Home invasion !
... AUGH !!! My happy home is being invaded !!!
Never fear, Froggy. Yaron Brook, head of the “Ayn Rand Institute,” knows what to do.
Tell the intruder how self-confident you are about the West and that the West stands for reason and individualism. Then the man will behave himself. No murder and mayhem for him, he will be a model guest. Well, not a guest exactly, a co-owner, you and he smiling arm-in-arm. You two’s happy home.
At least that’s what Mr. Brook wants you to believe, metaphorically speaking. He refuses to acknowledge that he and his ilk promote the Third World colonization of America, the UK and Europe – and the natives get the short end of the stick.
When a Tunisian migrant to France willfully steered a 19 ton cargo truck into a crowd of natives celebrating Bastille Day and kept on driving for several blocks – crushing 85 people to death, maiming and crippling hundreds more – Mr. Brook made brief verbal noises about how horrible it all was, then spoke of the ease with which the perpetrator had been “radicalized” – phraseology suggesting the perpetrator himself was not responsible. Then in an extended oration Mr. Brook blamed the victims for the massacre.
Only extended quotation can do it justice. The following is Mr. Brook word for word on his BlogTalkRadio show of 16 July 2016, two days after the above Nice (pronounced “neese”) attack.  He begins by asking “why it’s so easy to radicalize these people,” that is, Muslims.
“I know that many of you out there think, well if you’re a Muslim it’s just a matter of flipping a switch because all of Islam, as somebody said on the chat, is a cult, it’s relatively easy to ... turn a cultist into a murderer. And all Muslims are like this and it’s just a matter of time. I disagree with this.”These sensitive souls starving for values look out upon French culture and what do they see?
“... the primary reason that it has become so easy to radicalize these Muslims in the West, is a failure of the West, it’s our failure. It’s a failure, particularly in places like France, where ... they [the French] have nothing to offer. They have no values. They have no purpose that they can grant these immigrants who come in.
“Most of these immigrants, most of the Muslim immigrants, are coming in to work. They’re coming in to improve their quality of life and their standard of living. And they’re open to being assimilated, to being influenced, to being changed. And yet Europeans don’t want [them] to assimilate. Multiculturalism is very very powerful, both in Europe and in the United States, and what we tell them when they come is not [to] assimilate, ... [that] your [that is, their] culture is just as good as our culture and you [they] shouldn’t change ... . ... So here they are in the West, they’re gonna be poor, and most of these young men accept the fact that they’re poor. They’re not expected to assimilate. They’re expected to live in neighborhoods with other Muslims, they’re expected to maintain their culture, and they have nothing and they’re offered nothing culturally.”
“... it just seems [to them] like hedonism out there or it seems like complete moral subjectivism out there and nobody judges, there are no standards, there’s — nothing, for them. And this emptiness, this lack of values, this lack of a civilization, this indeed rejection of civilization by the West, rejection of their [the West’s] superiority, rejection of their values and reason and individualism, leaves a massive opportunity for religion to step in, in this case Islam to step in, and provide them [the Muslims] with those values, to provide them with a purpose, to provide them with something to live for, which they have not had, which the West does not provide them.”If only it had been otherwise:
“And if the West stood for something, if it really stood for the values of reason, individualism, if it really stood for success and happiness and prosperity and everything like that, if it was really willing to fight for those, then these people would not be radicalized, these people would be converted, to Western values.”So Western civilization is superior and empty, superior and valueless, superior and uncivilized, and if it weren’t empty and valueless and — anyway, the Nice attack was our fault.
Mr. Brook goes on to say that the West’s response to terrorism has been pathetically weak (instead of, as we shall see, lecturing Muslim immigrants about Objectivism). He says France’s response to the Nice attack was to increase welfare spending and pretend to fight ISIS. Because of that weakness Muslims have no choice but to turn violent.
“As a consequence of that [response] these guys [Muslims] are being radicalized, and there really is, they have, no alternative. They can just live a life with nothing, [a life] that is meaningless; but everybody wants to have meaning, and the radicals are the only ones who are providing any meaning. The West provides nothing.”Emphasis his. The barbarian who rented the truck didn’t have a chance; Westerners ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The next sentence Mr. Brook utters does not mean what it might appear to mean. As is abundantly clear by now, keeping Mohammedans out of your country is not his idea of self-defense. In his philosophy you have no country (see the other ARIwatch articles in this series).
“Until we’re willing to defend ourselves, until we’re willing to stand up for what values we have, for what our values represent, for what our lives represent, this is gonna get worse and worse and worse.”
Mr. Brook then uses the dead and crippled of Nice to promote his own agenda, the Israeli agenda: puff ISIS (the new Al Qaeda, remember them?) as a threat to the West.  Note that in the following “them” has no referent.
“The only way to do that [that is, defend ourselves] is to stand up to them by first crushing ISIS, by eliminating ISIS as a threat in the Middle East.”He continues pushing the pity-poor-Mohammed line:
“And then by advocating for positive values, advocating for reason and rationality above all, advocating for a purpose – your [that is, a Muslim’s] own individual happiness is a purpose – not a purpose that’s related to your religion, not a purpose that’s related to your state, but your own life, that should be the purpose. Until we start converting Muslims and everybody else to the ideas of individualism based on reason, we’re gonna lose more and more of these young men, particularly the young women as well, to the radicals, to radicalization, and ultimately, potentially, to murder and to terrorism.”
After this exhibition of self-sacrificial ore salted with Objectivist jargon one gets the impression that the men, women and children of Nice – those uncivilized, empty and mean people – got what they deserved. The sensitive Tunisian in whom worked the wheels of poetic justice just couldn’t stand their empty French culture any longer.
Why he migrated to France in the first place, and in the second place stayed there — are questions Mr. Brook will never consider.
Can you imagine Ayn Rand saying anything remotely like what Mr. Brook has just said? Never was an organization so Orwellianly named as the “Ayn Rand” Institute. [2a]
Not all Muslims may be violent at heart but per capita far more of them are than whites. They possess other negative attributes as well, as a higher percentage or universally. Yaron Brook has little conception of statistics, history, anthropology or psychology. Europe ought to exclude all Muslims – indeed all would-be migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
It cannot be pointed out often enough: There is no right to immigrate. The French can exclude a foreigner for any reason or no reason. Their country is their country, something Mr. Brook refuses to understand – with France or any other country. I mean, except Israel. The Jews are different.
Mr. Brook promotes Western open borders in many online and media venues, perforce most succinctly on Twitter; for example this, dated 21 July 2016:
“Walls are a reflection of lack of confidence. A confident America does not fear immigrants.”Self-confidence, that’s the ticket ! Then you can be surrounded by Third Worlders ten to your one with impunity.
In “Does Immigration Actually Threaten American Culture?” (Forbes magazine, 12 November 2012) sometime ARI guest writer Amit Ghate breathlessly writes (as always when we quote, emphasis his):
“Let’s not succumb to the specious idea of demographic determinism to radically limit immigration. Instead let’s demonstrate the moral confidence, and intellectual rigor, to bid welcome to all; by offering them a proud and rational exposition of our nation’s principles and ideals. We, they – and our culture at large – will be immeasurably better off as a result.”Enriched by Somalis, Nigerians, Pakistanis, Eurasians like Amit Ghate and other vibrant exotics.
Yaron Brook titled his BlogTalkRadio show of 17 October 2015 “The Immigration Debate.” Onkar Ghate was his co-host.  At one point Onkar addresses Mr. Brook:
“We’re both I think on the view that borders should be open and we should be letting in any peaceful person who wants to work or wants to live here.”Onkar then says that restricting immigration will hasten the decline of Western civilization. Open immigration is not part of its decline.
Later Mr. Brook employs a technique he uses frequently. He posits a hypothetical libertarian society and draws a conclusion about it, but gives the impression, without quite saying it, that his conclusion applies as well to the society we live in today. This fallacy is on top of the fact that his conclusion about a libertarian society is itself false.
“Particularly in a ... free society – I think this is also true in a mixed economy [i.e. America today] but certainly in a free society – the idea that ... a really consistent, Objectivist political system ... would somehow be threatened by people coming in ... that we wouldn’t have the self-esteem, or the ability to convince and persuade, that the immigrants ... would not be convincible within a generation or two, that we would somehow succumb to their ideas, that they wouldn’t succumb to our ideas, given that our ideas are so ... superior to theirs, it strikes me as taking such a position of weakness relative to the rest of the world.Somehow threatened ? Imagine you live in an ideal society. One day you realize you are surrounded, ten-to-one panoramically surrounded, by Asians, Africans, Amerindians etc – the prospect ahead of us with our current “mixed economy” society, ten-to-one on the way to a hundred-to-one. According to Mr. Brook, if we have the self-esteem engendered by a free-society, in just one or two generations – 25 or 50 years – those Asians, Africans etc will be like you and I, all voting for liberty, except they look like Asians and Africans. Happy now?
“I would take ten immigrants to every citizen in a completely free society and feel completely confident that we would not lose freedom as a consequence of their coming into the country. Quite the contrary, we would be converting them, or at least their children, to the cause of liberty.”
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.