Tuesday, July 2, 2019


For the last half a century or so most wars waged by the West are fought under Just War Theory, rooted in Biblical sources. The theory describes a number of conditions that justify going to war. But in practice this international law functions as a handicap to those who subscribe to it. 

Why We Caved To Our Enemy, Iran 

Michael Walzer explains Just War Theory (JWT). The doctrine is a Western construct based, not on the brutal reality of war, stateless anarchy and immoral combatants, but on an ideal world. More information in the introduction at the bottom of the page. 

UPDATE: Forget about the intricate details of our nuclear agreement with Iran—the number of centrifuges permitted, the degree of uranium enrichment allowed, the amount of advance notification required before inspectors can visit a nuclear facility. There is really only one question that matters: If an Iranian nuclear capacity poses an objective threat to America—if we have reason to fear that such weapons will be used aggressively against us—why are we relying for our safety on an agreement with the aggressor?

England has nuclear weapons. So does France. So does Israel. Yet we don’t have a need to sign treaties in which these nations promise not to take actions that threaten us. Their weapons are not a danger to us because they are essentially free countries and they do not live by conquest. They do not dictatorially subjugate people, neither their own citizens nor those of other countries. They recognize—however inconsistently—the value of liberty. They do not regard America as a fundamental enemy.

A nuclear Iran, by contrast, is a danger to us. It is a theocracy which subjugates its own people and which seeks militarily to extend its power beyond its borders. If its government is willing to initiate force against us, how will it be deterred by its promise not to? A “contract” with Iran makes as much sense as a “contract” between the police and a criminal gang. (...) Why, then, is this disastrous treaty with Iran being pushed? Largely because of the ethics of altruism. Here is an excerpt from my book The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest (written in 2004) (...) (Source)

Nov. 30, 2014

International Law Favors Terrorists

A polemic between two Dutch journos is illustrative of the fallacy of international law. One journalist of a state run news outlet @JanEikelboom has accused a Dutch Kurd, Serdar Doski and the Kurdish forces of having committed war crimes, i.e. executions of POWs and the destruction of Iraqi civilian residences. The freelance journalist @ArnoldKarkskens is contesting the evidence. If true, it's very unethical indeed. (Source (Dutch))

Or is it? The accusations are based on JWT. That doctrine is aimed at obstructing the very signatories to the Treaties as much as possible. After all, all violence is evil. Full stop. In the first place it does not morally differentiate between offenders and defenders. And secondly defenders are held guilty until they themselves prove their own innocence. 

In other words, international law is harming the good guys. It's the equivalent of disarming law abiding citizens in the civic arena. Criminals and bullies by definition don't care about the law or about ethics. They get away with murder and in the case of international law, even with genocide. Signatories are held to a higher standard. 

JWT is immoral. More military get killed than is necessary, because civilian lives are worth more than the soldier's. War is not a pretty business. If you have a just cause, fight for it with the aim to beat the enemy as soon as possible. If not, don't go to war!  

The worst perpetrators of war crimes are currently the non-state terrorists of the Islamic State. But one would be unspeakably naive to suppose that even one would be held to account at the ICC in The Hague. Better yet, on Friday they were caught demonstrating against Assad bombing their HQ in Raqqa. They know very well on which side the dice of international law is loaded. 
H/t @HananShamounNL

Nov. 14, 2013

What Is a Cause for War? 

Jim Chapman talks to Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute about the war in Afghanistan and the morality of war.

Video of Yaron Brook discussing foreign policy, addressing the issue from the objectivist point of view of Ayn Rand, and he explains that the role of governments should be to protect the rights of individual citizens from the use of force and to arbitrate disputes.
I don't agree that the wars in Korea and Vietnam were illegitimate. The communist ideology was just as evil as totalitarian Islam today and was pursued just as aggressively.
Brook addresses the fallacy of exporting democracy to the developing world. Brook concludes by challenging the road that United State's foreign policy has taken and stresses the importance of trade and education as the power that shapes the world. (Source includes video, start with the Introduction)

Feb. 2, 2014

The Altruistic Motive in War Is Killing Needlessly

The film Lone Survivor illustrates the point why postmodern causes for war, the morality behind it and the rules of engagement are all wrong. The altruistic motive is killing soldiers needlessly. (IMDb)

Based on the failed June 28, 2005 mission "Operation Red Wings." Four members of SEAL Team 10, were tasked with the mission to capture or kill notorious Taliban leader, Ahmad Shahd. Marcus Luttrell was the only member of his team to survive.

Feb. 6, 2013

Introduction: War, What Is It Good For? 

In this video (at 7:00) Bill Whittle explains what recent wars would have been like under a rugged individualist with a moral foreign policy. Instead we have the post American, egalitarian nihilist Obama, who is leading the world from behind into a state of destabilization not seen since WWII. Let's see what their roots are. 

Most wars waged by the West (including Iraq) are fought under the altruistic Just War Theory (JWT) rooted in the rejection of the image of man the predator. Christianity's early church father Augustine formulated the proto doctrine on Biblical sources: violence is not justified in self defense, but it is permitted to save the life of others. 

Kantian altruist ethics are rooted in Augustine's doctrine. This perverted morality is widespread in continental Europe. It positions any self serving action, however good, outside the realm of ethics. It explains why Europeans raise eyebrows at the American stipulation that foreign aid must be spent buying American goods.

Michael Walzer further developed JWT in 1977 in his book, "Just And Unjust Wars". Today this is the central doctrine taught in military academies and university departments. It was meant as a compromize between pacifism (nonviolance) and realism (self preservation).

Yernaz Ramautarsing, who has posted an essay on the subject on his blog Atlantis, clarifies it as follows: 
The soldier is in the service of the civilians in the enemy nation. (...) The aim of Just War Theory is to limit the scope of actions permitted in a war based on moral principles. Walzer: ''Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is too easy... What we look for... is some sign of a positive commitment to save civilian lives... if saving civilian lives means risking soldiers' lives, the risk must be accepted''.
Ramautarsing stresses moreover: "The stance that irrespective of context soldiers on both sides face each other as moral equals is typical for Walzer's nature of man".  For a further explanation of the nihilist basis of this egalitarian idea, check "Culture War: Why You Didn't Build That".

Bill Wittle's individualist Commander-In-Chief would act more in line with Objectivist ethics, rooted not in 'man the predator', but in 'man the rational hero'. This ethics program demands the opposite of Just War Theory: instead of altruism and self sacrifice, self preservation and self defense. Ayn Rand asked the crucial question:
"Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word:“Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good?"
Craig Biddle of The Objectivist Standard recently explained the moral basis of rational egoism relative to Hume's Law, or the Is-Ought Dichotomy: it is impossible to deduct moral principles from reality, demonstrating there is no objective base for Kantian's ethics, nor Just War Theory.

But if the life of man is the standard of ethics, then rational egoism is the morally objective.
Self defense is not just a human right (life), it is a moral imperative! The logic is quite simple: if the good, in order to be good, has to commit suicide, evil will prevail. Altruism simply doesn't make sense and is immoral to boot.