Even Mr. Brook doesn’t believe what he says about open borders, not as a principle. That glib huckster has not one but two positions on immigration, one for us and another for him. One for the United States (the UK and Europe) and another for Israel:
Open borders for America. Closed borders for Israel.
Now not all of the Ayn Rand Institute’s students are stupid. In 2009 there was a mass exodus of young people from ARI’s Objectivist Academic Center. Simultaneously, half the college Objectivist clubs closed down. Today only the more naive and gullible, or Israel-worshipping, students get roped in. Still, Mr. Brook’s double vision on immigration makes the more intelligent of them worry about things like Non-Contradiction, Either-Or and A is A.
They voice their worry, and that makes Mr. Brook feel put upon. He broached the subject – I mean the subject of his being put upon – during his BlogTalkRadio show of 25 June 2016. That episode was devoted to Britain’s successful referendum, two days previous, to leave the European Union. At one point, after promoting open borders and denouncing what he called nationalism, Mr. Brook said, and self-righteously:
“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. ... And, uh, why is Israel an exception? Why ... 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.”That was umteen weeks ago and students are still waiting.
Oh he has made a pretense of answering the question. He does what crafty politicians do when you ask them a question they cannot answer: answer a different question, pretend they answered your question, and hope you don’t notice the switch.
Here is the real question:
Mr. Brook, you maintain that more or less everyone on earth has a right to migrate into the United States. At the same time, you approve of Israel’s immigration policy, which – we point out – is a Jews only policy; with extraordinarily rare exceptions the citizens of Israel exclude any would be immigrant who is not Jewish. Please explain why what applies to you doesn’t apply to us. How can you support a Jewish Israel and at the same time oppose a white America?We would remind Mr. Brook that Israel’s immigration policy is not “exclude people from countries Israel is at war with.” Israel’s policy is far more restrictive than that. For example, Israel is not at war with South Sudan but any Sudanese refugee who gets to the Israeli border is captured and either goes back or goes to jail. 
Toward the end of the “shame on you” BlogTalkRadio episode quoted above Mr. Brook pretends to answer our question:
“There’s a bunch of people out there that are calling me a hypocrite ... because Israel doesn’t allow open immigration. It’s built a wall, and Mexicans are invading America so — I mean, that’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. Israel is defending itself against a constant military threat [from] people who want to wipe it out. They want to use weapons to kill every Jew in Israel. They say this, they announce it publicly, they do it whenever they have an opportunity. It’s [Israel has] fought multiple wars against armies that have invaded it from these borders, against at least six different Arab-Muslim countries.”Hold it right there. Israel is not at war with every country on earth. Those who want to destroy Israel are irrelevant to the question of Mr. Brook’s consistency. We asked about all immigration, in particular from the countries Israel is not at war with. Are we to pretend none exist?
“South Sudan is not at war with Israel. The Sudanese are not coming over the border in order to wipe Israel out, they’re coming over the border to get a job. They’re coming over the border to make their lives better lives. They’re coming over the border because they’re trying to live for themselves better. They’re trying to make themselves better. How can we be against them? I mean it drives me nuts.”... Hey, I saw you change some of the words. What’s going on?
Many people are intimidated by the seemingly authentic self-righteousness of the man. In the unmodified original he says that comparing the U.S. to Israel is so ridiculous it drives him nuts. In other words, when Americans object to being swamped by the Third World they are contemptible. When Israelis object, they are reasonable (and of course they are). Mr. Brook can mock those who call him a hypocrite but it doesn’t change the fact that he is one.
Acting self-righteous doesn’t make him right it makes him disgusting.
Mr. Brook continues to excuse his position on Israel versus America, saying that the U.S. accepting immigrants from Mexico (a stand-in for any country) is not the same as Israel accepting them:
“It’s not the same thing. We do not [that is, the U.S. does not] face an existential threat from Mexicans coming across the border. Now I know some people say we do because they come here and they vote Democratic and the Democrats are going to wipe out this country. I don’t believe that because I think the reason Mexicans vote for Democrats is because ... Republicans alienate them by being so against them and so anti-immigration. Hispanics would vote Republican, I believe, if the Republicans had a different platform and appealed to them in a significant way.”The Republicans are to out-pander the Democrats? And if they did there would be a point in being a Republican? Are immigrants who so easily vote to trash America the sort of people we want here?
He got one thing right: Third World immigrants want more Third World immigrants and vote for the politician who delivers. He is wrong if he believes Third Worlders are closet conservatives or libertarians. Forget political candidates and parties for a moment. When Third Worlders are polled about issues, most – way most – opt socialist. If Mr. Brook does not know this then he is willfully ignorant. 
A caller to the BlogTalkRadio show of 11 February 2017 (“Who is Killing Western Civilisation?”) addressed the subject again.
Stuart: “I want to ask you about Israel. ... [mentions a few people] just want a white homeland that keeps out non-whites, and then they say, [mocking] well that’s just like Israel. They say, [mocking] well Israel is ... an ethnostate and they make it very difficult for gentiles to immigrate to there. ...”The docile Stuart changes the subject.
Yaron Brook: “[Dismissive and weary] Yeah, I mean [over-talking] Stuart I’m gonna punt on the question not because I don’t want to answer it, because I do, but because it requires a lengthy explanation of why Israel indeed is a unique country and why it’s different than any other country on the planet, that I know of, and why it is ethnocentric in a significant way and why we could somehow justify that. At least in the world we live in today. But that would require a whole thing. So I’m still gonna do a show on Israel and cover that point, but I just don’t want to do it right now, uh, all right?”
Returning to the BlogTalkRadio show of 25 June 2016, after more of the same Mr. Brook concludes:
“If you believe in freedom you have to say the battle is a battle of ideas. We’ve got to wage that battle of ideas.”
Mr. Brook portrays himself as motivated by ethical ideas that apply to everyone, but as is clear from his moralizing about Israel such ideas mean nothing to him. The above is just another stitch in the fabric of his dishonesty.
A frequent theme of ARI Watch is that when it comes to immigration the so-called Ayn Rand Institute is better viewed as just another Jewish advocacy organization, like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.  Prof. Kevin MacDonald analyzes Mr. Brook’s technique in his article “Is Immigration Really a ‘Jewish Value?’ ”  He points out that Jewish groups unanimously support amnesty / immigration surges, that their support has a long history, and that they portray themselves as motivated purely by universal ethical principles but apply these “principles” selectively to promote Jewish interests.
Prof. MacDonald begins by quoting various Jewish intellectuals advocating open borders for the U.S., summarizes their position, and compares it to Israel’s.
|... from the mainstream Jewish perspective, swamping the historic American nation with peoples from all over the world is nothing less than a moral imperative.|
Given that these sentiments are so central to the mainstream Jewish community in the US, you would expect that Jews in Israel would welcome immigrants from Africa and elsewhere with open arms.
But of course you would be wrong. African immigrants are mistreated, rounded up, and deported.
|Rather than a universalist ethic, traditional Jewish ethics made strong distinctions in the morality of actions depending on whether Jews or non-Jews were involved.|
Given the ingroup morality of traditional Jewish society, whence this self-image of American Jews that they are following a universalist ethic that commands them to admit tens of millions of non-whites into countries established and (precariously now) dominated politically and culturally by whites?
|... overtly nationalist ethics are alive and well in Israel, as it rids itself of African migrants ..., while in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western Diaspora the organized Jewish community and most Jewish intellectuals pose as enlightened universalists. ...|
This tactic is effective because Europeans are peculiarly susceptible to appeals to morality — the flip side of the tendency for Whites to be absolutely horrified when labeled a “racist” or “White supremacist” because they oppose immigration or for other contraventions of Political Correctness.
A basic strategy of progressive intellectuals in the Diaspora has been to frame the dispossession of Europeans as a moral imperative because they are quite aware that such rhetoric is the coin of the realm in the West ...
But these activists exempt Israel from a similar moral obligation to efface its ethnic basis as a Jewish state.
But when we get beyond the smokescreen of such hypocritical moral posturing, we should be aware of the real ethnic interests involved: Diaspora Jewish groups in the West see themselves as benefiting from displacement-level immigration because it lessens the power of the White majority. ... 
Indeed, the image that homogeneous, racially conscious White societies are fundamentally morally depraved has become the central cultural theme throughout the West ...
Disoriented by this constant drumbeat, Western peoples have been defenseless against their own disempowerment. They can only begin to defend their legitimate interests when they challenge the hypocrisy, and historical inaccuracy, of Jewish immigration enthusiast claims to a unique, and imperative, moral vision.
Yaron Brook’s self-righteousness is part of the swindle.