In the course of some arguments on SoloPassion about moral conduct in war, I wrote the following post about the supposed multitudes of innocents oppressed by dictatorial regimes. I thought it worth reproducing here:

[Someone unworthy of identifying by name] said: “Bearing in mind that most Iranians loathe and despise their enormously repressive theocratic regime and its puritans and religious police and love America…”

If that were true, the Iranians would have overthrown that theocratic regime ages ago. (In fact, it never would have come into existence at all.) No government — no matter how repressive — can possibly maintain its grip on power when actively, seriously opposed by a majority — or even a dedicated minority. The fact that people in Iran might grumble about the concrete policies of their government does not mean that they oppose it in principle. Sure, a few do that — but the sputtered-out student revolts of a few years ago indicate that they were nothing more than a small minority.

The history of the 20th century proves that people willingly submit to the most horrifying dictatorships — but not from fear alone. As Ayn Rand illustrated in We the Living, people will accept vicious regimes as fundamentally moral or justified — and/or they passively submit to the horrors perpetrated by it. In Russia, autocracy was the only respected form of government — and crushing government interference in economic affairs had a long history. Communism was merely a more extreme version of the kind of government widely accepted as right and proper. Moreover, one basic ideal of the culture — instilled in substantial part by the Russian Orthodox Church — was the passive resignation to the evils of this world. The people who accepted and perpetuated those ideals made possible all the evils of Soviet Russia. They cannot rightly claim that they ought to be exempt from the consequences thereof, e.g. in war with free countries defending themselves against Soviet aggression.

Contrary to [quoted person's] fantasies, governments are not imposed upon a people from another dimension against their will. If the Iranians are genuinely opposed to their regime, it’s their responsibility to overthrow it. If they fail to do that, then they have no grounds for complaint when the nations threatened by that regime act swiftly and decisively to eliminate the threat. American soldiers certainly ought not be put in harm’s way so as to preserve the lives of Iranians who either support their belligerent, theocratic regime, passively accept its evils, or cowardly refuse to act to overthrow it.

In his lecture course on “The Rise of Totalitarian Islam” at OCON this past summer, Dr. Yaron Brook made a good case against the standard view that Iran was substantially pro-Western and pro-American at the time of the seizure of power by the Ayatollah — and remains so to this day. I won’t reproduce my full single-spaced page of furiously-typed notes, but I will highlight a few key points. (Remember that these are just my lecture notes, so I can’t guarantee full accuracy in reproducing Dr. Brook’s points.)

• Iran was actually one of the least Westernized countries in the Middle East at the time of the Revolution. French and English colonization substantially impacted the cultures of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. Iran was not so affected: it was in the middle of nowhere, left alone to indulge in its own primitive culture.
• The Shah of Iran attempted to Westernize Iran during his rule from the 1950s through 1979. In particular, he tried to aggressively secularize and nationalize Iran. He was also very oppressive, alternating between appeasement and oppression of religious leaders. Notably, the vast majority of the Iranian people never benefited from that Westernization. In fact, the traditional middle class traders in the bazaars were very threatened by the imported Western companies and goods, as well as by Western values. They funded the religious leaders opposed to the Shah. So very few Iranians were actually Westernized. Mostly that influence was limited to just students attracted to communism or socialism. At the time of the Revolution, the country was predominantly Muslim and oriented toward its religious leaders.
• Unsurprisingly, many of the pro-Western Iranians left Iran after the Revolution. Many of the student opponents of the regime are just slightly more moderate Islamists. The genuinely pro-Westerners are (1) a very tiny minority and (2) usually socialist. So why is Iran so widely regarded as pro-West? It’s due to (1) the rosy memories of pro-Western exiles and (2) Western desire for a better government in Iran without the blood of military conflict.

  I’ve omitted much of great interest in Dr. Brook’s presentation, particularly regarding Khomeini’s ideology and its relationship to Shiism. Those interested should order the course when it becomes available sometime in the next year.

In sending me the link, Paul said that this FAQ contains “more than you ever wanted to know about Peeps,” but I really don’t think that’s possible! Personally, I’d say that the best tidbit is found in this question about flavor differences between kinds and colors of Peeps: “Although you might expect Bunnies to have a somewhat gamey flavor, they taste identical to Peeps.” Alas, everything really does taste like chicken!

Bloggasm recently published its informal survey on diversity in the blogosphere. I did participate, mostly because I wished to express my opinion that such worries about racial and sexual diversity are seriously wrong. That’s particular true in a medium like the blogosphere, since readers don’t know your race or sex unless you choose to disclose it. So here are my answers to the survey:

1. What niche does your blog fall into (if more than one, please list)?

My blog is mostly read by Objectivists and others interested in Ayn Rand’s ideas.

2. What are the genders of all the bloggers who write for your site?

Three male, 1 female.

3. What are the races for all the bloggers who write for your site (if there are any that you’re not sure about, just indicate that you don’t know)?

Three Caucasian, 1 Asian.

4. This last question is optional to answer. Please indicate whether or not it’s fine for me to quote you for this question: What do you think of the diversity of the blogosphere, both in your niche and as a whole?

You may quote me.

I would NEVER EVER EVER choose my co-bloggers based upon race or sex, nor choose to read or link to other blogs on that basis. There’s a very simple reason for that: it would be racist and/or sexist to do so. I judge people by the quality of their writing, their insights, their characters. I do not judge people worthy or unworthy — in any way — based upon race and sex.

Moreover, I would be thoroughly insulted if someone read me (the woman) or my husband (the Asian) for that reason. It would be patronizing. I’m a good writer by human standards, not feminine ones.

In short, the racial and sexual diversity of the blogosphere cannot be some kind of noteworthy controversial issue. People of any sex and any race are free to blog if they so choose. If they’re good, they will gain an audience. If not, they won’t. That’s how the blogosphere works. To act on any other basis is racism and/or sexism.

That’s not terribly eloquent writing, but I think I got my basic point across.

Today’s diversion from heavy philosophical topics comes from the emergency room.

A young woman “was brought in from the county jail by correctional officers. They were concerned about her altered mental status, and suspicious of drug use. They had a reason to think she was concealing drugs ‘on her person’.” Among the various tests performed was the following abdominal x-ray:

As the blogging ER physician reports:

Yes, that’s a pistol completely stuffed into the vaginal vault. All of a sudden her agitation and thrashing about seemed a lot more important than it had a few minutes before. How the hell were we to get the gun out without the damn thing discharging?

In the end, there was no real option. She was sedated and taken to the OR for an exam under anesthesia. They put a bulletproof vest over the patient’s body to protect the anesthesiologist in the event the gun went off, and had general surgery standing by. The OB-GYN who did the extraction reported a very tense moment when he perceived that the hammer was cocked and there appeared to be a shell in the chamber. An uneventful removal was followed by a moment of letdown when they realized that the device was not, in fact, a gun, but rather a butane torch/cigarette lighter shaped like a gun.

This actually makes sense when you look at the X-ray and realize that the other item in her vagina is a glass crack pipe and its rubber tubing. What good is a crack pipe without a lighter?

Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, sent out this announcement:

The print version of the Fall issue of TOS has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. The contents are:

From the Editor

Letters and RepliesThe Decline and Fall of American Conservatism by C. Bradley Thompson

19th-Century French Painting and Philosophy by Dianne Durante

The Jihad on America by Elan Journo

For promotional purposes, the online version of “The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism” is accessible to all.

If you’ve not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. Subscribe today and we’ll mail the first three issues to you right away.

Remembering rave reviews of C. Bradley Thompson’s lecture at the last OCON, I was eager to see what he would say in his TOS article, “The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism.” I read it just now. Wow.

Wait, let me try that again: freakin’ wow!

It is eye-opening and jaw-dropping, a stunning analysis that gathers up the oddities we have been seeing in the rise of the Republicans, explains them with some wonderful philosophical detective work, and frames it all in terms of fundamental principles having life and death importance to us all. C. Bradley Thompson brings the goods, and I now understand the cryptic, stammered, rave reviews of his lecture — along the lines of, “It was amazing: I kept thinking it couldn’t get any worse, and then he would reveal a whole new level of badness!” But don’t take my word for it: go see for yourself.

If this doesn’t cement TOS’s place on the map, I don’t know what will. Thanks and kudos, guys!

Update from Diana: Brad Thompson will be speaking in Boulder on October 5th and in Denver (Arvada) on October 7th. Both talks will be on education. For more information, see this page and/or e-mail Lin Zinser.