<< ARI Watch
In his podcast of 16 September 2017 titled “Live from Paris: Why Civilization Needs Ayn Rand”  Yaron Brook had this to say about Muslim immigration into Europe (emphasis his):
“[If Europe had] a strong sense of Western civilization ... Islam would not be a problem. Muslims would be no threat. Islamic immigration, in whatever numbers, would not be a threat, to a strong, confident, philosophically robust Europe.
HUH ! I mean it’s a joke that a bunch of barbaric Muslims would be a threat to them. Because you would actually defend yourself, you wouldn’t turn the other cheek. You would actually prosecute it when they lived their barbaric lives that violated rights. And, and, because you would be projecting something true to them that they would want to be.”
In other words, the harm Africans and Middle Easterners do to Europe is the Europeans’ fault, not because Europeans let them in but because Europeans lack confidence and philosophical robustness. The millions of Third Worlders who arrive to remain in their midst find Europeans unworthy of imitating. 
Mr. Brook acknowledges – in this podcast if not elsewhere – that there is a Third World immigrant crime problem. He thinks it would disappear if only Europeans had the right attitude. A self-confident and philosophically robust Europe could let in anyone because they would always prosecute the criminals if caught. In this new Europe, after each atrocity Europeans would continue to turn the other cheek as far as immigration is concerned. Prosecution won’t bring the dead back to life or make the maimed whole.
On Twitter, 9 September 2015, some spoilsport asked Mr. Brook about the violent crime committed by Muslims in Sweden, a country once virtually stranger violent crime free. He replied: 
“Swedes are wimps – no self esteem [that is, they haven’t the self-esteem] required to clamp down on this horror.”
But why import the horror in the first place ? Hello ?
As if by reflex Mr. Brook criticizes the Swedes and leaves the Muslims to roam at will.
Mr. Brook’s acknowledgement of the horror in Sweden was a novelty that didn’t last. Earlier his position on Sweden had been that he didn’t believe there was an immigrant crime problem and his latest position is that no one knows if there is a problem. Before quoting Mr. Brook about the latest consider the context. The month before – well, if you have a strong stomach google “Sweden rape” without the quotes. The crimes were so severe Sweden’s mainstream media could not ignore them. In the following, from “Yaron’s News Briefing” of 20 December 2017, at first he speaks about the U.S. (emphasis his):
“I don’t know of anybody on the anti-immigration side that has presented data that is valuable and really worth talking about.
“And the same thing, by the way, in Europe. ... Is there what’s called a rape epidemic in Sweden or isn't there a rape epidemic in Sweden, by Muslim immigrants of course, is almost impossible to figure out. I mean, I suspect there is some, but it is almost impossible to figure out what is actually going on because the police hide information, the media doesn’t report information, but on the other hand the xenophobic, anti-immigration element fudge the information, so you get fudging on all sides.”
Even someone living in a bubble could detect several internal contradictions here. Set aside the mockery “immigrants of course”: If Mr. Brook is such a know-nothing whence comes his certainty that those who oppose immigration are “fudging?” And if by fudge he means they exaggerate the increase in crime, the increase they exaggerate is still an increase.
He admits that the Swedish media (as in the U.S. largely Leftist oriented) and government cover up immigrant crime. Can he then ask himself: Why? What does it say about immigrant crime?
If something is almost impossible to find out, it is possible to find out. Mr. Brook promotes open immigration three or four times a week. Why won’t he take the trouble to investigate? In fact even the most cursory effort would discover data from reliable, unbiased sources. 
Mr. Brook doesn’t know about immigrant crime because he doesn’t want to know. Rand wrote about moral agnosticism, “the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others.” Mr. Brook engages in epistemological agnosticism, the idea that one must never know something for certain. In other words he is a skeptic in the philosophical sense – that is, when it suits him.
Mr. Brook can read reliable reports as well as anyone – he might start with Rotherham and Oxfordshire in Britain  – yet he chooses to play the ignoramus. Reality doesn’t fit into his happy-talk about the joys of Third World immigration so he ignores reality. The reports are unreliable and the individual victims disappear into a fog of skepticism.
The immigration enthusiasts at the misnamed Ayn Rand Institute talk incessantly of individualism while closing their eyes and ears to the individual victims of Third World immigration. 
Unfortunately the imprecision of the term “epidemic,” which some commentators use to describe Muslim violence in Sweden, gives Mr. Brook an out. No matter how many sickening atrocities one references he can reply that the violence is not a true epidemic. He can say that calling it an epidemic is an “exaggeration.”  But forget epidemic, the fact is that when masses of Third Worlders, including Muslims, move to a Western country, including Sweden, crime goes up. If Mr. Brook denies this he is delusional.
In another podcast (“Live from Kiev,” referenced below) Mr. Brook says
He might ask himself why the U.S. homicide rate is so high (hint to Mr. Brook, think demographics). In any case the absolute total crime rate of a country is not the relevant statistic here. What matters is that the rate goes up after Third World immigration. This is true in the U.S. and it is true in Europe. Mr. Brook doesn’t care about the increase, doesn’t care about the victims. He – he – is willing to accept the extra crimes.
“Europe has millions and millions of Muslims and yet homicide rates in the United States are far higher than they are in Europe. And homicides by Muslims are not that high, not that high.”
As antidote to Third World criminality Mr. Brook advocates self-confidence ! Europe needs confidence to be sure, authentic confidence not Mr. Brook’s caricature. A self-confident Europe would defend its borders knowing that such defense is morally right. A self-confident Europe would vote out the politicians who encouraged the Third World to invade – the political upswell is happening now – and then prosecute them, for treason. A self-confident Europe would vilify and shun intellectual con men like Yaron Brook who invent nonsensical arguments to convince you that self-immolation is practical and good.
It has been said that “With stupidity even gods fight in vain.” What then shall we say about fighting evasion and deception? It is doubly vain to try and convince Mr. Brook of the evil of open immigration because his stupidity is willful, an assumed dementia. You know Mr. Brook is putting on an act because of how he chooses his victims. Does he say: “Islamic immigration, in whatever numbers, would not be a threat to ... Israel?” No, for Israel Islamic immigration in any numbers should be forbidden, indeed all non-Jewish immigration should be forbidden.
To repeat, while promoting unrestricted immigration for America and (in a less forthright manner) Europe Mr. Brook promotes Jews-only immigration for Israel. In his podcast of 11 February 2017 he underlines the difference: Israel “is different than any other country on the planet” and Israel is “ethnocentric in a significant way” which “we could somehow justify.” That is, he could justify why Israel gets to be ethnocentric while, for example, the U.S. and Britain do not. However he never justifies the difference except to his own satisfaction. 
A few more examples of Yaron Brook’s European pro-immigration rhetoric follow. For context read about the latest massacre.
From the Living Objectivism episode of 12 July 2017 titled “Saving Western Civilization” (emphasis his, including the emotional quadruplet):
Don’t look at me, I just report this stuff. Pests or murderers or just because they are there, Muslims are a huge problem in Europe.
“To save Western civilization one has to know what Western civilization is. And one has to know who the threat is coming from. So in my view the threat is not – not not not not
– Islam, islamists, jihadists, islamic totalitarians. Yeeaah
they’re a pest. Those Muslim immigrants into Europe, they’re nothing more than a pest.”
Mr. Brook at times – it varies like the weather – realizes they are a huge problem but only as things stand today. Again here is how it would be in a philosophically robust Europe, per his lecture of 4 September 2017 (referenced at the end of this article). Europeans would say to new arrivals:
“Look! You can live like us! Just read [John] Locke, and read Adam Smith, and, you know, and read the Founding Fathers of America, and you know, read Ayn Rand in my view, but, you know, read this stuff. This is the truth, this is what will make you happy and prosperous! ...
“It’s enough to just say it, to just have a moral backbone and say: We have what it takes to flourish as a human being, drop the [your] nonsense.
“And yeah, the first generation of immigrants won’t get it, but the second will get some of it, and by the third ... they’re pretty much completely assimilated – when you have a backbone, when you advocate for something.”
If you believe this fairytale then after giving Muslims a lecture course in philosophy, 60 years later everyone will be living together harmoniously. Then sixty years for the next batch of Muslims. Mr. Brook won’t run out of Muslims any time soon, they comprise 24% of the world’s population. And since he intends this to apply to the entire Third World Muslim or not, he has a few billion migrants in reserve.
If Muslims cannot understand that the West’s prosperity is due to its comparative freedom now, why would the finer points of Objectivism do any good? This is the central fallacy in all Mr. Brook’s “blame the Europeans for immigrant crime not the immigrants” rhetoric.
He continues (as always emphasis his):
“The problem with immigration today is multiculturalism. ... As long as we are multiculturalists, it’s our fault. So when people accuse immigrants of this or that I go No, our fault.”
All of which puts the cart before the horse. Unrestricted immigration is part of the multicultural, egalitarian agenda.
From his Living Objectivism episode of 22 September 2017 “Live from Kiev: The Future of Europe” where Mr. Brook tries to convince his listeners that Muslims are not a problem for Europe:
To the nearest percentage point Muslims are now 5% of England, 5% of Germany, 8% of Sweden, 9% of France. This is tiny? Not long ago it was 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%. Mr. Brook’s “still” indicates that he knows the percentage is steadily increasing but for him – either at home in his expensive neighborhood or visiting his relatives in Israel – that’s not a problem. A European who thinks it’s a problem is xenophobic, tribalistic, collectivistic, evil, etc.
“Muslims are still a tiny percentage of the population of Europe.”
Mr. Brook sets up a straw man and knocks him down:
No one blames all the problems of Europe on Islam. Islamic immigration itself is one problem.
“To blame the problems of Europe on Islam is absurd and ridiculous.”
He illustrates the harmlessness of the ongoing demographic shift with a metaphor:
This after the Nice and Berlin truck massacres, to name the first two mosquito bites that come to mind.  When a Muslim blows up a bus in Israel Mr. Brook becomes enraged (you can watch him on videos), in Europe it’s a mosquito bite.
“Islam is not a threat, Islam is a mosquito bite.”
Again from the Kiev podcast (emphasis his):
Apparently returning from whence they came, or not coming to France in the first place, is not the answer, mowing down Europeans with trucks is.
“Here you’ve got Europe that is ethnic centered
, and this is ... one of the reasons why they haven’t assimilated Muslims, because they don’t want to assimilate Muslims, because they hate Muslims, because deep down they can’t stand Muslims. So they put them in neighborhoods outside the cities, they don’t let them live inside their own French towns, they don’t actually integrate them into the workforce, they separate and segregate and do what they can to make them feel separate.”
Call me ethnocentric, call me tribalist, just don’t call me late for dinner, LOL. 
“It’s not only that Europeans don’t recognize what it means to be Europeans ... it is not only that they don’t have a clear identity into which to assimilate these groups, it is also that they don’t want these people, that they reject these people, that they don’t ... integrate them into their neighborhoods. ... It’s not happened ... both because Europe doesn’t know what it is and second Europe in its foundation, in its very very core is ethnocentric
. That’s a nice way of saying tribalist, barbaric, tribalist.
Europe is dying because of economic Marxism with its welfare state and cultural Marxism with its open borders. A healthy Europe would at least control its borders, in Mr. Brook’s fantasy of a healthy Europe it could and would let in anyone.
To Mr. Brook the culprit in the death of Europe is Europeans because, among other reasons, they are ethnocentric and don’t want to be surrounded by non-whites. To us the culprit is the European politicians who opened the borders or failed to defend them, and behind those politicians, justifying what they do, cultural Marxist intellectuals.
“If you wanna blame anybody for the death of Europe, it’s not Muslims, it’s not Islam ... what is killing Europe is Europeans.”
The economic Marxists softened Europe up, the cultural Marxists are executing the coup de grâce. The cultural Marxists are the ultimate killers of Europe, and – as we see with Yaron Brook – very self-righteous killers.
To repeat something from the essay “Who is Carl Barney?” here on ARI Watch:
Iago, rubbing his hands with glee at his own iniquity, is strictly a work of Shakespeare’s imagination. In real life evil is always self-righteous. You cannot tell the heroes from the villains by the emotional noises they make.
In the 12 July 2017 podcast Mr. Brook has something on his mind – indicating a certain syndrome if you will – which bubbles up in the most unlikely places. Immediately after saying that Muslim immigrants “are nothing more than a pest” he says:
and there follows a litany of Objectivist epithets – collectivism, mysticism, unreason, faith, religion, tradition – supposedly embodied by Trump and anti-immigrationists in general. 
“The real threat is right here. The real threat to Western civilization is Donald Trump. The real threat ...”
Mr. Brook goes on to say (in an excited manner, at one point almost choking on his words): “Yes, you have to deal with Islam but that’s easy, that’s easy. ... You could wipe out Iran, you could take care of Saudi Arabia.” – a gaping wide non sequitur. How would crushing (one of Mr. Brook’s favorite verb forms applied to the enemies of Israel) Iran have prevented, for example, the Boston Marathon bombing or the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby? (Immigration restriction would have prevented these horrors but per Mr. Brook that would have violated the perpetrators’ individual rights.)
Later in the podcast, without mentioning immigration restrictionists explicitly he insinuates they are “Americans and Europeans turning their back on Western civilization.” He accuses his adversaries of what he is doing except that turning his back is putting it mildly.
A revealing comment on a representative segment of the British working class:
Apparently they lack self-confidence and philosophical robustness. They ought to love having their neighborhoods taken over by the objects of Mr. Brook’s pretended xenophilia and turned into Third World slums. Elsewhere he says that after Brexit he is afraid “the Brits will ultimately just build walls,” that is, restrict immigration. 
“All the taxi drivers I spoke to in London before Brexit and after Brexit – and all of them supported Brexit, every single one of them – they were all doing it for xenophobic, economically illiterate, collectivistic reasons.”
The above are samples of Mr. Brook’s thinking, broadcast under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute. There are dozens of statements along the same lines in podcast after Living Objectivism podcast. People who oppose Third World immigration because they want to live in a white neighborhood are evil. Third World immigrants in whatever numbers is a problem only because people are not Objectivists. -oOo-
When we say “Moslems are bad for Europe” we mean that their mere presence is bad for Europe. When Mr. Brook considers the proposition “Moslems are bad for Europe” he takes it to mean that they could conquer Europe and set up an Islamic state. Then he argues that Moslems are not bad for Europe – in that sense.
(1) In the short run he is right. Moslem’s will not be taking over Europe’s governments any time soon.
(2) Conquest is a straw man. Mr. Brook’s purpose in focusing on this narrow issue is to get his followers to accept the on-going demographic change to Europe and the consequent changes in culture, safety, pleasantness, politics. He wants his followers to forget that parts of Paris and London and Berlin have become unrecognizable and that the parts are spreading in number and extent.
(3) In the long run he is wrong. Europe is experiencing a slow and on-going conquest by degrees. At some point either Europe must deport most of the Muslims or else the Muslims will take over Europe. Iran and Saudi Arabia could sink into the sea and it would make no difference.
Mr. Brook’s position is that Europeans are the problem not the Muslims or those who let them in. Europeans are evil: they are ethnocentric and hate Muslims instead of welcoming them and assimilating them. If only Europeans embraced Objectivism and treated Muslims as brothers there would be no problem and Muslims could move to Europe “in whatever numbers.”
According to Mr. Brook, because Europeans are clueless and ethnocentric eventually they will set up concentration camps and kill all the Muslims just like – well let him tell it, and note the word “return” – in Jewish culture it is always 1938. From the Kiev podcast:
“I predict that Europe will ultimately return to concentration camps and to mass murder and mass slaughter, that’s how they’ll solve the Islam problem. They will kill them all.
“Do you think the Germans are just gonna lay down and let this [??? what ???] happen to them? Do you think Europe’s just gonna let the Muslims just destroy it?
“... in twenty to thirty years, if nothing fundamentally dramatically changes intellectually, there will be concentration camps in Europe, and they will be throwing Muslims into those concentration camps. Now they’ll throw Jews in for good measure, and others.
“But they will not go away peacefully.”
As apparently they should. Why Mr. Brook cannot say, instead of the above, simple phrases like “immigration moratorium” and “deport faster than they came” defies comprehension.
“This is what it means for Europe to become even more tribalist, even more collectivist. This is what it means for Europe to defend itself ... this is what it’s gonna come to.
“Muslims out there, be warned. I’m warning you.”
For his solution he invents a fairytale America:
“The only alternative is for Europe to adapt [sic, adopt] the American model, the American model that the Founders adapted [sic] which is the model of individualism, the model of reason. The model that says that tribalism, collectivism, is irrelevant and discarded.”
As we have seen by “tribalism” Mr. Brook means white nationalism. To him, wanting to live in a white neighborhood is anti-individualistic !
His claim about the Founders is so much bambysham. The Founders viewed America as a white ethnostate, of a new kind to be sure but ethnocentric just the same. The Founders were in fact “tribalist” if Mr. Brook wants to use that term but since that doesn’t fit his fairytale the fact fades away.
He continues describing his idea of the American model:
Mr. Brook can spare us the Europeans, by immigrants he means non-white immigrants. Adding a significant fraction of the non-white world (6.6 billion) to America (200 million whites) would mean – is meaning – the end of America.
“The model that says that we integrate all of you [you as in Asians, Africans, Amerindians, etc.] into our culture because we don’t treat you as a group, we don’t treat you as Poles, or as Italians or as Irish or as Jews or as Muslims.”
In Brook’s fairytale:
The problem is not the number of non-western cultures it is the number of people from non-western cultures. He claims that if you expect them to change they will change, after which whites will love being surrounded by individualistic Asians, Africans, Amerindians, etc.
“... it doesn’t matter the number of ethnic groups, the number of cultures that are coming in because you’re [that is, the immigrants are] expected to adopt a particular culture and that is the culture of individualism.”
The quote we began with – the “whatever numbers” claim for Europe – occurs during the second half of Mr. Brook’s podcast of 16 September 2017. The main feature of that podcast is a review of the book The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray, who hails from the U.K. Before we get to Mr. Brook’s comments let’s listen to Murray promoting his book in the Stefan Molyneux interview of 10 July 2017.  After referring to the “sort of society Europe is becoming” Murray considers two types of men who welcome this new society: certain politicians and “the elite.” About the second:
“There’s also the type, and one could refer to it as the elite – not a term I tend to like but if you use that term – there’s also definitely a type of person for whom all of this is really rather pleasant. They get cheap cleaners, cheap nannies, good sort of cheap service staff, ... but they also have the money to live precisely where they want to live, and that tends not to be in the places and in the sort of bifurcated communities that the rest of the country doesn’t have a choice about. ... there’s a hilarious study – and I mean you’ve got to take your laughs where you can in this subject – there’s a hilarious by my standards study of a couple of years ago in Sweden about people’s attitudes of so-called multiculturalism and diverse areas. And one of the most amazing things about it is that the people who moved to the least diverse areas are the ones most in favor of people living in diverse areas. You don’t want it for yourself but you think it’s improving for other people. Or, you don’t want it for yourself but at dinner parties you’ll say how much you are in favor of it.”
Dinner parties ... podcasts and blogs. Of the two Obleftivists promoting open borders the loudest, Yaron Brook (“the solution to illegal immigration is to make it legal”) and Harry Binswanger (“immigrants are self-selected for their virtues”), Mr. Brook lived at the time of these podcasts in one of the whitest neighborhoods in California, Mr. Binswanger in one the whitest neighborhoods anywhere in the United States – both exclusive guard-gated communities.  Safety and pleasantness for them, “diversity” for the rest of us. They can afford – in large part by suckering student Objectivists – to insulate themselves from the consequences of what they promote.
“There are often polls done of immigrant groups which tend to ask the wrong questions. Things like ‘How happy are you to be in Britain?’ Well surprise surprise, most of them are very happy. ... But all the time of course we, the public, have noticed something ... the thing that we all just sort of noticed and never really talked about, such as this. If it was the case that people from Pakistan and Bangladesh came and moved into the northern mill towns of Britain, firstly to do labor and then after the jobs had dried up, if they were indeed as we always pretended ‘as British as everyone else’, then it just wouldn’t be the case that you’d have these towns where basically everyone is dressed for the foothills of Pakistan and some women are dressed for the Arabian dessert circa 7th century. This wouldn’t be the case. ... you would notice that they would be sort of dressing like everyone else and they would be going down to the pub and they’d be failing to turn up to church most weeks but would go for family weddings and funerals and so on, and it just obviously isn’t the case. You just need to travel around any of these towns and you notice it’s a different culture living in the town. And some people love that – obviously for the people who come it’s very good – and some people are just saddened by it. Saddened because we think, well, you never asked us about this [“you” being politicians, bureaucrats, corrupt intellectuals – AW]. And we see just a very very fundamental change to a society that we love.”
Yet how could a Pakistani or Bengali assimilate into Britain? There are different standards of human physical beauty and by white standards they are grotesque. The British public will always notice the difference; no change of dress or any amount of pub-going will turn them Anglo-Saxon. The Mrs. Grundys preach toleration but does one tolerate what one likes? (Mr. Brook says the not liking is evil, what we call the Objectivist – or rather Obleftivist – version of Original Sin.) On the other hand the Bengalis or whatever too notice the difference, and wanting to see themselves as normal – they were normal where they came from – band together. 
When Molyneux says “Europeans have no other place to call home” Murray replies:
“Yes, ... the central as it were pain in all of this is that Europe in this weird thing of deciding that Europe is the home for anyone in the world who wants to move in and call it home, ends up taking away the only home the European peoples have.
“... we talk forever about the rights and the duties we might owe people coming into Europe ... we talk about the boats of people coming in, but ... what if this is our boat, and what if the discussion we’ve been having that presumes that this boat of Europe is this vast cruise-liner can just keep on taking people on board that it finds in the oceans about it, if instead of that being the case, we are ourselves a smaller and more vulnerable vessel, and that we ... keep taking people on board and at some point the whole thing capsizes, and capsizes the only thing we have to call the vessel which is our home.”
Murray might as well have said swamping whites. Mr. Brook doesn’t comment on this interview but of course he would disagree with Murray. Only Jews get a home, Europeans must go homeless. Jews get a guarded boat, Europeans get their boat turned into a floating flophouse for Asia and Africa.
I’ve quoted some of what is agreeable in the interview but it must be observed that Murray is conflicted. He rejects as abhorrent the idea that Europeans view their countries as ethnostates, even as everything he says points in that direction. Though he realizes that mass immigration is suicidal he says that the solution now is to urge whites and immigrants to live together in harmony as common citizens. Still, if read and listened to critically he provides a wealth of facts and observations that contradict his own prescription. 
Returning to Mr. Brook’s podcast, after introducing The Strange Death of Europe he focuses his criticism on just one point, already alluded to. In a nutshell Murray says that Christianity – even secular, non-believing, Christianity – offers Europeans redemption for their past sin of oppressing the Third World. Then they would understand that they are now innocent and need no longer sacrifice themselves to Third World immigrants.
Mr. Brook trashes Murray by trashing Christianity. This is the only part of Murray’s book he mentions. He attacks Murray at his weakest point and pretends he has addressed everything. -oOo-
Chalk up another failure of Christianity. Its “universalism” and altruism helped get us in this mess, anesthetizing Americans and Europeans while pro-immigrationists played on their misplaced moral sense. Yet ironically Christianity has become associated, especially in Jewish culture, with (white) nationalism. This is one reason why Yaron Brook hates Christianity – not just the Middle Ages Christianity but the comparatively benevolent modern forms.
The following is excerpted from a long discussion in the 22 September 2017 episode of Living Objectivism: “Live from Kiev: The Future of Europe.” Throughout the discussion Mr. Brook conflates Medieval Christianity with 19th century Christianity and tries to make you think that when people such as Trump and Murray say something good about Christianity they want to burn heretics at the stake.
“If you had to choose between Kant, Islam and Christianity you might as well put a bullet in your head.
“I’d rather fight for reason and individualism and lose, than fight for Christianity and win even if it means the defeat of Islam.”
Historically Western civilization is wedded to Christianity. Judaism was, and is, an extremely anti-individualistic religion, and though the culture of Ancient Greece and Rome was far better than that of Judaism a man still belonged to the state (think Socrates). Christianity introduced into Greek and Roman culture the rudimentary idea of individualism with the potential for development that was later realized.
Why Mr. Brook’s outrageous animosity that favors contemporary Islam over contemporary Christianity, the first the same as it has been for a thousand years, the second refurbished since at least the 17th century? (The renovation began earlier but it took a while.) Perhaps Mr. Brook gives his reason here: 
Forget that it is Muslims not Christians committing anti-Jewish crime in Europe.
“Christianity in its history is a hundred times more anti-semitic than Islam ever was.”
For a change of pace we quote part of a letter Rand wrote to one Reverend Dudley on October 23, 1943. Dudley had written her asking some questions about The Fountainhead that he wanted answered before giving a lecture. In her reply she says “Christianity was the first school of thought that proclaimed the supreme sacredness of the individual.” She distances altruism from the core of Christianity then writes:
It’s more subtle than what we get from those running the so-called Ayn Rand Institute – into the ground. She ends her letter by saying she is grateful for Dudley’s interest in The Fountainhead and appreciates “the desire you expressed to give it a larger circle of readers.” 
“Altruism introduced a basic contradiction into Christian philosophy, which has never been resolved. The entire history of Christianity in Europe has been a continuous civil war, not merely in fact, but also in spirit. I believe that Christianity will not regain its power as a vital spiritual force until it has resolved this contradiction. And since it cannot reject the conception of the paramount sacredness of the individual soul – this conception holds the root, the meaning and the greatness of Christianity – it must reject the morality of altruism.”
In 1943 the U.S. Immigration Act of 1924 was still in effect and, just as important, enforced. At that time Third World and Backward World immigration simply was not an issue. Unfortunately Rand was asleep at the switch when enforcement began to break down after the end of World War II and the law itself gutted in the mid 1960s. She never wrote anything about immigration and was just plain confused – and confusing – about race. -oOo-
Yaron Brook and the other intellectual hucksters at the “Ayn Rand Institute” sit in their air-conditioned offices trying to deduce open immigration from philosophical axioms divorced from history, current events and common sense. Open immigration is their foregone conclusion and mere facts must not intervene. Hence such syllogistic humbug as:
— Mr. Brook’s sole argument and to hell with the West. He will never check his premises because his sole concern is his conclusion. The conclusion comes first then any sophistry or lie to justify it.
All men have a right to cross our borders.
Muslims and Mexicans are men.
As Europe commits slow suicide Mr. Brook broadcasts monologues urging them to be philosophically strong. Yet a non-altruistic philosophy would tell them to close their borders and deport the recent arrivals. The easily foreseen consequence of mass Muslim immigration is the death of Europe. Let in non-whites en masse and the character of Europe changes. Let in migrants harboring a culture of corruption en masse and the character of Europe changes. Set aside violence, their simply being in Europe is the problem. The harm Africans, Middle Easterners and so forth do to Europe is that they are in Europe.
When Mr. Brook insinuates that crime is irrelevant to the immigration issue he is partly right for the wrong reason. Though average criminality and other negative statistics are important the primary consideration in immigration policy must be race and culture, and long range the first is even more important than the second.-oOo-
In these ARI podcasts you get whipsawed back and forth. During the Kiev podcast, despite everything Mr. Brook had said in that and previous podcasts, and will say in future podcasts, he replies to someone on the chat as follows (perhaps suddenly realizing he is talking to real people):
So take your pick, Yaron Brook will be self-righteous in any position and its diametric opposite.
“Mass immigration into Europe needs to be stopped ... because Europe is going to basically collapse. It cannot assimilate these numbers of people ... It’s got a massive terrorism problem already that it needs to deal with. And it’s got economic problems ... Muslim immigration probably should be ceased in Europe.”
Another crook in the hound’s leg: What is the word “probably” doing in “probably should be ceased?” Perhaps Muslim immigration should continue unabated? Who knows? When Mr. Brook contradicts himself he knows how to keep some wiggle room.
Mr. Brook changes with his audience like a chameleon. On 4 September 2017, just 12 days before the “Live from Paris” podcast reviewed above, he gave a lecture in London (“The Evils of Corbyn’s Socialism”) sponsored by The Taxpayers’ Alliance. Unlike with a podcast he and his audience faced each other physically. In response to a question during the Q&A he said mass migration into Europe should not be allowed even if were Europe laissez-faire. Perhaps he knew the British audience would never buy his usual line.
But it wasn’t an American audience. He goes on to say (emphasis his) and note the word “excuse,” as if there were something shameful about immigration restriction per se :
In 1960 whites composed 90% of the U.S. population and – baring enforcement of immigration law (entailing deportation) and an immigration moratorium – are slated to become less than 50% by 2040, and there is no mass migration? There is no crime problem of illegal immigrants?
“Now America has no excuse [for immigration restriction] because there’s no mass migration. There’s no problem with immigration in the United States. I mean, it’s all demagogy of Ann Coulter and Donald Trump. There’s no crime problem of illegal immigrants.”
Then he goes into his skeptic act and backtracks a little on the last part:
“They’re no statistics about crime among illegals so nobody knows one way or another but it’s not out of control ...”
Then he returns to the West in general and goes into his philosophically robust act:
What he stands for is the browning of the West. He resorts to sophistries and lies either to blind you to its happening or to get you to accept it. He cares more about Moslems and other Third Worlders than he does you.
“I blame the lack of assimilation in the West on the West. The problem is that we do not advocate for anything, we don’t stand
With this guy you have to weigh and measure to determine his position. At the end of the day the quantity and intensity of his pro-open borders rhetoric dwarfs the anti.
1 These days Mr. Brook travels through Europe, South America, and Asia – all expenses paid – promoting Objectivism “on a global scale” (quoting ARI’s blog August 31, 2016) while an underling manages the day-to-day operation of ARI in Irvine, California.
The blurb for Yaron Brook’s live weekly podcast called Living Objectivism reads: “Each week Yaron will explore key components of Objectivism and apply Objectivist values to current events.” These shows are paid for by the Ayn Rand Institute and are mentioned as an achievement in ARI’s annual report.
2 Read about Mr. Brook blaming the Nice massacre of 2016 on the French in All We Need Is Self-Confidence on this website.
3 One typo – “Swede’s” – silently corrected.
4 Sometimes even pro-immigration outlets provide facts that suggest Third World immigration is a bad idea, for example the Brookings Institution, where Mr. Brook would learn that in France Muslims make up three or four times the prison population compared to their percentage of the general population.
The only reason Mr. Brook thinks a site such as Vdare.com presents fudged data is that the data doesn’t make Third World immigration look good.
5 The local police were indeed “wimps” but the point here is that the police cannot undo a crime.
As for the police being wimps, the subsequent investigation revealed that they and the local government did not want to be seen as racists.
6 ARI writers might visit the website “The Human Cost of Immigration”:
7 The “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
8 You can read Mr. Brook’s defense of Israel at For Thee but Not for Me on this website.
Even Mr. Brook can be made to sense the inconsistency. On Twitter 9 September 2015 there occurred an exchange that ended with Mr. Brook painting himself into a corner.
It was safe to say it; he knows the ideal world will never come. For America, he advocates unlimited Islamic immigration in the world as it is now. For Europe too, though in the underhanded manner described in the main text. Only Israel, Israel the alpha and omega, gets the assumption of an ideal world.
@yaronbrook But in an ideal world Israel would allow unlimited Islamic immigration even if it became Islamic [yes] [no]
I’m reminded of the following by Anthony Ludovici: “... a principle that is observed only when no claim is put upon it is nothing but a fair-weather expedient. It is like a sheet-anchor of papier-mâché, carried along to give a crew a factitious sense of security.” – in this case a false sense of consistency.
9 About Nice, the photo of a (since Mr. Brook brings up European ethnocentrism, white) doll beside the covered little body of its owner is iconic. Imagine this fulsome creep lecturing her parents about mosquito bites – if they were still alive. See
The Independent 15 July 2016
10 Mr. Brook illustrates what Kevin MacDonald points out in The Culture of Critique: Jews immersed in Jewish culture see any sign of ethnocentrism among non-Jews as psychopathological while ignoring ethnocentrism among themselves.
The title of MacDonald’s book refers to the anti-culture of modern intellectuals who try to instill into Europeans and European-Americans a deeply negative attitude toward themselves and their culture. This is exactly what Yaron Brook is trying to do.
11 Further symptoms indicating Trump Derangement Syndrome can be found in The American Spirit on this website.
12 A related item: When an American pizzeria raised its wages and subsequently went out of business Mr. Brook posted the news on Twitter as if he were gloating. (The Leftist rubric “living wage” was inapplicable, the pizzeria had acted voluntarily.)
13 Mr. Brook never refers to “whites” (except to say they don’t exist – the subject of a future ARI Watch article) and talks around the idea using “ethnocentric” and “xenophobic” etc. These are bad words, like “isolationist” was in the U.S. during the national debate over entering the second world war (see Ayn Rand On World War II on this website).
14 Vulgar as he is and repellent as is his manner I’m still glad Stefan Molyneux is working on our side. The same for Alex Jones – eek !
15 See the entries of Misters Brook and Binswanger in Who’s Who on this website.
16 Even if Murray thought along our lines he would have good reason to be afraid to say so out loud. Indeed he would have good reason to spout platitudinous generalities even as the particulars belie them. The U.K. has no First Amendment and it does have what they call the “Racial and Religious Hatred Act” which could be used to put him in jail for such thought crimes.
Paul Weston, another Briton, was arrested for quoting in public a passage critical of Muslims from a book by Winston Churchill. In the U.K. you must watch what you say in public, including on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and so forth, they are watching you.
If you don’t run afoul of unfree speech laws and avoid jail there is social pressure. In 2007 James Watson, the famous British biologist, was forced to resign as Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for suggesting in a speech that the backwardness of Africa might be due to the lower average intelligence of its inhabitants. After apologizing all over the place he was partially reinstated with the title Chancellor Emeritus and a diminished income.
17 Another problem with Murray is that he thinks the immigration disaster was the result of mere bungling by politicians and industrialists, an honest mistake with no intent to destroy Europe. It’s true that for some it was just bungling – one of Murray’s examples is that Germans thought the Turkish laborers they imported would go home when the work was done, believe it or not – but Murray never mentions the concerted effort of Jewish groups to, as they see it and crazy as it sounds, make the world safe for Jews by destroying their best friends, white ethnostates. See the statements of Leonard Glickman and Earl Raab quoted in Open Borders and Individual Rights on this website.
18 Doulgas Murray is well worth listening to:
Interview with Stefan Molyneux
Interview with Mark Steyn
Talk and Q&A at Lafayette College, 14 November 2017
19 For more on Mr. Brook’s attitude towards Christianity see our review of the talk he gave in 2014 titled “Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Semitism.” He is still proud of that talk, retweeting a link to the video on, of all days, Christmas day 2017 – a nice anti-gentile touch.
20 Rand’s three page typed letter was auctioned on Ebay in 2011 and images are still available online:
Rand may have been bending over backwards to take her reader into account. At the time she wrote the letter she realized the monstrousness of the doctrine of Original Sin (she writes of it in The Fountainhead, the book Dudley was asking about). However by the end of the 18th century some Christians were rejecting this odious doctrine or softening it beyond recognition. In 19th century America and England children were seen as completely innocent – think Lewis Carroll (the Rev. Charles L. Dodgson), Charles Dickens, and (straddling the 20th century) Frances Hodgson Burnett.
Mr. Brook must have a hard time watching the movie Love Letters (1945, screenplay by Rand) where the heroine says she likes to read the Bible and quotes the New Testament.
See also Rand’s introduction to the 25th anniversary edition (1968) of The Fountainhead.
21 See Ayn Rand on Immigration on this website.
Rand confused what might be called “preference racism” with “judgmental racism.” Preferring to be around those of your own race doesn’t mean thinking a given individual of another must possess some negative, non-racial, characteristic.
A preference, even an irrational preference, doesn’t take anything from those not preferred. They have no right to your company any more than they have a right to your property, that they do is a Leftist notion. Preference racism is natural, consider marriage or white flight – calling it evil is ARI’s version of Original Sin.
Considering the contrast between what ARI people say with what they do, they are miserable sinners.