Biden Administration’s Appeasement of Iran Is Driving The World To a Nuclear Holocaust

Biden Administration’s Appeasement of Iran Is Driving The World To a Nuclear Holocaust

Allistor Heath writes in the Telegraph echoing Leonard Peikoff’s call to End States The Sponsor Terrorism:

If Joe Biden were a serious president, he would announce that the mullahs in Tehran have crossed a red line, that they are an existential menace to civilised nations. He would declare that enough is enough, that no country can shoot hundreds of drones and missiles at one of its neighbours with impunity, that no government can go on funding terrorism, rape, torture and murder on an industrial scale. He would understand the need to deter other rogue states through a show of strength.

He would state that the Iranian regime must be treated like the global pariah that it has become, that all of its proxies must be destroyed, and that, above all, it will never be allowed to get anywhere near nuclear weapons. He would put together a coalition, including as many of Iran’s Arab neighbours as possible. He would impose extreme sanctions. He would allow Israel to finish off Hamas. He would help hit Hezbollah.

If all else fails, he would use American military power to destroy Iran’s nuclear’s installations, just as Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and the Al-Kibar site in Syria in 2007. He would not invade Iran or impose regime change: that would be up to Iran’s wonderful, long-suffering people. But he would contain and neutralise one of the key players in the axis of evil, and make the world a safer place.

In the real world, in common with David Cameron, Biden clings to a policy of appeasement when it comes to Iran and its proxies, even though this strategy failed to contain fascistic, imperialistic powers in the 1930s and will fail to do so again in the 2020s. This isn’t even a tactic to buy time while an actual plan is put into place: our politicians are praying that today’s crisis will somehow solve itself.

It won’t. The West’s refusal to face reality means that it is increasingly likely that Iran will eventually gain a nuclear weapon, and quite possibly use it against Israel, itself a nuclear power, with the explicit view of triggering a millenarian moment. The world is careering towards a three or four-pronged third world war involving Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea: the Islamic Republic is the weakest link, the least difficult one to deal with today, if we had the sense to act.

Iran is about to start a nuclear world war – and the West is determined to lose” is an important read.


Anti-Israel: The Gradual Transformation of the Democratic Party

Anti-Israel: The Gradual Transformation of the Democratic Party

Writes Glick on “Biden ends the US-Israel alliance at a fortuitous moment“:

“By placing a hold on congressionally approved offensive weapons to Israel, Biden is bowing to antisemites who are opposed by the overwhelming majority of college students and the general public. And he is siding with them six months before Election Day.

Biden’s actions energized Republicans to move harshly against his policy in the Republican-controlled House and in the Senate. Democrats in swing districts and purple states either hope to keep their heads down or speak out directly against the policy.

All of this places upper limits on what Biden can do to Israel before the elections. The White House’s efforts on Thursday to walk back his statement in the face of the furious backlash against it make those limits apparent.”

According to Glick, Biden’s appeasement of Hamas is a continiation of Obama’s Anti-Israel policies:

Thanks to Obama and his senior officials, coupled with the funding mechanisms they built and institutionalized, a steadily growing number of Democrats embraced the view that far from the last great hope of mankind and the leader of the free world, the U.S. was traditionally the world’s greatest aggressor. U.S. allies were viewed as accomplices to this evil, and as such, undeserving of support.

America’s enemies, on the other hand, were viewed as victims, and “innocent” by nature and incapable of doing wrong. Since the most anti-American actors in the world are Iran and radical, jihadist Arab states like Syria and Qatar were necessarily worthy of support and could be blamed for no wrongdoing.

The chief aggressor in Obama’s CRT taxonomy is Israel. And the chief victims are Israel’s existential enemies: Iran and the Palestinians. Empowering the latter against the Jewish state was seen as both a moral imperative and the key to repositioning the transformed United States on the “right side of history.”

Slowly, but surely, over his eight years in office, Obama incentivized abidance by CRT catechisms. Its primary expression in foreign policy was hatred of Israel and support for Palestinian terrorists and Iran.

Concludes Glick:

“Unfortunately, however, Biden’s willingness to side with Hamas (and Iran and Hezbollah) against Israel as Israel fights a war for its very survival also demonstrates that if he wins a second term, Israel will face a nightmare scenario of relations with Washington.”

Read the full article.

Draft is a Black Mark on The Heroic Zelensky

Draft is a Black Mark on The Heroic Zelensky

The real black mark on Zelensky is his institution of a military draft. (Of course, the same could be said for Putin who is far worse).

“Of all the statist violations of individual rights…the military draft is the worst. It…establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state…” — Ayn Rand


Manifesto on the Proper Relationship Between Ukraine and Russia

Manifesto on the Proper Relationship Between Ukraine and Russia

Russian freedom hero Alexey Navalny’s Manifesto on the Proper Relationship Between Ukraine and Russia:

On the eve of the anniversary of the full-scale and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops, I have summarized the political platform of mine and, hopefully, of many other decent people. 15 theses of a Russian citizen who desires the best for their country.

What was all this about and what are we dealing with now?

1. President Putin has unleashed an unjust war of aggression against Ukraine under ridiculous pretexts.
He is desperately trying to make this a “people’s war,” seeking to turn all Russian citizens into his accomplices, but his attempts are failing. There are almost no volunteers for this war, so Putin’s army has to rely on convicts and forcibly mobilized people.

2. The real reasons for this war are the political and economic problems within Russia, Putin’s desire to hold on to power at any cost, and his obsession with his own historical legacy. He wants to go down in history as “the conqueror tsar” and “the collector of lands.”

3. Tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians have been murdered, and pain and suffering has befallen millions more. War crimes have been committed. Ukrainian cities and infrastructure have been destroyed.

4. Russia is suffering a military defeat. It was the realization of this fact that changed the rhetoric of the authorities from claims that “Kyiv will fall in three days” to hysterical threats of using nuclear weapons should Russia lose.
The lives of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers were needlessly ruined. The ultimate military defeat may be delayed at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands more mobilized soldiers, but it is generally inevitable.
The combination of aggressive warfare, corruption, inept generals, weak economy, and heroism and high motivation of the defending forces can only result in defeat.
The Kremlin’s deceitful and hypocritical calls for negotiations and ceasefire are nothing more than a realistic assessment of the prospects of further military action.

What is to be done?

5. What are Ukraine’s borders? They are similar to Russia’s – they’re internationally recognized and defined in 1991. Russia also recognized these borders back then, and it must recognize them today as well. There is nothing to discuss here.
Almost all borders in the world are more or less accidental and cause someone’s discontent. But in the twenty-first century, we cannot start wars just to redraw them. Otherwise, the world will sink into chaos.

6. Russia must leave Ukraine alone and allow it to develop the way its people want. Stop the aggression, end the war and withdraw all of its troops from Ukraine. Continuation of this war is just a tantrum caused by powerlessness, and putting an end to it would be a strong move.

7. Together with Ukraine, the U.S., the EU and the UK, we must look for acceptable ways to compensate for the damage done to Ukraine.
One way to achieve this would be lifting the restrictions imposed on our oil and gas, but directing part of the income Russia receives from hydrocarbon exports towards reparations. Of course, this should only be done after the change of power in Russia and the end of the war.

8. War crimes committed during this war must be investigated in cooperation with international institutions.
Why would stopping Putin’s aggression benefit Russia?

9. Are all Russians inherently imperialistic? This is nonsense. For example, Belarus is also involved in the war against Ukraine.
Does this mean that the Belarusians also have an imperial mindset? No, they merely also have a dictator in power.
There will always be people with imperial views in Russia, just like in any other country with historical preconditions for this, but they are far from being the majority.
There is no reason to weep and wail about it. Such people should be defeated in elections, just as both right-wing and left-wing radicals get defeated in developed countries.

10. Does Russia need new territories? Russia is a vast country with a shrinking population and dying out rural areas. Imperialism and the urge to seize territory is the most harmful and destructive path.
Once again, the Russian government is destroying our future with its own hands just in order to make our country look bigger on the map. But Russia is big enough as it is. Our objective should be preserving our people and developing what we have in abundance.

11. For Russia, the legacy of this war will be a whole tangle of complex and, at first glance, almost unsolvable problems. It is important to establish for ourselves that we really want to solve them, and then begin to do so honestly and openly.
The key to success lies in understanding that ending the war as soon as possible will not only be good for Russia and its people, but also very profitable.
This is the only way to start progressing toward removal of sanctions, return of those who left, restoration of business confidence, and economic growth.

12. Let me re-emphasize that after the war, we will have to reimburse Ukraine for all the damage caused by Putin’s aggression.
However, the restoration of normal economic relations with the civilized world and the return of economic growth will allow us to do so without interfering with the development of our country.
We have hit rock bottom, and in order to resurface, we need to bounce back from it. This would be both ethically correct, rational, and profitable.

13. We need to dismantle the Putin regime and its dictatorship. Ideally, through conducting general free elections and convocating the Constitutional Assembly.

14. We need to establish a parliamentary republic based on the alternation of power through fair elections, independent courts, federalism, local self-governance, complete economic freedom and social justice.

15. Recognizing our history and traditions, we must be part of Europe and follow the European path of development. We have no other choice, nor do we need any.

Agustina Vergara Cid’s Message To Javier Milei: Freedom Isn’t Compatible with Anarchy

Agustina Vergara Cid’s Message To Javier Milei: Freedom Isn’t Compatible with Anarchy

Argentinian Agustina Vergara Cid, an associate fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, has penned an excellent op-ed on Javier Milei’s reformation of the Argentinian government, observing that:

Milei seems to understand that eliminating government’s control over the economy is a must for human flourishing and prosperity – that government must get out of the way of individuals who want to produce and live freely (for instance, he’s eliminated the price controls that plagued the Argentinian economy for years). But as a self-described “anarcho-capitalist,” he holds a mistaken view of government: as recently as September, he’s stated that government is inherently evil and that true freedom can be only achieved through anarchism.

Not so, says Vergara Cid, “… government is not an unnecessary evil, but a necessary good,” writing that “Argentina’s anarcho-capitalist president Javier Milei must build, not just tear down”:

A civilized society should ban force from social relations, and to enforce this ban there needs to be an institution that holds a monopoly on force. Government is needed to guarantee freedom from physical force by protecting individual rights. To do this it must use force in retaliation against those who initiate it.

[…]Building strong government institutions is necessary to protect the rights of Argentinians. Argentina desperately needs a better police force and court system to implement better rule of law. Criminals run rampant, making safety a top concern leading up to the presidential election. Those criminals who are apprehended are routinely freed by judges. Judicial procedures take a long time, often rendering obsolete verdicts. Judges and other justice system workers often see their independence compromised, especially in cases involving challenges to the political power of corrupt officials.

While most of Milei’s proposed reforms have been about tearing down improper government controls, the new president is also making moves to actively protect the rights of Argentinians by specifying proper governmental actions. For instance, Milei’s government has empowered the police force to prevent and break up the massive pickets and public street blockades that for decades have been restricting Argentinians right to move and causing untold damage.

While the new reforms are overall good signs, the question of Milei’s anarcho-capitalism remains. Freedom isn’t compatible with anarchy. Freedom requires a good government limited to protecting the rights of individuals. Government should leave people free –  by guaranteeing their rights. Milei, who’s shown signs of intellectual growth, will hopefully continue to help build the necessary governmental institutions to do just that and to be persuaded of the need to rebuild the good, not just tear down the bad

Learn more about the importance of good government by reading Ayn Rand’s essay The Nature of Government.

Capitalism Q&A: Modern China, Material Progress & Communism

Capitalism Q&A: Modern China, Material Progress & Communism

Q. Why haven’t other countries adopted communism given China’s material improvement?

A. China’s material improvement is a result of moving away from communism (socialist economy) towards a freer market and property rights (which even Cuba has done partially).

Q. Will we see more communist countries?

A. Yes, as anti-capitalism is preached by the intellectuals (professors, teachers, journalists) in other countries. See Ayn Rand’s For The New Intellectual.

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest