or All Non-Objectivists Must Be Crushed!
(Alternative Right) -- by Richard Hoste --
On October 2, 2001, less than a month after the collapse of the Twin Towers, the Ayn Rand Center took out a full page ad in the New York Times with the title “End States Who Sponsor Terrorism.” Written by the organization’s director Leonard Peikoff, the page referred to “the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions” as a “guarantee of American impotence” in dealing with radical Muslims. The author seconds Paul Wolfowitz’s view that the American government must overthrow regimes that support terrorism making sure that such battles are “fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire.” The death of civilians can be laid at the feet of their terror loving governments, for “[t]here is no way for our bullets to be aimed only at evil men.”
Peikoff suggests that while taking out the Taliban would be a good start, Afghanistan is, in the big picture, insignificant. The Iranian government is the most fanatical in the Middle East and must be dealt with. Even though in the long run this is a battle of ideas against an implacable foe, as of now the American military must use everything in its arsenal to destroy the nation’s enemies.
Unsurprisingly, the face that the ARC presents to those visiting its website makes what it published in the Times appear pacific. A page entitled “In Moral Defense of Israel” informs the reader that although the Jewish state isn’t perfect, it, like the US, “retains a significant respect for individual rights. Its citizens, whatever their race or religion, enjoy many freedoms, including freedom of thought and speech, and the right to own property.” Therefore, “Israel has a moral right to exist” in contrast to the absolute collectivists which oppose her.
In no sense can one say that the center the bears her name has perverted Ayn Rand’s message. When asked about what the U.S. should do with regards to the 1967 Israeli-Arab war, she called on the Americans to do what they could to help the Jewish side. Her main reason, she admited, for supporting Israel was that the Arabs are “typically nomads” (unlike the Jews!) and “savages who don't want to use their minds.” Rand wasn’t making a special exception to her philosophy when it came to Israel. She always held that if there was an aggressive country which made war on another, the people who live under the belligerent state are responsible for their passivity if nothing else. In the Cold War context she once pontificated,
If we go to war with Russia, I hope the "innocent" are destroyed along with the guilty. There aren't many innocent people there -- those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps.Unsurprisingly, the ARC believes that America should be proud of its firebombing of German and Japanese cities during World War II. Recently, a representative from the institute was on the Glenn Beck Show decrying the current rules of engagement American soldiers operate under.
Most familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism, a body of thought based on the axiom that coercion is unacceptable unless person or property is directly threatened or one is retaliating for past crimes, will find this pro-war position strange.
Of the major contemporary political philosophies, this basic premise, which refuses to exempt states from the principle of non-aggression, is shared only by various kinds of libertarians. Yet on foreign policy, these anti-statists couldn’t be further away from Objectivists...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
Ron Paul is generally considered to be the Gold Standard of libertarianism, yet when it comes to foreign policy, he has zero in common with these so-called “libertarians.”
It appears this is yet another Jewish supremacist sect using libertarianism as cover for its true ideology, similar to how the Jewish Bolsheviks used Communism.