Live Free, or Be Killed
Frum and Perle have identified with great clarity a system of belief that threatens the world. This system requires all governments to conform to the policies of a single power. Those that refuse face violent overthrow. The ensuing military occupation by the dominant power is styled democracy; and, once people grasp its benefits, it is claimed that democracy of this sort will conquer the world. The authors’ depiction of this ideology cannot be bettered. It is the ideology they themselves defend. [Full article]
Comments (16)
What a fantastic paragraph describing the inherent benefits of private ownership (and defense) of private property.
That paragraph should be applied to airline and airport security ASAP!
Who here would choose not to fly on an airline that advocated the carrying of private firearms on board?
Published: June 10, 2004 9:51 AM
IT is amazing the cunningness and how deceitfull the minions of Satan are,,,YES, YES, YES,,Live free or be killed is exactly what they are implying, with THEIR war on terrorism. and if you doubt us,,,bboooomm,,,, " see we told you so"
Published: June 10, 2004 10:13 AM
Perls absurd book and his ludicrus ideas will we can hope be added to the dust bin of history and he and his co author really should seek medical help for their serious dilusions.
The 21st centuries greatest threat really comes from state terrorism, not state sponsered terrorism and the more than 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world.
www.thirdworldtraveler.com
www.soaw.org
www.amnesty.org
Published: June 10, 2004 11:21 AM
Dear David , Thank you for your comments, Isn't it amazing how the " BIG MEDIA" left and right just doesn't get it! Thanks again for validating my opinion.
Published: June 10, 2004 12:10 PM
Mr. Gordon,
You are right on the money!! It astounds me when I watch the networks consistently use Mr. Perle as an expert on terrorism/Iraq and actually debate his "advice". I can't even look at him anymore! It is a crying shame that americans lack genuine curiosity and a yearning for debate. I find it scary and nauseating at the same time at how uneducated and easily "snookered" the public at large is! I am raising two very intelligent children who I have taught to never believe what the powers to be tell them without investigating for themselves, however if they are stupid enough to say it, hold them to it! Thanks so much for your insight and critical thinking skills, it's very refreshing!
Published: June 10, 2004 12:55 PM
Dr Gordon has eloquently exposed how Frum and Perle unwittingly debunked and refuted their own case against state initiatives to combat terrorism. Unfortunately, people like these will continue to hold sway over a misinformed mainstream news media, a misled public and opportunistic political movers. If America were to help Israel undertake a reclamation land project from the Mediterranean sea and expand westward, perhaps middle east tensions may begin to subside and incidents of terrorism decline.
Harry Valentine
Published: June 10, 2004 1:24 PM
Having spent considerable time since 9/11 trying to educate myself on the scale of the threat posed by al Qaeda in particular and terrorism in general, I must say that the utter lack of insight on this question displayed by the author and those commenting on it here is staggering. Mr. Gordon's dismissal of the threat from radical Islam (Wahabbism if you will) can only result from ignorance. Wahabbism has been a growing force in the Arabian peninsula for over 200 years. Wahhabist clerics, giving the religious imprimatur to the Saudi regime, were partners from the founding of Saudi Arabia and have always had a say in policy. For the past 30+ years the Wahabbists have demanded that the Saudi regime fund the export of Wahabbist ideology throughout the world via the infamous madrassas. This after they demanded full control over the educational system within Saudi Arabia itself from kindergarten through university, resulting in complete indoctrination of the Saudi population in hatred of the West and love of jihad. The more I look the scarier these people become. Quislings such as Mr. Gordon make me wonder about libertarians. It's been said a liberal is someone who won't take his own side in a fight. Libertarians seem to think the same way.
Published: June 10, 2004 2:04 PM
Mr. Brownfield,
Imagine how Moslems and others must feel about Christian crusades, inquisitions, wars to make the world safe for democracy, etc. Radical Moslems have no monopoly on wacky notions of saving others from themselves, and the will to kill those who disagree with them.
When the Moslems declare a jihad against Switzerland I'll begin to consider the possibility that you're correct.
Published: June 10, 2004 2:33 PM
The ultra-conservative Wahabbi sect of Islam has been around for over 120-years. Prior to 1960, it had relatively few followers, until American intervention in the Middle East and in Asia during the 1950's and 1960's (Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, bringing Kaddafi and Saddam Hussein to power) made more Muslims embrace a more radical interpretation of Islam. America is seen as supporting the excesses and perceived decadent lifestyle of the ruling Saudi elite, whom the poverty-stricken Wahabbi's (who live mainly in Southern Saudi Arabia) see as their oppressors.
Americans (non-Muslims) setting foot on perceived holy and sacred ground in Saudi Arabia during the Iraq/Kuwait war, only intensified Wahabbi hatred and resentment against America. Had American never supported Saddam Hussein before and during the 1980's, the Iran-Iraq war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait may never had happened. Previous episodes of misguided American foreign policy gave rise to the Wahabbi threat. Following the advice of Frum and Perle could lead to something far worse.
Harry Valentine
Published: June 11, 2004 2:28 PM
The American experiment triumphed not because "freedom" was "given" to Americans, but because those colonists demanded it, of their own accord. It succeeded because the government they formed was kept inside a small box, and it has been failing for most of a hundred years because that box has been shattered by unlimited democracy and government power.
Spreading a form of voting through force has no bearing on the resultant freedom of the individuals in any country. Hitler was democratically elected. So was Aristide. So was Clinton. If the power of those elected is not circumscribed, the power of the elites will bleed into every facet of life.
No, spreading 'democracy' is not the answer. Spreading the notion that 'unlimited government is as dangerous as any terrorist threat' might be the answer (regardless of which coalition of interest groups supports any given popular method of stealing from our neighbors).
By protecting its citizens from fraud and malevolent force, a government's job is done. A government which does not have, as its single purpose, insuring the freedoms of its constituents is a government that is morally unjust. A government that does so only in its Constitution (and not in practice) is a hypocritical tyranny.
Published: June 11, 2004 3:37 PM
David Gordon agrees that global Jihad is a
huge problem but suggests pacifism, wait and watch and even ignoring the Jihadis as a solution. Wait and watch for what ? Didnt Clinton wait and watch the taliban and UBL ? If Mr Gordon rejects the overzealous theories of Perle and Frum, he should also offer credible
alternatives to growing problem. Unfortunately, his solution of ignoring the problem is not valid because the problem will not ignore you.
It is wrong to couple a brilliant economic theory with a misguided and lax political ideology.
Published: June 13, 2004 12:49 AM
Naresh,
Non-intervention is a credible alternative. If the US ceases to kill Moslems, ceases to dictate who will govern Moslem countries, and ceases to finance the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, what possible reason would radical Moslems have for attacking the USA? If we simply leave them alone, isn't it conceivable that they would leave us alone too?
Published: June 14, 2004 5:40 AM
After reading your "Live Free or Be Killed" article on Mises.org and I must say, it leaves me wanting for answers.
So many people have the "gift of reasoned criticism" when discussing other people's verbalized or written stances on a given topic, but those same people seem to lack the ability to make constructive suggestions. I find you to be one of those "gifted critics".
As with any subject matter, there is always a right answer, and there are innumerable wrong answers. Wading through all of the garbage that portends to be a "solution" is the hard part of life. Your article only leads the unthinking masses to the deeper end of the pool without so much as offering the hope of one possible solution.
I just finished watching the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora" last night and your article puts me in the mind of the many incompetent leaders who needed more "confirmation" before they acted on the overwhelming evidence of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
I will take a well reasoned argument from the likes of David Frum and Richard Perle over the "gifted critic" who offers no solutions.
Published: June 14, 2004 7:29 PM
Peter White wrote
"If the US ceases to kill Moslems, ceases to dictate who will govern Moslem countries, and ceases to finance the occupation of Palestine by the Israelis, what possible reason would radical Moslems have for attacking the USA? If we simply leave them alone, isn't it conceivable that they would leave us alone too".
Not necessarily. The hatred expressed by Jihadis is based on an hate filled ideology tought in madrassas that makes it mandatory to fight kufr rather than anything else. Pacifism works only against rational enemies who are not ideologically motivated. Clinton did try pacifism as well as ignoring the
problem
when world trade center was bombed the first time.
Solving every political dispute as per the whims of Jihadis in favor of muslims will only increase their demands as well as what they consider as disputes.
Published: June 15, 2004 1:31 AM
Naresh,
Unlike the US, the Bolivians haven't bombed Iraq. They haven't subsidized the Israelis. Their government officials haven't stated publicly that the deaths of half a million Iraqi civilians was worth it in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein. They haven't overthrown governments in Moslem countries and installed dictators pliable to the wishes of the US government as in Iran.
On the other hand, like the US, there aren't a whole lot of Moslems in Bolivia per capita. In fact, I would hazard a guess that per capita there are fewer Moslems in Bolivia than in the US.
The same comparisons exist between the US and scores of other countries, For instance, Equador, Brazil, Mexico, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Costa Rica, Monaco, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, I could go on, but you get my drift. None of these countries has been victimized by wild eyed Moslem extremists terrorizing the population. And none of them have involved themselves in the affairs of middle eastern countries.
Do you think it's conceiveable that there may be a connection? If not, and if you're correct, perhaps all of those countries should immediately take up arms and invade the middle east, wiping out all the potential terrorists before they declare a jihad against Panama.
Published: June 15, 2004 10:21 AM
Mr. Gordon:
Frum & Perle are only partly right. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of world history knows the the Islamists completely missed The Age of Enlightenment. They are pre-Enlightenment primitives whose culture has stagnated for thousands of years. The discovery of huge oil deposits in their homelands resulted in their being literally dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.
But to be fair (and more accurate), the greatest threat to civilization is ALL the primitive delusional religionist nutcases in the world, including our very own homegrown variety.
Observe the resurgence of moronic religious fundamentalism in the U.S. Our government is now dominated by these fanatics aka "Republicans" whose far from subtle jihad is nothing less than the establishment of a christian theoracy in this country. We should be afraid... very, very afraid.
The revolutionary principles of brilliant men such as Locke, Jefferson, Payne, et al, are on the verge of being destroyed by this regression to primitivism.
The great philosopher Ayn Rand described two generally mutually exclusive primary modes of thinking into which all human beings may be categorized: (1)The Primacy of Consciousness (2) The Primacy of Existence. The former group is primarily preoccupied and motivated by a reality which exists only inside their own skulls. The latter group is primarily preoccupied and motivated by the reality outside themselves in the external world of which they see themselves as only a part.
The former group comprises the delusional religionists whose individual thinking appears to be mostly dominated by the emotionality of their primitive mid-brain limbic system, with only occasional use of their cerebral cortex for practical purposes such as obtaining the physical requirements and comforts of life and the power to impose their will on others (infidels) who do not share their views. Their ultimate reality is some imiginary world where they think they will go when they die.
The thinking of the latter group is also influenced by emotion but their mid-brains seem to be more effectively wired to their cerebral cortex, since they are primarily focused on seeking happiness in this world (as opposed to some imaginary place they will go when they die) by the primary use of the rational analysis and problem solving function of the cerebral cortex.
I once believed in the possibility of human progress. Now I'm not so sure. As I watch what is going on in the world and in our own country, I fear that we are embarking upon a decline into the Darkest of All Ages. It will likely be much more difficult for humanity to rise out of this abyss because this time the Grand Inquisitors will have the latest high tech equipment!
Religion holds out only the promise of happiness in an afterlife, but guarantees the reality of a hell on earth.
Published: June 16, 2004 4:39 PM