The latest outbreaks of the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians have set the Hate Machine of the world population in motion again: everyone has been forced to have an opinion on the matter and hate one side. Although this is a war that has been going on for more than 80 years, the vast majority of the public does not know its history, and takes sides only from the latest events, ignoring the overall context. For example, many have come to think that as Hamas terrorists killed Jewish civilians on October 7, 2023, they should support all actions of the Israeli Armed Forces. They don’t take into account that the state of Israel killed many more Palestinian civilians before this Hamas attack and is killing many more now.
Thus we see the most absurd excuses being given for Israeli bombs that slaughter Palestinian babies, such as saying that Hamas is to blame for using them as “human shields.” Now, if during a robbery a bandit is surrounded by the police and hides behind a victim, no one would tell the police to machine gun the victim and the thief indiscriminately, instead of using a sniper, who would try to aim only at the bandit. If a gang breaks into a bank and holds all the employees and customers hostage, the police response would never be to blow up the bank with everyone inside. If a police force acted like that, it would be considered worse than the robbers. But there are people who say that it is justified for Israel to drop bombs on Palestinian hospitals full of elderly people, women and children because there would be a tunnel used by Hamas underneath this hospital! And on the other hand, we also see people trying to justify the murder of Jewish babies perpetrated by Hamas because of the oppression that Palestinians suffer in Gaza, which is an open-air prison.
DADDY FACTORY Personal...
Buy New $22.99
(as of 09:21 UTC - Details)
While it is true that Palestinians are oppressed by the state of Israel, it is disgraceful to support the killing of Jewish civilians because of it, just as it is foolish to justify the killing of Palestinian civilians because of the actions of Palestinian terrorists. Blaming an entire group of people for the actions of a few individuals is called “collective punishment,” and this is even more absurd when it’s done by people who are supposed to be extreme individualists, like the Randians – after all, it was Ayn Rand who coined the phrase “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” But that’s what the Randians do.
Recently, Yaron Brook, the chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, attacked the libertarian position against any kind of collective punishment by advocating the killing of innocents as a response to an attack. Of all the nonsense Brook says, the biggest mistake he made was quoting the great Dave Smith, who, because of this, made a video completely destroying Yaron Brook. Brook says that when defending himself from an attack he doesn’t need to and shouldn’t check who’s innocent and who’s guilty, to which Smith overwhelmingly replies that if you’re killing innocents, you’re not defending yourself from anything, but being the aggressor yourself attacking others. The Gaza Strip is home to 2 million people, half of whom are under the age of 18. Brook is a genocidal maniac who advocates the death of all of them because 17 years ago, in 2006, when nearly half were not even born yet, Hamas received 44 percent of the vote in a parliamentary election. For Brook, this means that ALL Palestinians are guilty of Hamas’s terrorist acts and must be punished! In addition to being a thug, Brook’s level of argumentation is absolutely vexatious, and everyone should watch Dave Smith’s video response:
However, Brook does something very positive in this video by stressing that Randian Objectivists are not libertarians. Many Randians consider themselves libertarians, and this distinction made by Brook makes a lot to preserve libertarianism’s reputation.
But to see Yaron Brook defend the murder of Palestinian children comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with Randian philosophy. It was Brook himself who personally revealed to me the true facet of Randianism more than 10 years ago in one of the many times he was in Brazil at the invitation of IEE businessmen to participate in their events supposedly promoting Freedom. During a cocktail party, I was in a conversation circle when Brook said that dropping the nuclear bombs on the civilian populations of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of the most selfless heroics acts in history. At the time I was superficially familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas, and although I was an anarcho-capitalist who rejected Rand’s incoherent defense of the state, and his fanatical defense of the criminal “intellectual property,” I considered the Randian Objectivists allies in the struggle for freedom. I had read her novels The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged and I was familiar with some of her ideas, but I had no idea that her philosophy, apparently individualistic, contained the concept of collective guilt in it. After this interaction with Brook, I went to research and found that this was an “official position” of the Randians. I bumped with this statement by Brook from 2005, on the 60th anniversary of the drop of the nuclear bombs, glorifying the deaths of 300,000 people (mostly civilians). He says that ” America should be proud to have dropped the Bomb.” Brook continues:
New York Biology Tea T...
Buy New $9.99 ($0.62 / Fl Oz)
(as of 09:21 UTC - Details)
“America was not the aggressor in World War II, but the victim of a brutal attack. Any deaths that occurred in America’s self-defense, therefore, are to be blamed on the aggressors who made them necessary.”
Disregarding the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor was provoked and deliberately allowed to bring the U.S. into World War II, it was an attack by the Japanese Armed Forces against the U.S. Armed Forces. The target was a U.S. Navy naval base in Hawaii. “Self-defense” would be legitimate if it were waged against Japanese military targets, and not against any human being who was born in Japan or simply happens to be there. Brook continues:
“It is the solemn responsibility of the U.S. government to protect American citizens, ruthlessly destroying those who threaten us. If civilians die in the process, as they did in Japan, it merely underscores the enormity of the stakes when a populace embraces (or submits to) a murderous, dictatorial regime.”
What threat did a newborn baby in Nagasaki pose to U.S. citizens across the Pacific Ocean to make him subject of instantly incineration? But for the collectivist Brook, he deserved it, as he embraced or submitted to the Japanese government, which had already accepted surrender before the nuclear attacks. Brook ends his extolling of the greatest war crime in history by criticizing the U.S. for not dropping nuclear bombs on the heads of Iraqis:
“Our military strategists in Iraq could learn from those who, sixty years ago, decided to spare no means in bringing the Japanese nation to its knees.”
How about this one? Charring millions of children, women, the elderly, and men because the U.S. invaded a country based on the lie that it possesses “weapons of mass destruction.” And since the U.S. actually possesses — and has used — weapons of mass destruction, does that mean other countries should drop nuclear bombs on American cities? It’s creepy. And you don’t have to be a Rothbardian libertarian to be astonished at the atrocities advocated by Randians. Look at how neocon warmonger Bill O’Reilly was astonished to hear what another prominent Randian, none other than Leonard Peikoff – the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute and the one chosen by Ayn Rand herself to be her heir – had to say about a U.S. invasion of Iran:
O’Reilly, who supported the U.S. empire’s insane wars that killed millions, dismissed Peikoff’s proposal for the U.S. to attack Iran indiscriminately exterminating military and civilian personnel as delusional and called him crazy. Despite the authority of these two influential Randian Objectivists cited above, one would think that they perverted Ayn Rand’s ideas; that she would never agree to such a monstrosity. However, this is not true; they are being entirely faithful to their Master’s teachings. With the release of the movie Oppenheimer, the Ayn Rand Institute felt motivated to once again defend the use of nuclear bombs and dedicated an episode of the program New Ideal to morally justify the greatest war criminal act in all of history. On the show, they featured audios of Ayn Rand herself advocating the extermination of innocent civilians in enemy countries:
For Ayn Rand, if the people did not choose a different government or did not overthrow the regime in power, the entire population must pay for the sins of this government… because the government represents the people of the nation. She says there are no innocents in a war.
In the second audio, released for the first time to the public, Ayn Rand answers a question about the deliberate attack on civilians by saying that women and children should not be spared as they can be used by enemies, as the Viet Cong used them in guerrilla warfare during the Vietnam war to attack invading American soldiers. She says that if it is necessary to bomb civilians, this is not only justified but it is a moral duty to do so; anything that a country that has been attacked does is morally justified. According to Ayn Rand, all the carnage of wars throughout human history has been beautiful and moral, if the exterminated population belongs to a country that “struck first.” So no, Brook and Peikoff didn’t misrepresent the collectivism of Ayn Rand. She is as perverse and barbaric as her faithful disciples of Randian Objectivism.
