quite a bit. He is a very intelligent man and though I
disagree with his opinion that the Left is pretty much incompetent and
nihilistic and that Americans will not put them in power and thus the
religious right is the real domestic threat because they provide the
answers to the people who are looking for what is right and wrong, he
is fairly rational and I loved his explanation of why we are losing the
war on Terror.
He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
destroyed. After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
destruction. Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American troops
would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with heavy
bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government and
install a pro-american government. Leave them to deal with the rest and
sweep into Afghanistan to track down the rest of Taliban and Al Qaeda.
After all those moves countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be
renouncing all ties with terrorist organizations and banning their
fundamentalist schools.
It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.
It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 8, 2005, 6:54:22 AM9/8/05
to
Enderw wrote:
> It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
> the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
> are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
> the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.
> It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.

We have not got enough troops to occupy and control Iran and Iraq and
Syria. That leave one course of action. Nuke the bastards and transform
their bodies into hot gasses.

Bob Kolker

Enderw

unread,
Sep 8, 2005, 4:04:21 PM9/8/05
to

Though that is a good plan of action, I think the point was to kill
plenty of them as ruthlessly as possible without occupying any of those
countries. Nuking them is decent too.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 8, 2005, 5:44:30 PM9/8/05
to
Enderw wrote:

>
>
> Though that is a good plan of action, I think the point was to kill
> plenty of them as ruthlessly as possible without occupying any of those
> countries. Nuking them is decent too.

My proposal does just that. One does not have to occupy a country to
nuke it into extinction. The idea is quite the opposite. We want our
people and our friends as far away as possible when the mushrooms begin
to sprout.

This idea of occupation and victory is so --- retro and quaint. The idea
is to kill our enemies and bust up their shit, not to conquer them. And
if they offer surrender we keep on bombing them anyway. That way we
don't have to feed the survivors.

Bob Kolker

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 8, 2005, 6:19:25 PM9/8/05
to

Enderw wrote:
> He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
> charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
> missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
> that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
> destroyed. After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
> with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
> want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
> immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
> destruction. Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American troops
> would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with heavy
> bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government and
> install a pro-american government. Leave them to deal with the rest and
> sweep into Afghanistan to track down the rest of Taliban and Al Qaeda.
> After all those moves countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would be
> renouncing all ties with terrorist organizations and banning their
> fundamentalist schools.

It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
of military action.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

li...@starways.net

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:25:46 AM9/9/05
to

Is there a good industrial use for radioactive glass? This could be
worth pursuing.

Lisa

Enderw

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:13:10 AM9/9/05
to
li...@starways.net wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:

> > We have not got enough troops to occupy and control Iran and Iraq and
> > Syria. That leave one course of action. Nuke the bastards and transform
> > their bodies into hot gasses.
>
> Is there a good industrial use for radioactive glass? This could be
> worth pursuing.

If you are really a woman I want to marry you ;)

Ender

Ken Gardner

unread,
Sep 10, 2005, 6:46:10 PM9/10/05
to
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:53:39 +0000 (UTC), Enderw wrote:

> I just got back from a lecture by Dr Yaron Brook of the ARI and
>enjoyed it quite a bit. He is a very intelligent man and though I
>disagree with his opinion that the Left is pretty much incompetent and
>nihilistic and that Americans will not put them in power and thus the
>religious right is the real domestic threat because they provide the
>answers to the people who are looking for what is right and wrong, he
>is fairly rational and I loved his explanation of why we are losing the
>war on Terror.

He is partly right, partly wrong. He is right about the left, but
wrong about the religious right. I think they are even more
incompetent and politically inept than the left.

> He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
>charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
>missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
>that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
>destroyed.

Except that this almost certainly requires Congressional approval. A
threat of wholesale destruction amounts to a declaration of war, and
only Congress can declare war. In practice, this means he needs
Congressional approval along the lines of the resolutions approving
the Afghanistan and Iraqi operations. I don't see even a
Republican-controlled Congress giving him this authority. This won't
work until our political leadership prepares the country for it. And
that process hasn't even started.

He can, of course, initiate limited military action against Syria. But
it will remain necessarily limited unless he gets Congressional
authority for more extensive operations.

>After that is done move all 138,000 US troops to the border
>with Iran (allow Iraqis to kill themselves or do whatever else they
>want) and issue an ultimatum to the Iranian government to either
>immediately surrender and leave the country, or prepare for
>destruction.

Same comment. Here, the persuasion job will be slightly easier
because everyone understands that Iran cannot be allowed to get
nuclear weapons. But it remains formidable.

[...]

> It's sad that we don't have any politicians brave enough to take
>the course of action to actually win. Though we are fortunate that we
>are fighting a very incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy which is why
>the impact of losing this war is not going to be felt much directly.

The problem isn't simply the politicians. It is also the people who
elect these politicians. You cannot do this kind of thing in the
current political and cultural climate.

[...]

Ken

Jim Klein

unread,
Sep 11, 2005, 11:15:10 PM9/11/05
to
Enderw wrote:

> It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI.

Well said. That's my explanation for the success of such men, too.


jk

Mark

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 3:38:00 PM9/14/05
to
Enderw writes regarding Yaron Brook:

"It feels good to have such a man in charge of ARI."

Yaron Brook has been the executive director of ARI since at least a few
months before 9-11-2001. He was responsible for all of ARI's
"invade Iraq now" propaganda from then until the actual invasion.
At the time the gist of that propaganda was the same as the Neocons'.

Now he pretends he had nothing to do with it. Now he goes about the
country with a talk called "Neoconservatives vs. America" -- as if
only yesterday he hadn't been helping the Neocons all he could.

But he isn't really all that inconsistent. His criticism of the
Neocons amounts to this: the Neocons are not neocon enough. That is,
they are less eager Arabs and Persians as he is. I doubt it though.

Enderw paraphrases part of Mr. Brook's program for the Middle East:
"... American troops would then sweep in [to Iran],
killing everything in their way ..."

This is comic-book talk, reminiscent of what ARI and the Neocons were
saying in 2003 about the ease of conquering Iraq..

Enderw writes:
"... we are fortunate that we are fighting a very
incompetent, pathetic, barbarian enemy ..."

Incompetent, pathetic, barbarians -- who are going to build nuclear
bombs and ICBMS and kill us all.

Because we're free and they're not !

But Enderw seems to have slipped off the ARI track, because he
continues (right after "barbarian enemy"):

"... which is why the impact of losing this war is


not going to be felt much directly."

If so, why have a war to lose?

Mark
http://ariwatch.com

Mark

unread,
Sep 14, 2005, 4:00:45 PM9/14/05
to
Correction: "less eager" --> "less eager to kill"

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:14:40 PM9/15/05
to

Ken Gardner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 03:53:39 +0000 (UTC), Enderw wrote:
>
> > He also provided his opinion on what he would do now if he was in
> >charge which was quite nice. He said that he'd first launch a few
> >missiles at Syrian government buildings and give them an ultimatum
> >that if they don't seal their border within 24 hours they would be
> >destroyed.
>
> Except that this almost certainly requires Congressional approval. A
> threat of wholesale destruction amounts to a declaration of war, and
> only Congress can declare war.

Which means that the only way Yaron Brook could actually do what he
wants would be if he were dictator, which I'm sure he wouldn't have a
problem with.

It's deliberative representative democracy that keeps yahoos like Brook
from getting into positions of power in the first place. The man's a
bona fide fascist. "Since ayatollahs probably would not leave, American


troops would then sweep in, killing everything in their way, along with
heavy bombing of Tehran. Occupy the city, take out their government

and install a pro-american government. "? Why doesn't he just don a
Darth Vader outfit and get it over with?

>
> The problem isn't simply the politicians. It is also the people who
> elect these politicians. You cannot do this kind of thing in the
> current political and cultural climate.

Thank goodness. If we did what Brook wanted we'd end up with zero
allies and a world united against us, instead of the islamists, because
we will have proven that we're just as nuckin' futs as they are.
Brook's position may as well be "Kill 'em all, and let Yahweh sort 'em
out."

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:24:58 PM9/15/05
to

cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
> of military action.
>

I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
economic.

Although I'm sure she would never have advocated nuclear holocaust.

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 1:26:18 PM9/15/05
to

I'm glad he's in charge of ARI as well.
.
.
.

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 6:01:39 PM9/15/05
to
Don't Panic wrote:
> cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
> > of military action.
> >
>
> I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
> political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
> justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
> illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
> economic.

She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
attack countries that haven't invaded us. She also felt that
government retaliation against initiation of force should be carefully
controlled and objective. The burden is on you to show where she would
have supported taxing the population to pay for preemptive and
subjective war.

Atlas Bugged

unread,
Sep 15, 2005, 10:54:32 PM9/15/05
to
> Don't Panic wrote:
>> I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
>> political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
>> justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
>> illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
>> economic.

Whoa! Whoa! That isn't right, but I never saw Cat Toy even come close.
That was actually lucid. Whoa!!

<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126819799.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> attack countries that haven't invaded us.

Flatly false. Read on.

Cite, if you please, that she opposed WWII?

>She also felt that
> government retaliation against initiation of force should be carefully
> controlled and objective. The burden is on you to show where she would
> have supported taxing the population to pay for preemptive and
> subjective war.

I think it's trivial to show she might well have favored pre-emptive war
(though nothing makes a solid case either way,) to wit:
-----------------------
(http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html)

"RAND: ....Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper
governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should
be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is
a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully
free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to
advocate."

And:

"PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."

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

Therefore, Rand would have certainly regarded invasion of any or all
Islamic hellholes as permissible. And she would likely not have been
against taxation for now, at least. Other aspects, such as an all-volunteer
army, would have satisfied her other criteria. The only question would be
whether it was the most profitable expenditure of money and blood for the
USA, a question which even I deem legitimate. However, should Iran acquire
nukes, there is no doubt in my mind what would be necessary and what Rand
would surely have favored.

Ken Gardner

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:08:27 AM9/16/05
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:24:58 +0000 (UTC), Don't Panic wrote:

>> It's ironic that Ayn Rand herself would have never supported this type
>> of military action.

>I think she probably would have opposed it because of its clear
>political and economic inpracticality, not because of lack of moral
>justification. Her thoughts on Cuba (interview with Playboy?)
>illustrate this, as Ken's post echos the political, and Kolker's the
>economic.

I agree. What she said about countries like Cuba and the USSR applies
equally to countries like Syria and Iraq today. A free or even
semi-free country would have the right, but not the obligation, to
wage wars of liberation against these countries. Practical
considerations may govern when to exercise that right.

Ken

Reggie Perrin

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 8:43:11 AM9/16/05
to

Atlas Bugged wrote:
> [...]

> <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126819799.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> > idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> > attack countries that haven't invaded us.
>
> Flatly false. Read on.

Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable in her
writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over the years. But
compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots of War":

[begin quote]

Just as Wilson, a "liberal" reformer, led the United States into World
War I "to make the world safe for democracy" -- so Franklin D.
Roosevelt, another "liberal" reformer, led it into World War II, in the
name of the "Four Freedoms." In both cases the "conservatives" -- and
the big business interests -- were overwhelmingly opposed to war but
were silenced. In the case of World War II they were smeared as
"isolationists," "reactionaries," and "America-First'ers.

World War I led, not to "democracy," but to the creation of three
dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. World War
II led, not to "Four Freedoms," but to the surrender of one-third of
the world's population into communist slavery.

[end quote]

And then this from "Moral Inflation":

[begin quote]

There still are people in this country who lost loved ones in World War
I. There are more people who carry the unhealed wounds of World War II,
of Korea, of Vietnam. There are the disabled, the crippled, the mangled
of those wars' battlefields. No one has ever told them why they had
to fight nor what their sacrifices accomplished; it was certainly not
"to make the world safe for democracy"-look at that world now.
The American people have borne it all, trusting their leaders, hoping
that someone knew the purpose of that ghastly devastation.

[end quote]

OK, so it's not an outright "I oppose WWII", but it is certainly
suggestive of that. I believe Rand is also on record elsewhere as
opposing Vietnam and Korea, though I do not know the references
("Shanghai Gesture(s)" perhaps?).

> "PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
> duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
> RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
> own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."

It might be that the crucial word here is "free". My impression is that
Rand was so disgusted by the prevailing political winds in the US at
the time of these conflicts that she might not have considered the US a
free country. As you mentioned, the draft was perhaps the key
consideration in that assessment.

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 10:10:52 AM9/16/05
to
Reggie Perrin wrote:

> ...My impression is that


> Rand was so disgusted by the prevailing political winds in the US at
> the time of these conflicts that she might not have considered the US a
> free country. As you mentioned, the draft was perhaps the key
> consideration in that assessment.

Not that we weren't free (though obviously mixed in that regard) but
that we were thoroughly confused as to our moral objectives (which of
course had the very same roots as our other mixed premises). What I
think disgusted her most about WWll was that while our men were
fighting and dying supposedly in the name of freedom, at the same time
we were bolstering the Soviet Union, treating them as an ally - and in
the end our "victory" consisted of stregthening them even more,
including handing them Eastern Europe. Korea and Vietnam followed
directly from that - just as the current mess in the Mideast followed
from our initial appeasement of the Arabs in the 1950's.

She reacted with great anger in a Q&A after a Ford Hall Forum speech at
the suggestion that we should have any hesitation about nuking the
Soviet Union out of concern for the innocents that would be killed
there in the process.

The very same "pro-terrorist libertarian losers" who claim to be able
to read her mind 25 years after her death have also typically reacted
with great hostility toward her supposed callousness in regard to the
killing of innocents in war. Depending on which side of this issue they
want to purport to be speaking in her name they will cite one or the
other of her comments, either in hypocritical support or to condemn
her. Whether on this issue or on nearly all others they are incapable
of keeping context.

Fred Weiss

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 10:46:33 AM9/16/05
to
Reggie posted some very relevant quotes. For a
complete list of what Ayn Rand said about WW II,
see
"Ayn Rand on Past Wars"
at
http://ariwatch.com/AynRandOnPastWars.htm

Ayn Rand opposed the U.S. entry into WW II.
There's no wiggle-room at all.

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 10:54:23 AM9/16/05
to
Mr. Weiss, of the Paper Tiger book service, writes:
"The very same 'pro-terrorist libertarian losers'
who claim to be able to read her [Ayn Rand's]
mind 25 years after her death ..."

It's Mr. Weiss who is pro-terrorist, and one needn't read
Ayn Rand's mind. Just read what she wrote:

http://www.ariwatch.com/AynRandOnPastWars.htm

Mr. Weiss again:
"... they are incapable of keeping context.

The context is America's self-interest. And by America
I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 11:58:06 AM9/16/05
to
Mork wrote:
> Mr. Weiss, of the Paper Tiger book service, writes:

Gee, thanks for the plug, Mork. Would it trouble you add a link
like this each time you gratuitously feel obliged to mention it.

http://www.papertig.com/

> "The very same 'pro-terrorist libertarian losers'
> who claim to be able to read her [Ayn Rand's]
> mind 25 years after her death ..."

> The context is America's self-interest. And by America


> I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
> Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.

I think this reveals Mork the Dork's real motives. That aside, while he
is selectively quoting AR out of context let me add this:

-"The purpose of this new isolationism is to play on the American
people's legitimate weariness, confusion and anger over Vietnam, in the
hope of making the U.S. government afraid to become involved in another
foreign war of any kind. This would paralyze the U.S. in the conduct of
any foreign policy not agreeable to Soviet Russia. The first intended
victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel-if the
"anti-war" efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan
are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help-not in the name
of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national
interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)"- The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. III, No. 24 August 26, 1974 "The Lessons Of Vietnam"

Since you are a fucking moron, Mork, what is this obsession you have
with continually providing us evidence of it? Or maybe that's just a
symptom of it.

Fred Weiss

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:11:00 PM9/16/05
to
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > She opposed WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam. She was totally against the
> > idea of taxation. She would never have suported using tax money to
> > attack countries that haven't invaded us.
>
> Flatly false. Read on.
>
> Cite, if you please, that she opposed WWII?

Reggie beat me to it.

> "PLAYBOY:....any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the
> duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?
> RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its
> own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights."

She clearly did not consider the US to be a free nation. She called the
US a "mixed" country between statist and free. Do you need a cite for
that?

I can't get past the fact that if she was opposed to WW1, WW2, Korea
and Vietnam how could she be in favor of invading Iraq? Am I being too
simple minded?

She also felt that the govenment's primary purpose was the retaliatory
use of force. She felt that it had to be very carefully controlled and
objective. Contrast that to your belief that the president should have
the sole power to wage war "in an emergency" against a country that
hadn't even initiated force agaisnt us.

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:14:31 PM9/16/05
to

I never said she would support what she viewed as a subjective war. She
advocated war based on what she viewed as objective principles, whether
they are is a mater of debate.

But if you'd like me to at least back up what I said, then no problem:

"PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any
free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II .
. .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right --


though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other
"slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of
its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba
or the Soviet Union?

RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate
that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I
would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet
Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss
of a single American life."

>From "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand"

So basically, she was saying "We have the moral justification, but I
have a better idea." But look at it this way, at least she could say,
"Let's find a better way" rather than, "Do you suppose there's a
commercial use for radioactive glass?"

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:17:30 PM9/16/05
to

Ayn Rand said "free" not "semi-free". Couple that with her opposition
to WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam and I think it's clear she would be
opposed to invading Iraq.

I've always figured that you guys thought Ayn Rand was wrong with
respect to her foreign policy. I didn't know you would try to twist her
words around and conclude she would have favored attacking Iraq.

Matt Barrow

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:21:46 PM9/16/05
to

<cr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126887404.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>

>
> Ayn Rand said "free" not "semi-free".

So who on earth could she be refering to regarding "free".

> Couple that with her opposition
> to WW1,WW2, Korea and Vietnam and I think it's clear she would be
> opposed to invading Iraq.

Again, I'll join the list of people asking for some real substantiation for
that, not just your version of George Nouri.


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:29:42 PM9/16/05
to
At the time Ayn Rand wrote that parapgraph (edited by LP) I too
supported Israel. Ayn Rand died before the NYT Israel torture expose,
and before many good books exposing Israel's crimes became well known,
e.g. those by Alfred M. Lilienthal, Victor Ostrovsky, and Rodney Stich.

I have not quoted Ayn Rand out of context. Her essays make it clear
that she was against U.S. entry into WW II. Perhaps Mr. Weiss -- did I
say of the Paper Tiger book service? -- would care to provide what he
thinks is the context which makes these quotes (see "Ayn Rand on Past
Wars" at ARI Watch) say the opposite?

Mark
http://ariwatch.com

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:35:02 PM9/16/05
to
Mark wrote:

Even after Pearl Harbor?

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:36:43 PM9/16/05
to
Mark wrote:
>
> The context is America's self-interest. And by America
> I don't mean the Neocons in Washington or hopeless
> Israel lovers like Mr. Weiss and Yaron Brook.

Our real self interest is to get rid of our Filthy Oil Habbit asap. In
this case we can cease to be concerned about the middle east and
concentrate on protecting our own borders.

Being free means not having to give a damn about anyone but ourselves
and our own.

Bob Kolker

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:54:24 PM9/16/05
to

Don't Panic wrote:

> RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate
> that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I
> would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet
> Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss
> of a single American life."
>
> >From "Playboy's interview with Ayn Rand"
>
> So basically, she was saying "We have the moral justification, but I
> have a better idea." But look at it this way, at least she could say,
> "Let's find a better way" rather than, "Do you suppose there's a
> commercial use for radioactive glass?"

That's a very good point. I have to concede that her foreign policy is
not very clear. However I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that
she obviously would have been in favor of invading Iraq, considering
that she was against all the other wars of the twentieth century.

-

-

-

-

-

-

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 12:59:07 PM9/16/05
to

Even Nathaniel Branden implied in his NBI audio lectures that the real
motivation behind the entry into WWII was as a panacea to the Great
Depression.

And at the time he made the comments, he spoke for Ayn Rand.

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:00:53 PM9/16/05
to

That's a good point. I've wondered about that. I can't remember her
mentioning Pearl Harbor. I'm guessing but I think her opposition was to
attacking Germany not Japan. I don't see how she could have been
against attacking Japan.

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:14:07 PM9/16/05
to

Reggie Perrin wrote:

> Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable in her
> writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over the years. But
> compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots of War":

I agree that her position on foreign policy is unclear. I have to admit
I'm wrong when I say she would have CLEARLY been against the Iraq war
or other preemptive wars. But I'd say the evidence is probably 80-20 in
my favor. What bothers me is that my position, in an Ayn Rand
newsgroup, is basically ridiculed by other objectivists.

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:21:46 PM9/16/05
to

Atlas Bugged wrote:

> "RAND: ....Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper
> governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should
> be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is
> a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully
> free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to
> advocate."

But I doubt that she would be in favor of ADDING government
expenditures, while mandatory taxation still exists.

-

-

-

-

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 1:58:25 PM9/16/05
to
Mark wrote:
> At the time Ayn Rand wrote that parapgraph (edited by LP)...

If you are referring to the paragraph I provided, it comes straight
from the Ayn Rand Letter which *Ayn Rand herself edited*, you fucking
moron.

>...Ayn Rand died before the NYT Israel torture expose,


> and before many good books exposing Israel's crimes became well known,
> e.g. those by Alfred M. Lilienthal, Victor Ostrovsky, and Rodney Stich.

Oh please, Israel's only "crime", if it can be called that given our
increasing arm-twisting and lack of support in the last couple of
decades, is its ever growing appeasement of the Palestinian thugs -
capped by this latest disgusting withdrawal from Gaza.

> I have not quoted Ayn Rand out of context. Her essays make it clear
> that she was against U.S. entry into WW II.

What her essays make clear - time and again - is her opposition to *the
appeasement* of dictators which *leads to war*. Read for example, her
column on "The Cuban Missile Crisis" which is the one and only time she
ever praised JFK - for standing up to Khrushchev.

Fred Weiss

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 2:12:05 PM9/16/05
to
Bob asks:
"Even after Pearl Harbor?"

_Especially_ after Pearl Harbor. If the public had been adequately
informed, Pearl Harbor would have been an occasion to lynch FDR, not
give him yet more power.

FDR was already clandestinely attacking Japan in China and the South
Pacific, quite unconstitutionally (see the Flying Tigers). He wanted
Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor and succeed in doing it to make the public
want to attack Japan, and consequently Germany.

Even Jack Wakeland of The Intellectual Activist says FDR "maneuvered"
- his word -- the U.S. into WW II. And _praises_ FDR for doing
it, thus showing his contempt for the U.S. public.

C... writes regarding Ayn Rand:


"I don't see how she could have been against attacking Japan."

In any case, she was. Attacking Japan meant entering War II all out
because Japan was allied by treaty with Germany. Germany predictably
declared war on the U.S. (Dec. 11, 1941) right after the U.S. declared
war on Japan (Dec. 8).

All the Ayn Rand quotes about WW II on ARI Watch were written after
Pearl Harbor.

The following is from a footnote in Leonard Peikoff's _The Ominous
Parallels_ -- and remember Ayn Rand probably read it:

"Once again [the first once being the first world war],
the American public, which was strongly ' isolationist, '
was manipulated by a pro war administration into joining
an ' idealistic' crusade. (On November 27, 1941, ten
days before Pearl Harbor, writes John T. Flynn, ' the
President told Secretary Stimson, who wrote it in his diary,
that our course was to maneuver the Japanese into attacking
us. This would put us into the war and solve his problem.' )
[from his book [i]The Roosevelt Myth[/I]] "

A good book to learn more about this is _Day of Deceit: the truth
about FDR and Pearl Harbor_, by Robert Stinnett. He had access to
documents declassified since the book Dr. Peikoff quotes. Like
Wakeland, he too approves of FDR's deceit.

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 2:21:01 PM9/16/05
to

Because you are not grasping the context in which she made the comments
which you are interpreting as "anti-war". That context is invariably
where she is discussing "the roots of war", i.e. what leads to them,
which apart from (most fundamentally) statism and collectivism is:
*appeasement*. Ayn Rand was able to keep and grasp that context, which
you and the others continually drop.

American foreign policy in the 20th Cent. has continually been a
process of dealing with "well now that we've let this mess spiral out
of control to the point where it is a serious threat, what do we do
now". Need I remind you what she thought of such range-of-the-moment
Pragmatism?

Look at where it led and is now leading in dealing with Katrina.

Precisely the same thing happened in regard to the Nazis and the
Communists - and then, having learned nothing from that, we repeated it
with the Arab thugs.

But note that she knew we had to deal with the mess, once created. She
did not advocate withdrawal from Vietnam.

Fred Weiss

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 2:26:00 PM9/16/05
to
For an account of the crimes of Israel see the three authors mentioned.
You might also read the chapter "Blood" in Jame Bamford's book _Body
of Secrets_." And don't "Oh please" me on this. High yourself to
the library and read some reputable journalists instead of swilling
Israeli propaganda.

The AR Letter at the time quoted states that it was edited by LP. Look
it up. I mentioned this only because I see LP as the "evil genius"
behind subverting the Objectivist movement, and perhaps he was a bad
influence on AR when she was alive. He should have done his job and
researched Israel. Even back then there was evidence that Israel was
not what it cracks itself up to be.

And Mr. Weiss -- president of the Paper Tiger book service -- that
"you [explitive deleted] moron" is getting to be a bit of bore. How
about varying it a bit. You could, for starters, say "idiot" instead
of "moron" and [explitive deleted] instead of [explitive deleted].

Mark
http://ariwatch.com

Reggie Perrin

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 2:26:31 PM9/16/05
to

cr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
> > Which part? There are definite contradictions identifiable
> > in her writing about war. Perhaps her position changed over
> > the years. But compare the Playboy interview with the "Roots
> > of War":
>
> I agree that her position on foreign policy is unclear. I have
> to admit I'm wrong when I say she would have CLEARLY been against
> the Iraq war or other preemptive wars. But I'd say the evidence
> is probably 80-20 in my favor.

Perhaps. I think that would depend on what exactly it was about the
earlier conflicts that earned her disapproval.

If I have it correctly, Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars
because she thought that they were ideologically misguided and
strategically unfocused and thus doomed to failure. (She even
considered WWII a failure, because it strengthened the hand of the
USSR). If we read the Playboy remarks as an endorsement of some
hypothetical war, guided by correct principles and strictly for the
purposes of liberation, then voila - no inconsistency. So I find that
appealing as a theory.

Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My
guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam, but
would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:06:44 PM9/16/05
to
"... Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars

because she thought that they were ideologically
misguided and strategically unfocused and thus
doomed to failure."

I'm not sure what you mean by "ideologically misguided and
strategically unfocused" but don't you think she would somewhere
have said - if she believed it -- Yes, it would have been OK to go
along with FDR if he had entered the war with such and such an
attitude?

But nowhere in a dozen times of saying the US should have stayed out of
WWII does she do that. Fred is straining here.

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:12:08 PM9/16/05
to
Of course Ayn Rand was not "anti-war" per se and neither am I.
There are just wars. The only ones I know of in U.S. history are the
Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and perhaps the Mexican War.

A just war is a battle in national self-defense. Mucking around in the
Middle East for half a century is not national self-defense. To say:
"Our government got us into this mess, we'll just have to give it
yet more power to get us out of it" just plays into the statists'
hands. We must get out of the Middle East and look to our own defense.

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:29:57 PM9/16/05
to
Mork wrote:
> For an account of the crimes of Israel...

Israel's only "crime" has been vigorously defending itself in a world
where it is surrounded by its sworn enemies bound and determined to
annihilate it.

End of discussion about Israel.

> The AR Letter at the time quoted states that it was edited by LP. Look
> it up.

I did. He is listed as "Contributing Editor" which does not mean that
he edited anything AR wrote. No one in her lifetime, if she had any
control over it, ever edited anything she wrote without her full
knowledge and permission.

End of discussion about AR being "edited by LP".

I'll take this occasion to mention a story related to me personally by
LP. Most of you know that PWNI was published post-humously. The
publisher had the final draft in hand when AR died. Some editor at the
publisher took it upon themselves to edit the draft and send it to LP,
whereupon he hired someone *to erase all the edits* and sent the
publisher a bill for the service.

> I mentioned this only because I see LP as the "evil genius"
> behind subverting the Objectivist movement, and perhaps he was a bad
> influence on AR when she was alive.

Uh, huh.

Well, that's a new twist on your craziness, LP being a "bad influence
on AR".

That combined with the audacity and pretentiousness - really, the
neurotic delusion - of a moron such as yourself being AR's
self-proclaimed great defender against "bad influences"

> And Mr. Weiss -- president of the Paper Tiger book service -- that
> "you [explitive deleted] moron" is getting to be a bit of bore. How
> about varying it a bit. You could, for starters, say "idiot" instead
> of "moron" and [explitive deleted] instead of [explitive deleted].

I'll take that under consideration, Mork the Dork - the fucking moron.

Fred Weiss

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 3:55:12 PM9/16/05
to
Fred writes:

"End of discussion about Israel."

For Fred perhaps, but not the rest of us. The books of Lilienthal,
Ostrovsky, Stich, Bamford, etc. are not going to disappear just because
Fred wishes they would.

"End of discussion about AR being 'edited by LP'."

"Contributing editor" is fine with me. My point -- a minor
conjecture -- stands.

"Mork the Dork -- the [explitive deleted] moron."

I get the impression we're in a public playground in a less desirable
part of town. Fred writes like a juvenile bully talks, and perhaps
that's consistent with his intellectual position, or lack thereof.

fred...@papertig.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 4:00:57 PM9/16/05
to
Reggie Perrin wrote:

>
> If I have it correctly, Fred is suggesting that Rand opposed those wars
> because she thought that they were ideologically misguided and
> strategically unfocused and thus doomed to failure.

Yes, but there is no doubt that once our hand was forced we had to
fight them. For example, once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no
longer any choice. They in effect had declared war on us - that was
soon followed by their attacks on the Phillipines and the Aleutians.
After we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, again
forcing our hand.

> Extrapolating from that, would she have opposed the war in Iraq? My

> guess is that she would not have opposed the deposition of Saddam,...

Specifically Iraq would be just a guess. Iran almost definitely, but
she likely would have urged that during/soon after the Tehran hostage
taking. I can't imagine her regarding the Arabs as anything but
something approaching sub-humans who should be bombed back to the Stone
Age if necessary and if that were required to get them to behave.
That's pretty much how she viewed the American Indians and she fully
supported their annihilation.

But keep in mind that the only significant reason for our interest in
the Mideast is oil, an interest which might not be necessary if we had
other rational policies diminishing our need of it - and even if we did
need it that previous rational policies wouldn't have led to the
current mess.

> but would have opposed the reconstruction efforts.

Most likely. I don't recall her ever saying anything on the subject,
but I rather doubt she would have supported The Marshall Plan which was
essentially the same idea.

And I can't imagine her ever supporting allowing Islamists into any
post-war gov't which is the utter - and doomed to failure - absurdity
of what we are allowing now.

Fred Weiss

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 4:30:47 PM9/16/05
to

fred...@papertig.com wrote:

>
> American foreign policy in the 20th Cent. has continually been a
> process of dealing with "well now that we've let this mess spiral out
> of control to the point where it is a serious threat, what do we do
> now". Need I remind you what she thought of such range-of-the-moment
> Pragmatism?
>
> Look at where it led and is now leading in dealing with Katrina.

I couldn't agree more.

"For 2003, Bush slashed the money for an essential project to shore up
levees around New Orleans and build more pumping stations, stalling the
project. Then, in 2004, Bush allowed less than 20 percent of the funds
that his own Corps of Engineers said were necessary to shore up the
banks of Lake Pontchartrain, so that project had to be put on hold.
When hit by Katrina, Pontchartrain's banks broke open, flooding the
city's neighborhoods up to 20 feet deep.

Also in 2004, federal funds were pledged for a crucial study of how New
Orleans should prepare for a category 4 or 5 hurricane, such as Katrina
- but the Bushites, still diverting funds to their occupation of
Iraq, ordered the local office of the corps not to begin any studies,
and their budget for 2005 eliminated all money to develop hurricane
protection plans for the city. "

http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=2039

Don't Panic

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 4:40:09 PM9/16/05
to

fred...@papertig.com wrote:

>
> What her essays make clear - time and again - is her opposition to *the
> appeasement* of dictators which *leads to war*. Read for example, her
> column on "The Cuban Missile Crisis" which is the one and only time she
> ever praised JFK - for standing up to Khrushchev.

JFK actually appeased Khrushchev by not invading Cuba. Can you believe
what a fucking pussy he was?

.
.
.

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 5:28:58 PM9/16/05
to
Regarding Japan Fred tells us:

"... once our hand was forced we had to fight them.
... once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, there was no
longer any choice."

The public, unaware of what was going on behind the scenes, made the
wrong choice. The right choice? Impeach FDR for starters. He
intentionally concentrated the fleet at Pearl Harbor and
_intentionally_ left it there undefended even as he knew about the
danger. Here's the LP Ominous Parallels quote again:

"Once again [the first once being the first world war],
the American public, which was strongly ' isolationist, '
was manipulated by a pro war administration into joining
an ' idealistic' crusade. (On November 27, 1941, ten
days before Pearl Harbor, writes John T. Flynn, ' the
President told Secretary Stimson, who wrote it in his diary,
that our course was to maneuver the Japanese into attacking
us. This would put us into the war and solve his problem.' )

[from his book _The Roosevelt Myth_] "

See also _Day of Deceit: the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor_, by
Robert Stinnett.

Fred says regarding declaring war on Iran that Ayn Rand:

"likely would have urged that during/soon after the
Tehran hostage taking."

The hostages initially were taken by Iranian militant students incensed
with America's support of "the Shah" (Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi)
whose brutal regime had been overthrown in a popular uprising some
months earlier. The new government took the hostages (about 90) from
the students. The government immediately released some of the hostages
but kept 52 of them.

Now what were those hostages doing in Iran in the first place? Most
(all?) had been there voluntarily when the Shah was in power, a
dictator every bit as brutal as Sadaam. I don't have much sympathy
for them.

As it was they were all released. Look up "October Surprise"-- and
hope Fred spares us the "big tough Reagan" whitewash.

Fred goes on to equate the culture of Persia with that of the American
Indians. As I've said before, this illustrates the problem with
reductio absurdum as a method of argument. How do you proceed when
your opponent's position is already absurd? Bad as Persian culture
might be it is infinitely advanced over that of the American Indian.
The Persians have a written language, houses, metallurgy, mathematics,
etc. none of which the savage redskins had.

cr...@hotmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 6:17:42 PM9/16/05
to

Do you consider yourself to be an objectivist?

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mark

unread,
Sep 16, 2005, 6:32:17 PM9/16/05
to