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.