April 12: UCLA: Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West

Student of Objectivism alerted me to the following event - some of you might find this of interest:

http://studentofobjectivism.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-public-event-totalitarian-islams.html

PDF Flyer

From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency—it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory.

But is the conventional wisdom right? Join us for a panel discussion titled "Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West."

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: the real threat is Islamic totalitarianism, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Panelists:
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Wafa Sultan, writer and commentator
Moderated by Edwin A. Locke

Location and Details:
UCLA campus
Moore Hall 100 [map]
Los Angeles, California 90024
7:00 PM

Parking:
Purchase parking for Structure 6 at parking information kiosk:
400 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024 [map]


UPDATE via a nudge from Student of Objectivism:

There's an announced protest against the event


UPDATE

Reports on last night's event from Infidels are Cool (includes video of the brief disruption) and Student of Objectivism.

Note that the Student of Objectivism link includes a link to the Ayn Rand Institute's web site, where there is supposedly a video of the event, but it does require registration. I hope the ARI will post the video without registration - or perhaps even puts it up on YouTube.

UPDATE

Student of Objectivism now has a link to an Ayn Rand Institute page that allows viewing of the full video of the event without requiring registration: Link (note: requires RealPlayer)

Both Infidels are Cool and Student of Objectivism are continually updating their posts with more info, so I suggest to everyone to go there for updates.

UPDATE

Daniel Pipes, one of the speakers at the event, posts his own thoughts on the event.

NewU Opinion: Political Cult Invades UCI: Don’t Be Deceived

Related to this opinion is this letter to the editor in the same issue of the NewU:

Link to article

Opinion
Political Cult Invades UCI: Don’t Be Deceived
By David Syatt

You see them on campus with signs proclaiming the evils of the Bush Administration. You listen to their words and believe that they’re preaching freedom and liberty. And now, after being arrested during a protest at UC Irvine, you think that they’re martyrs for the First Amendment. However, do not be tricked by the LaRouche Youth Movement, a radical political cult fueled by conspiracy theories.

It is easy to look at the pictures of President George W. Bush as a monkey on their booths and think to yourself, “That’s funny. These people must be pretty cool.” But these little displays are just attempts to lasso in ignorant college students who think of themselves as liberals.

If you go up to one of these recruiters and tell them that you’ve heard of their leader, Lyndon LaRouche, a look of surprise and hostility will appear on their faces, because they know that if you’ve heard of him and are not waving one of his pamphlets around with ecstatic glee, then you are against him.

Lyndon LaRouche has run for president in every election since 1976, but he has never been nominated as a candidate for any party. This is because of the disturbing beliefs he insists are true.

First of all, LaRouche scoffs at “the mythical ‘six million Jewish victims’ of the Nazi ‘Holocaust’” in his 1978 article, “New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism.” In the same article, he says that only about 1.5 million Jews died in Nazi Germany and holds that “what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of gypsies and the butchery of Communists.”

Recruiters will tell you that LaRouche has never been an anti-Semite and has, in fact, written many pro-Jewish articles (which is true). However, if you look at the cover of the booklet that is now being handed out on the UCI campus (“Is Joseph Goebbels on Your Campus?”) you’ll see pictures of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and… Lynne Cheney. Now, I’m liberal. I did my part to give the Democrats the majority in Congress, but do I believe that Dick Cheney – let alone his wife – can be compared to Hitler and Goebbels, two of the most evil people in history? Of course not, and neither should any rational person. This just shows how LaRouche and his followers trivialize the Holocaust.

Yet, LaRouche’s views on the Holocaust show his more tender, cuddlier side when compared to his views on AIDS and homosexuality. LaRouche presents his solution to the AIDS epidemic in his 1986 article, “The End of the Age of Aquarius?”:

“Yes, we must destroy AIDS. It’s going to destroy everybody, … which means we’re going to have to put away every carrier until they can no longer carry.”

Later, LaRouche writes, “Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. … Children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!”

To end AIDS, people should attack gays with baseball bats? Followers of LaRouche may say that he has changed his views since 1986, which makes perfect sense. After all, he wrote this when he was 64, so I am sure that he’s matured since that young age.

Why does anyone – especially liberal Southern Californian college students – support LaRouche, given views such as these? The youth who follow this man are victims of deceit and should not be blamed.

Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute and the speaker that the LYM recently protested at UCI, basically wants to see World War III happen in the Middle East and compares Islamic regimes to the Axis powers of the past. So it is no wonder that a liberal-minded young person would want to challenge him. LaRouche targets controversial figures such as Brook in order to attract followers. The Ayn Rand Institute is a petty organization. Even the Muslim Student Union, which disagrees vehemently with Brook’s views, declined to protest the event because they felt that it wasn’t worth their time.

LaRouche wants people to think he’s a liberal saint and to believe his inane theories, which compare members of the Republican Party to Nazis. He is a burned-out, 84-year-old man who has been desperately trying to get noticed by real politicians since 1969. Keep this in mind next time one of his recruiters approach you with an inviting smile and you’ll be safe.

David Syatt is a second-year literary journalism major. He can be reached at dsyatt@uci.edu.

NewU Letter to the Editor: Ayn Rand Speaker Hypocritical

Following up on this previous post (see link for additional references):

Link to article

Ayn Rand Speaker Hypocritical

In the article about Yaron Brook, (“Ayn Rand Institute Director Yaron Brook Speaks to Divided Audience,” Nov. 13) Ayn Rand President and first-year humanities major Eric Brunner states that the people of Iran are better off dead than slaves to a totalitarian state. Does this imply that they should all commit suicide or that they should all be murdered? Either way this is a grotesque and evil thing to say.

One false assumption in this statement is that the Iranian people are slaves to their state. Sure, there are aspects of the Islamic Republic that are repressive, but there are also parts that are not. A slave is someone who has no say in anything that happens to him or her and is kept locked in a closed system. This is simply not the case for many Iranians, as is evident from – among other examples – Iranian students leaving Iran and studying in America on student visas and high numbers of Iranian women being educated in Iran. If the people of Iran are slaves to their state, then the people of the United States are slaves to their republic. In any government, there are parts that people agree with and parts that they don’t.

Furthermore, the people of Iran love their country, whether they live in America, Iran or any other country. To quote Brunner, “If people cannot leave Iran and are against Islamic totalitarianism, they should welcome the destruction of Iran even if it could mean their own death.” To call for the destruction of Iran for the purposes of Western self-interest is disgusting. But that’s how Rand’s ideology works—since countries like Iran are perceived as a threat to international security, we should kill the people in Iran. It is interesting that this group works to support the country of Israel, a bastion of objectivism and self-interest. However, it would be wiser for this group to support the nation of Palestine.

If I may modify a quote from Brunner, “If for some reason some people cannot leave Israel and are against Israeli totalitarianism, they should welcome the destruction of Israel even if it could mean their own death.” It can be seen that Brunner’s ideology can support such atrocious things as suicide bombing and even mass murder—as long as these actions support a “rational self-interest.”

The people of Palestine have a rational self-interest in the destruction of Israel “even if it could mean their own death,” and these people are more like slaves to a totalitarian regime than people in Iran.

The Ayn Rand Club advocates laissez-faire economics and the end of altruism. This is like a neo-Social Darwinist movement. The Social Darwinists advocated laissez-faire economics, which failed in the United States in the 1930s and continues to harm the world wherever it rears its ugly face (consider Africa). Laissez-faire economics also works to oppress an internally colonized people.

Furthermore, without altruism the state of Israel would not exist (consider U.S.-Israeli relations). Rand considers selfishness a virtue and believes that if everyone were to care just about him or herself, we wouldn’t need places like hospitals, health care centers, daycare centers, senior centers or any social institutions, which would lead to bliss and maybe heaven on Earth.

Lastly, if these people truly believed in their ideology, which calls for going to war against Islamic totalitarianism because it’s a threat to the world, they can join the military or become mercenaries. But when it comes to this type of people, they lead by what they say and not by what they do.

Shaun Cunningham
Fourth-year Political Science major

Yaron Brook Lecture on Islamic Totalitarianism this Monday

I'm not completely sure Yaron Brook has the right ideas about how to deal with Islamic fascism. Hence, for people's information, Wikipedia articles on:

Objectivism

Yaron Brook

Ayn Rand

The Ayn Rand Institute

"Destroying Islamic Totalitarianism- -The West's Moral Imperative"
By Dr. Yaron Brook

Date: Monday, November 6, 2006
Time: 7:30 PM
Location: Social Science Lecture Hall

Club Leader: Eric Brunner
e-mail: shovelcharge88@ yahoo.com

For a map and directions, click on this link:
http://today.uci.edu/pdf/UCI_06_Map.pdf

The Middle East has been the stage for conflict and crisis for many decades now. What philosophical principles underlie the continued hostilities and tensions? In the five years since 9/11, the Middle East has been a hotbed of military conflict--ranging from the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, to controversies and violence surrounding Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, to Israel's attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. No doubt, Islamic Totalitarianism poses a grave threat to the security and prosperity of Western nations, but our attempts to stop the enemy have fallen short. In many ways, the Western response has only emboldened and incited terrorist organizations and governments.

What historical and philosophical factors account for the present state of affairs and what do they suggest for the future? Is the war on terror really un-winnable? What should be the U.N.'s role in international policy? Should Israel have assented to the U.N.'s dictates, or should it have continued to fight Hezbollah in Lebanon? Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear technology? What should Western countries do in the Middle East to advance the causes of freedom and liberty?

In his lecture and the subsequent Q & A session, Dr. Yaron Brook answers these questions from a unique philosophical perspective. He will show why appeasement and U.N. sanctions are ineffective, why self-defense cannot be achieved by compromise and dialogues with those who have abandoned reason, why civilian casualties are always the responsibility of the aggressor, why Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear program, why Israel and America should be unconcerned with world opinion, why terrorist organizations and governments must be eradicated, why Israel should not have compromised its campaign against Hezbollah, and ultimately, why securing liberty requires acting on consistent, rational principles.

UPDATE

An individual by the pseudonym of "a new intellectual" commented that I should link to The Ayn Rand Institute to learn more about Yaron Brook. He/she's right - I should have included that link too, so here it is:

Link to the Official Ayn Rand Institute

About Yaron Brook