In his podcast of 16 September 2017 titled  “Live from Paris: Why Civilization Needs Ayn Rand” [1]  Yaron Brook had this to say about Muslim immigration into Europe (emphasis his):

Mr. Brook acknowledges – in this podcast anyway – there is a Third World immigrant crime problem but thinks it would disappear if only Europeans had the right attitude.  According to him a self-confident and philosophically robust Europe could let in anyone because any criminals would prosecuted if caught. In this new Europe, after each atrocity Europeans would continue to turn the other cheek as far as immigration is concerned.  Mr. Brook can live comfortably with the fact that prosecution won’t bring the dead back to life or make the maimed whole.

On Twitter, 9 September 2015, some spoilsport asked him about the violent crime committed by Muslims in Sweden, a country once virtually stranger violent crime free.  He replied: [3]

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 his latest position consider the context. That month – well, if you have a strong stomach google “Sweden rape” without the quotes. The crimes were so severe that Sweden’s mainstream media could not ignore them. In “Yaron’s News Briefing” of 20 December 2017, he speaks about the unknowableness of immigrant crime in the U.S., then in Europe and Sweden (emphasis his):

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 – when it suits him.

Mr. Brook can read reliable reports as well as anyone – he might start with Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Telford, and Manchester in Britain [5] – 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 in 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. [6]

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.” [7]  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

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 your 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 with 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 he says 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. He never justifies the difference except to his own satisfaction. [8]

A few more examples of Yaron Brook’s pro-immigration rhetoric about Europe 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 quintuple “not”):

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:

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):

From Mr. Brook’s Living Objectivism episode of 22 September 2017 “Live from Kiev: The Future of Europe” where he tries to convince his listeners that Muslims are not a problem for Europe:

Mr. Brook sets up a straw man and knocks him down:

He illustrates the harmlessness of the ongoing demographic shift with a metaphor:

Again from the Kiev podcast (emphasis his):

Europe is dying because of economic Marxism, with its welfare state, and cultural Marxism, with its open borders. A healthy Europe would control its borders but in Mr. Brook’s fantasy it could and would let in anyone.

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:

In the 12 July 2017 podcast Mr. Brook has something on his mind – indicating a certain derangement syndrome as – which bubbles up in the most unlikely places. Immediately after saying that Muslim immigrants “are nothing more than a pest” he says:

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 according to Mr. Brook that would have violated the perpetrators’ individual rights.

Later in the podcast, without mentioning immigration restrictionists explicitly he insinuates that 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 by Mr. Brook on a representative segment of the British working class:

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. [13]

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 – in that sense –Moslems are not bad for Europe. To which we reply:

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:

Always his concern is for the non-European.  For his solution he invents a fairytale America:

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 disappears.

He continues describing his idea of the American model:

In Brook’s fairytale:

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. [14]  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:

Murray again:

When Molyneux says “Europeans have no other place to call home” Murray replies:

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 most everything he says points to the virtue of that idea. 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. [17]

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 the past sin of oppressing the Third World. Then Europeans 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. [18]

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 someone says something good about Christianity they want to burn heretics at the stake.

Yet 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 against contemporary Christianity in favor of Islam, the first refurbished since at least the 17th century (the renovation began earlier but it took a while) the second the same as it has been for a thousand years?  Perhaps Mr. Brook gives his reason here: [19]

For a change of pace we quote part of a letter Rand wrote to one Reverend Dudley on 23 October 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:

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. [21]

Yaron Brook and the other intellectual hucksters at the “Ayn Rand Institute” sit in their air-conditioned offices trying to deduce open immigration – their foregone conclusion – from philosophical axioms divorced from history, current events, and common sense. Mere facts must not intervene. Hence such syllogistic humbug as:

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.

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):

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 leave some wiggle room.

Mr. Brook changes with his audience like a chameleon with its background.  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 Europe were 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 :

Then he goes into his skeptic act and backtracks a little on the last part:

Then he returns to the West in general and goes into his philosophically robust act:

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.