<< ARI Watch


To help get us into the spirit of Brexit here is  “Rule, Britannia!” – a patriotic song of exhortation from the mid 18th century. Thanks to Vdare.com for pointing out this performance by Katherine Jenkins at the Royal Albert Hall, October 2015. The refrain scans as follows:  “Rule, Bri-tan-nia! Bri-tannia rule the waves. / Bri-tons never, never, ne-ver shall be slaves.”

Rule, Britannia

Now that we are in an enthusiastic mood here comes Mr. Brook to throw a cold shower on it  (BlogTalkRadio June 25, 2016, “Brexit: What’s on the Horizon?” – two days after the Brexit referendum):

“Today we’re going to talk about Brexit. ... What I think is going to happen from now moving forward. Why in spite of the fact that I was, uh, for Brexit, I’m not enthused, I’m not excited.

“... I know you Brits ... are very, very excited about Brexit. I’m not. I think this is an opportunity and I’m almost willing to put money on the [prediction] that it’s an opportunity ... the Brits are not going to take advantage of. That indeed it will end up doing more harm than good.”
... Take that, you not overly bright Brits !

Froggy, I’m afraid you get hypnotized by Mr. Brook.  Now cool it, OK?

What Mr. Brook means by advantage, his idea of what is good for Britain, may well be the opposite of a decent person’s idea of good.  Read on.
“I’m not quite willing to give [even] two cheers to BREXIT. I’m giving it one cheer, maybe ... half a cheer, until I see evidence that something good is going to come of this.”

In Britain the word “Brexit” soon became the rubric for a deep seated and long term revolt against – to use a word that will have to do – “elites,”  rule by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and elected lying politicos in Britain. (Brussels is the de facto capitol – politburo might be a more accurate word – of the European Union.)  Mr. Brook again belittled the movement the following week (BlogTalkRadio July 2):

“Brexit is this minor little thing that’s happening in England.”
Returning to the June 25 show, after introducing the themes he will elaborate later Mr. Brook continues struggling over how faintly to praise Brexit in order to damn it:
“[Prefatory groan.] I struggle with one cheer right now. ... I was for Brexit initially but I have to say that post the Brexit vote, watching the celebrations, my enthusiasm for Brexit has actually declined ...

“What you’re seeing all over the West is the rise of the angry voter, the rise of a rejection of, yes, the intellectual establishment, the establishment elites, but ... it’s a rejection of reason, it’s a rejection of thinking, it’s a rejection of ideas, it’s a rejection of ideology, and it’s an embrace of ... what in my view will be violent, emotion-driven pragmatism.”
Yes, but – and the but is everything.  Later it will become clear that Mr. Brook is not as blind to the inchoate ideas behind world events as the above suggests, he just does not like those ideas.  Mr. Brook continues:
“Now if I had, I don’t know, a thousand Yaron Brooks out there ... in a sense of intellectuals who are advocating for an Objectivist alternative ... and trying to lead an intellectual revolution, I would say yeah there’s an opportunity here, people are rejecting the elites, let’s replace them, right. But there isn’t, there’s [only] one of me. I mean there’s a few dozen people maybe willing to ... do this, but that’s not enough.”
A thousand Yaron Brooks, and you thought Hollywood had plumbed the depths of the horror movie genre.
“I think the main negative [of the Brexit phenomenon], philosophically, is ... the rise of nationalism, the rise of a false sense of patriotism, and the Balkanization of the Western World. And you’re seeing this with ... the anti-globalism rhetoric out of the Leave campaign that I see constantly on television everybody on the Leave side seems to be talking about. [Saying] We’re against globalism. Why?”
In the lexicon of Objectivism “Balkanization” is a bad word.
“I’m all for globalism, I’m for global trade, global migration, global travel, global engagement ... I fear that British nationalism is going to restrict trade, is going to restrict the flow of capital. ... the Leave campaign is an anti-immigration vote, a huge anti-immigration [vote], and this is why you’re never going to get two thumbs up from me. Because of the xenophobic, anti-immigration, pro-nationalistic tendencies, that so many on the Leave side have.”
Xenophobic?  Britons are not afraid of Roma, Pakistanis, Hindus, Muslims and so forth, they just don’t want them in their neighborhood. Call it xenonausea if you must have a word, but not xenophobia. Mr. Brook is beside himself with disgust at the xenonauseous British. And as Mr. Brook’s critics are forever pointing out – and he forever not answering – this contradicts his support for the Jewish state. No one is more xenonauseous than the Israelis.

For an account of what Third World immigration has done to Britain – not all due to the EU – read the British references cited in the footnote below. [1]  Yaron Brook fears and hates, hates with a passion, the people described in those articles.

“Nationalism is not good.”
We interrupt again. A word or phrase containing the word “nation” is not necessarily bad. For example, Rand spoke of “national self-interest.” Properly defined national self-interest is a good thing. Beware of the linguistic fallacy that infers fascism from a reference to the nation.

There is nationalism and there is nationalism. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were nationalists, and doubtless – LOL – they anachronistically cast their absentee ballets for Brexit. The Nazi’s were nationalists. There is a difference, and – stay tuned – Mr. Brook will equivocate between the two trying to get you to accept open borders. You don’t want to be a Nazi do you?

If a word or phrase for benevolent nationalism did not exist then most people would think the concept does not exist, that there was no good nationalism – which is what leftists want you to think.  Of course there is such a word, “patriotism,” which George Orwell defined as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally.”  Mr. Brook wants to kill that idea so he buries it in “nationalism.”  If leftists are going to equivocate in the use “nationalism” we must not surrender the word “nationalism” to one meaning only; it ought to be a neutral word, without qualification neither good nor bad.

A similar problem swirls around the word “collectivism.” Say something about a group and some blockhead at the Ayn Rand Institute is bound to call you a collectivist. These mathematically challenged OrgOists cannot deal with groups, averages, probabilities, statistics. If a New York cab driver refuses to pick up fares in a certain black neighborhood, he’s a collectivist. He’s punishing an entire group because of some of its members. (To his credit Leonard Peikoff, in his better days at least, realized that the cabbie is right.)

Mr. Brook elaborates “Nationalism is not good”:

“Nationalism means – it’s an ism, it’s an ism. It’s not loving your nation, it’s an ism.”
... AUGH !!!  It’s an ism !!! — What’s an ism?

I think Mr. Brook will tell us, Froggy, if you’ll just give him a chance.
“Ism [sic, nationalism in the sense Mr. Brook uses the word], it means placing the state above the individual. It means placing your state above anything else. ... It is pure collectivism ... It’s a false sense of patriotism. It’s about the nation state, rather than about freedom, individualism. [Loud exasperated sigh.] So nationalism is very dangerous, very dangerous.”
Those who voted for Brexit are little better than Nazis, got it.

Mr. Brook continues his moral-highgrounding:

“Now if the English were the English of the past, if the English were the English of the Enlightenment ... If England was the England of individualism, yay I’d move there. The hell with America, I’d move to England. Britain, I shouldn’t say England.”
He shouldn’t say “The hell with America” either, like a cartoon version of Benedict Arnold. The cosmopolitan Mr. Brook is rather quick to abandon the country that mistakenly welcomed him.  If he envisions having to take a last stand anywhere doubtless it is in Israel.

Sometimes Mr. Brook sounds as if he had read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion  and instead of a hoax thought it was an instruction manual.

History has failed to record John Locke inviting Chinese over for dinner regularly. I know, a billion individual human beings, but dollars to doughnuts Mr. Locke would want them to be individual human beings in China rather than England. He might say to them, mix your labor with the land in China, not here.  Mr. Brook continues:

“So nationalism is a very dangerous form of collectivism and it is rising.”
Does Mr. Brook believe that Brexiteers will end up erecting a fascist state? In an access of violent, emotion-driven pragmatism they will invade and subjugate Europe under the Union Jack?

Perhaps somewhere inside this mannequin’s gearwork runs the following calculation:  (1) The British want to restrict immigration. (2) Open immigration is good for the Jews. (3) Therefore the British are incipient Nazis.  It’s hard to follow but some outspoken Jews do think that way. [2]

Yaron Brook then outdoes himself:

“Now look ... any time I mention immigration, any time I mention nationalism, people bring up Israel.  I don’t have time to cover the Israel example.  Israel is an exception.  You heard it here.  Israel is an exception.  Not a good exception.  Not an exception that is ideal.  But it is an exception.  And, uh, why is Israel an exception?”
That’s what many people would like to know.  Not long ago Britain was 100% white. America was 90% and freedom of association was upheld so that it could be 100% in your neighborhood. Why does Israel get to be Jewish yet Britain and America must be browned over with Pakistanis, Nigerians, Asians and whatever gets across the border?  Mr. Brook continues (his grammar leaks in spots):
“Why is Israel in the world we live in today has to be an exception, and Britain does not – we will get to on a future show, but not now.”
... Nuts.  [Starts singing.]  Mañana,  mañana.  Mañana is soon enough for me.

Froggy, behave yourself. [3]  Even now Mr. Brook might favor us with a few thoughts about the “Objectivist Paradox of the Jewish State.”  He continues:
“[Clicking sound in his throat, trying to say two words at once.] An hour has already passed and I’ve barely covered the points I want to cover, so, and we still have to talk about a— end on a good movie note ...”
We wouldn’t want to miss the good movie note would we now.  And the dog ate my homework.  The intrepid Yaron Brook soldiers on:
“So, this is the problem, right, that nationalism is now gonna be a big issue. The Leave campaign has embraced this. ... All of Britain’s problems are caused by the EU.”
A classic straw man – no one, but no one, makes that claim. The EU causes many problems for Britain. If he cannot distinguish many from all, what does he do when it comes to fine distinctions?

If Mr. Brook expects his audience to believe what he says, he could write Brexit for Dummies  and really mean it.

He continues mocking the Leave side:

“All of Britain’s problems are caused by immigrants.”
Another straw man. Immigrants don’t cause all of Britain’s problems and no one outside of Bedlam claims they do. Unrestricted immigration does cause problems though, big ones. Furthermore, immigrants – which these days means Third World immigrants – not only cause problems, their very existence in Britain is a problem.

The British elites began inflicting the Third World on the British public soon after WW II, long before the European Union. First immigration was allowed from the waning colonial empire, then from everywhere, at the same time immigration of whites from Australia and South Africa was curtailed. Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter for the Labor Party, revealed that the elites’ purpose was to  “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”  Referring to a Labor memorandum of 2001,  “Earlier drafts ... included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.”  The EU only accelerated the process.

So leaving the EU is not enough, the traitors within the British government – and private organizations such as “Community Security Trust” – must be weeded out as well. They ought to be convicted of treason and sent to rot in a new Botany Bay.

Getting back to the tendentious Mr. Brook—

... Ten dentists what?

Tendentious – he’s made up his mind despite evidence. He will argue any nonsense, ignore obvious fallacies, and expect you to believe him.  Partisan in caps.

After mocking the Leavers with:  the EU caused all Britain’s problems, the immigrants caused all Britain’s problems – Mr. Brook shoots his straw men right through the straw:

“None of that is true.”
Indeed, and that says more about Mr. Brook than about the Leavers. Mr. Brook continues in the same vein, insinuating that immigration into a populous country does not do what it obviously does do:  drive up real estate prices and rent, drive down wages – resulting in a transfer of income from labor to capital. [4]  Besides that economic effect is something far worse: the general unpleasantness of being surrounded by what Mr. Brook calls THE OTH-ER.
“The poor quality of the National Health Service is not Europe’s fault and it’s not the fault of immigrants. It’s the fault of the Brits for adopting socialized medicine.”
What the hell ?  I cannot defend socialized medicine but given that it is in place, from theory alone you know that mass Third World immigration would lower its quality. In practice that is exactly what it has done, yet Mr. Brook has no sympathy whatever for the native British who for the time being are stuck with a degraded health system.

Mr. Brook’s perverted reasoning goes something like this:  If you build a rickety house and people from another neighborhood come and knock it down, it’s not their fault your house collapsed, it’s your fault for not building it with bricks.

Apparently Mr. Brook expects Third World immigrants and more Third World immigrants to replace socialized medicine with capitalist medicine. They will build with bricks. And water will run uphill.

“Your high taxes, British high taxes, and the high cost of living. Not Europe’s fault, not the fault of immigrants.”
– said self-righteously as usual. Who does Mr. Brook think pays for the welfare and benefits he himself mentions (quoted further on) – and of which immigrants on average partake at a much higher rate than whites?  His argument is: Taxes are unjust, therefore if immigrants eat the taxes it is the fault of those who instituted them. A grain of truth in a fat lie.

Mr. Brook says that “the housing bubble” – the high cost of housing, slyly insinuating that it is only temporary – is not caused by mass immigration. Yet from Economics 101:  the greater the population density the dearer the land. Mass immigration entails a general increase in real estate prices and rents. This is the worst economic consequence of all because always you must  be somewhere, morning, noon and night. You must pay for your space somehow, or die and vanish from the earth.

He repeats the  Many-All  fallacy:

“The danger here is that this ... legitimizes the view that all Britain’s problems are the fault of the EU or the fault of immigrants.”

Then he worries that when Britain leaves the EU and negotiates a new relationship with Europe:  “are they going to try to negotiate a free trade agreement without a free labor agreement? That would be terrible, but that’s what we’re heading towards.”  He elaborates:

“... my big worry is that England becomes more isolationist, more xenophobic, more anti-immigration, more anti-trade. That populism rules the day ... The people didn’t vote for Brexit in order to establish a capitalist utopia in England.”
By “capitalism” Mr. Brook means Goldman Sachs and TPP  but suppose for a moment that he meant freedom, freedom from government regulation. Leaving the EU is a necessary precondition for freedom in Britain. Surely that is worth two cheers?  But no:
“They voted for Brexit because of all the wrong reasons.  And that is scary.”
While saying “scary” the pitch of Mr. Brook’s voice sounds lower by a halftone. To be sure you heard it he repeats:
“That is scary.”

Why use the word scary? Clearly he is not scared in the sense of “I’m afraid we’re late.”  He feels real fear. What is he afraid of? [2 again]

The European Union is an agreement among countries which according to Mr. Brook has three “really strong positives.”  First, the free movement of goods among EU member countries. Second, the free movement of capital among them. And third, “free movement, free immigration ... between European Union countries.” [5]  Emphasis in the following quote, as elsewhere, is his: [6]

“... one of the big issues that were made during the Brexit debate, was that ... there are three million European Union citizens from outside of the UK who are living in Great Britain, and working in Great Britain, getting welfare in Great Britain, getting benefits in Great Britain, but also, you know, they don’t need a special work permit, they can just work in Great Britain.

“So I love all those three. ... the European Union at its initiation was a great idea. And still is, if they just did that. ... if that was the essence today of the European Union I would be against leaving, I would consider Brexit as a tragedy and a disaster. And to the extent that the UK does not negotiate a deal with the European Union that allows for the continuation of free trade, free movement of capital, and free movement of labor ... Brexit will be a disaster.”
The third element of Mr. Brook’s trilogy – free movement of what he calls “labor” – makes the European Union, the very idea of it, wrong and is why such a union would be a disaster. Free unrestricted migration between disparate cultures, races, and/or population densities is theoretically wrong – and now a disaster in practice.

Another reason the EU is a disaster, and contrary to Mr. Brook’s fairytale this started from the very beginning, is that the EU is the internationalization of regulation, regulation not in the sense of common law (which by the way the English devised) but in the sense of regulating industrial production and ultimately your life.

Finally, the EU is a disaster because given the intellectual and legal climate of Germany and France it leads to the internationalization of censorship. That this would happen was obvious from the beginning. (The first stage will be a “code of conduct” that bans Internet “hate speech” – like what you are reading now.)  Mr. Brook pays lip service to supporting free speech, but for examples all you get are Bosch Fawstin, Flemming Rose and the like who in fact suffered no government persecution. He never mentions Rodney Stich, Edgar Steele, David Irving, Thomas Drake, Robert Faurisson and others whose speech, whether or not correct, was politically incorrect and who suffered personal injury from a government because of it – real censorship not mere Muslim thuggery.

“I’ve seen a lot of posts on Twitter saying Islam was a major factor in this vote. I’m skeptical about that. I’m skeptical about whether this was really a vote about Muslims or whether a vote about other kinds of immigrants.”
The vote was about national sovereignty, in which border control necessarily plays a preeminent role. Race and culture are proper concerns of an immigration policy. During the debate over Brexit a few commentators broached the second concern; to discuss the first would have risked violating Britain’s Race Relations Act. Muslims are a demographic a person can criticize without being too politically incorrect (unless the person is a policeman or other government functionary). The British are concerned about all immigrants from the Third World – and from the Backward World, for example the Roma from Bulgaria and Romania. Besides culture and race there was an economic concern: all things being equal, a per capita increase in the supply of laborers entails a decrease in the prevailing wage rate.

So Mr. Brook’s skepticism might be justified. Among other violations of national sovereignty such as regulation of British business, the Brexit vote was about Britain’s elites conniving with the EU to impose unrestricted immigration, Muslim or not.  Still, there is reason for the British to focus on Muslims.  They experienced the 7/7 attack, the murder of Lee Rigby, the Rotherham (and other towns) torture outrage.  They see what has happened to Sweden.  EU members have given citizenship to millions from the Middle East and subsequently the EU allows their migration elsewhere. (The Somali that stabbed six people in London not long after the referendum, one of them an American, was a citizen of Norway.)  Turkey, which in the geography of the elites resides in Europe, is angling to become a member of the EU.  And Yaron Brook expresses disbelief that the British are concerned about Muslim immigration?

As for free trade, if Mr. Brook meant free trade between free countries it would be an unalloyed good. Otherwise there is something to be said for tariffs and trade restrictions.

Mr. Brook is particularly incensed over Africa, sounding like a bleeding heart liberal:

“... they have massive restrictions on importing for example farm products from Africa, because it’s not fair ... because Africa uses cheap labor, [the rest of the sentence said mockingly] African farms are basically the equivalent of sweatshops and that’s not fair. That’s this whole ... actually I’m on a podcast I don’t have to watch my language, the [he shouts an expletive] of fair trade.”
“The EU keeps Africa poor by restricting trade with Africa, which is just pathetic.  So free trade with Africa is something the UK could now embrace. Will it though, will it.”
He would not want to deprive poor Africans of honest toil while corrupt officials get the cash. Again, we would promote instead: free trade between free countries.

Mr. Brook discusses the possible secession of Scotland and Northern Ireland:

“I think it’s a bad thing. I think Balkanization is a bad thing. The UK is not just a contractual thing.”
To repeat, in the lexicon of Objectivism “Balkanization” is a bad word. But it is an anti-concept, like “isolationism,” even if Rand fell into using it. I don’t know enough to have a considered opinion about Scotland and Northern Ireland. With IRA terrorism in mind I’m inclined to think that if the Northern Irish were swept into the sea Britain would be better off.

Say, maybe Israel would take them.

Some people on the BlogTalkRadio “chat” ask about the Ayn Rand Institute setting up an office in the UK.  (Right, there’s one born every minute.)  Mr. Brook spends almost four minutes berating the audience, especially British listeners, for not donating money to ARI.  He didn’t say all their money though, he was able to tell the difference for a change.

“ARI costs money. ... it’s not cheap, I’m not cheap, training people, hiring people, doing media all right, getting on television, going to Oxford to do debates, none of that is cheap. And yet we get almost no contributions ... from the UK at the Ayn Rand Institute.”
“Changing the world is unbelievably [expletive] expensive ...”
Indeed he is not cheap. Over the last five years Mr. Brook’s yearly compensation from ARI has ranged from a low of $310,195 to a high of $472,610. That comes to less than five hundred dollars per year per zombie roaming the British countryside in the horror docudrama “Zombie Apocalypse: One Thousand Yaron Brooks.” Or will each zombie get paid the full amount?
“This Brexit vote had nothing to do with Islamic immigration. Syrians are not flooding into Britain. ... they’re being stopped. There’s a whole camp of Muslim immigrants right near the [other end of the] Chunnel and they can’t cross the Chunnel into the UK. They can’t get in. They can walk to Sweden, they can walk to Germany, but they can’t get in [the UK].”

Then he seems to partly reverse his longstanding promotion of Muslim immigration into Europe, and introduces the concept of war on an ism:

“I am fine with limiting Islamic immigration, stopping Islamic immigration for a certain period of time. It would be nice if you declared war first, I think that would be necessary in my view. If you’re gonna ban Muslims you first declare war on jihadism and then you ban the immigrants. Fine. But that’s not what this [Brexit vote] is about. All the interviews I saw on television, the complaints were about European Union immigrants.”
That last is disingenuous. As we pointed out earlier, other EU member countries have given citizenship to millions of Third Worlders – Europeans in name only – who can then attempt to migrate to Britain.

Mr. Brook gets to boasting:

“Now we all have an Islamic totalitarian problem and I’ve described in great detail [elsewhere] ... how to deal with it. People choose, at their own peril, to ignore that. And they have chosen because I’ve ... been talking about Islamic totalitarianism for fifteen years ... and suddenly people have discovered this issue and now they’re blaming everything on immigration, which is ... complete BS. So I’ve been right on Islamic totalitarianism from the day after 9-11, I’ve been right on every one of those issues. And yet my ideas throughout the intellectual world ... have been completely and utterly ignored.”
Since 9/11 ARI has published dozens upon dozens of essays and one book which can be summed up as “flatten Iran and terrorism will disappear.” Along the way ARI promoted Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, Yaron Brook in particular. When everyone finally realized it was a disaster, that glib huckster began lying about his earlier support. [7]

How flattening Iran would have prevented the Boston Marathon bombing, perpetrated by two Croatian immigrants, is something only a Yaron Brook can pretend to understand. How would flattening Iran have prevented the London bombing of 2005 – 7/7 ? The spectacular takedown of the World Trade Center in 2001 – 9/11 ?  The mass murder in Nice, France ? [8]  Flattening Iran would help the Jewish state is all, which is all Mr. Brook really cares about.

“Now there are problems with immigration, and that is primarily problems with the welfare state. For example, because of the EU the UK ... had to provide the immigrants with welfare from day one. ... the UK has a lot of tax credits, a lot of housing subsidies, a lot of things like that that immigrants get from day one. Now, that’s wrong. But it’s wrong for Brits to get it, it’s wrong for everybody to get it.”
The operative word in that last sentence is “but.”  He is saying: Because Britons instituted welfare they should not resent supporting a horde of immigrants.  It is the Britons’ fault for having the welfare system, not the immigrants who willfully take advantage of it.

OrgOist immigration enthusiasts have no sense of consequences. Never does Mr. Brook say first get rid of welfare then let all of Africa migrate to Britain. No, let Africa in now.  Rots-a-ruck ending the welfare state after that. Obviously he doesn’t care about ending the welfare state, not to mention preserving Britain’s culture.

He points out that during the debate over Brexit, all the Leavers he saw on television – possibly his only source of information – mentioned “the fact that Eastern European immigrants are lowering pay, are hurting the working class.”  Yes, and the problem goes further back, there is a cause of the cause: the elites’ immigration policy is hurting the working class. Why shouldn’t the working class resent it? And why shouldn’t they have a say about who is allowed into their country?  Contrary to Mr. Brook, immigration is not a right. Would-be migrants can be kept out for any reason or no reason. They have no legitimate claim in the matter at all.

Mr. Brook goes on to claim that this economic issue was the only reason Brexit won. The world according to Yaron Brook is that England is largely made up of low skilled laborers and those who care about them. I hope the last part is true but regardless, that was not the only reason Brexit won.

Addressing Britons after they have left the EU:

“Now that you can set your own immigration policy let’s see the UK become more immigration friendly, for all immigrants from everywhere. If that’s the case I’ll be much more supportive.”
As the Third World looks on Britain Mr. Brook says of Brexit:
“This is a fantastic opportunity for the Brits. They could march themselves towards greater freedom, ... both social freedom like free speech, economic freedom like free trade, more immigration, less regulation, all of that is now possible for the Brits. They have no – no – excuses.”
... Did you hear that you dumb Brits?  No excu—


... I didn’t say anything.
“And that’s why I’m not excited.  Because ... I’m doubtful they’ll do it.”
Let’s try to straighten this out.  Except for immigration all the fantastic opportunities Mr. Brook spoke of were practically uncontested during the debate over Brexit. Precious few Leavers said they wanted more regulation, more speech restrictions, less free trade. Thus it is one issue, one issue alone, that breaks the deal for Mr. Brook: immigration. The UK must “become more immigration friendly, for all immigrants from everywhere.”  He’s with the multi-culti crowd, nothing else matters as much as changing the face of Britain.

After again talking about the secession of Scotland and Northern Ireland:

“What we want are bigger units not smaller ones. But bigger units where the principle guiding the unit is freedom, individualism, individual rights, capitalism.”
The question goes begging:  Why is freedom and individualism impossible for an existing or smaller unit? What has agglomeration got to do with ideology? He ignores that obvious question; with Mr. Brook it’s bigger or nothing. The logical end of bigger and bigger units is one world government. A capitalist utopia or one neck inside one noose?

That concludes the show except for the good movie note, the good movie being Amistad by Steven Spielberg, fittingly multiracial. The favorable review takes seven minutes. We get Spielberg instead of why a Jewish state is OrgOist-approved.

While what is left of Merry England slides into the dustbin of history, a thousand Yaron Brooks mouthing Objectivist bromides about freedom and individualism on the way down.

“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves. Britons never will be slaves.”  Yet all it took was a few slick words from moralizing hypocrites.

The elites wrap your degradation in the verbiage of freedom, as Sinclair Lewis dramatized in the novel It Can’t Happen Here. [9]  But Lewis was writing in the mid 1930s when “it” was fascism. Today, almost a century later, “it” is far worse than that.

The Left’s goal is a general leveling to a common low but the low is not merely a lack of material wealth. Leftists are out to destroy every bright and happy thing. This was one of Ayn Rand’s most perceptive insights. Economic Man is not the primary issue.

In Rand’s heyday the battle was between socialism and capitalism. She died in 1982 having never become aware that the enemy had changed tactics. Today the battle is between us and the oth-er, or rather, between us and the “elites” who use the oth-er to swamp, divide and destroy us. Lose this battle and everything is lost. Yes, the Brexit vote was largely about immigration, as it should have been. Immigration is the most important issue of our time.

In summary there isn’t much to say about Mr. Brook’s radio show except to point out the deadening stupidity of it all.

1  To get some idea of what has happened to Britain see:

“Peter Hitchens on Mass Immigration”

“ ‘This isn’t the Britain we fought for’ ...”

2  A siege mentality is part of Jewish culture.  See footnote 29 of  Open Borders and Individual Rights  on this website.

3  Froggy sings Peggy Lee’s 1948 hit (recorded November 1947):
She really nailed the Mexican accent.

4  The Austrian economist Ludwg von Mises had this to say about the effect of immigration on wages (Nation, State, and Economy, 1919, translated from the German):  “In territories of emigration, emigration drives up the wage rate; in territories of immigration, immigration depresses the wage rate. That is a necessary side effect of migration of workers and not, say, as Social Democratic doctrine wants to have believed, an accidental consequence of the fact that the emigrants stem from territories of low culture and low wages.”  Mises then proceeds to argue the truth of this, but there is little point in arguing from a prior proposition when the one you are arguing for is equally obvious.

5  Mr. Brook is not quite correct. Under the current EU some member countries, including the UK, have control over their immigration policy, so the real cause of Britain’s immigration disaster – as I would term it, not Mr. Brook – rests with Britain’s own elites.

But the elites in Brussels do wish to take over completely. Within days after the Brexit referendum, the French and German Ministers of Foreign Affairs revealed an “in your face” proposal to completely centralize immigration policy, in a nine page paper entitled “A Strong Europe in a World of Uncertainties.”

6  In quoting Mr. Brook we use italics sparingly. He always speaks in an emotional tone, so much so that in most paragraphs we could justifiably italicize half a dozen words. We italicize only the standouts, or describe them as such.

7  See  Relentless Propaganda  on this website. Mr. Brook was head of ARI throughout.

8  The immigrant mass murderer Mohamed Bouhlel was a native of Tunisia, Africa. By all accounts he was unreligious. Nonetheless fellow travelers of ARI shoehorn Bouhlel into their “Islamo-totalitarian” mold.

If Bouhlel had not been in Europe he would not have been able to run over hundreds of people in Nice, France with a Mack truck. The mayhem was one more dramatic example that multi-racial and multi-cultural societies do not work.  See footnotes 11 and 15 of  Open Borders and Individual Rights  on this website.

9  See  Is it Happening Here?  on this website.