Mark

Takedown of Yaron Brook’s Anti-American Immigration Position

Recommended Posts

I listened to 27 minutes and stopped. I probably should listen to the rest, but I feel it's going to repeat the same template until the end, so I'll run the risk of being mistaken and miss out.

I don't know any of these people. I imagine, from their tone and framing, they lean towards the orthodox view of Objectivism.

It's painful to hear them try to give voice to what's right as they understand it and being perplexed by one of the main official leaders of ortho-Objectivism preaching the exact opposite in the mainstream.

I almost want to tell them, "You're on the right path to independent thinking (yes, based on a Randiam worldview), which is far better than repeating the thinking of others. Now do more, go further in that direction..."

They sound like they all have very good minds.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war.

--Brant 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on August 22, 2015 Ed Powell and Stuart X were interviewed on Amy Peikoff’s BlogTalkRadio show “Don’t Let it Go” where they discussed a recently published article by Ed Mazlish concerning immigration.  On Amy P's website the title of the show is “A Response to Ed Mazlish’s Call for Ideological Screening of Immigrants”  and on her BlogTalkRadoi page “A Discussion of Immigration Policy.”  Ed Mazlish's article is “Yearning to Breathe Free: The Foundations of a Rational Immigration Policy” which he put on someone else's blog.  Later Ed Powell created a website called Objective Dissent.

Here is Amy P's webpage for the immigration show, started a few days before the show itself. There are many posted comments including some by Ed Mazlish.  Since then she hasn’t given opponents of open immigration any time on her show.  At one point Lindsay Perigo was scheduled to debate Yaron Brook but then Brook insisted on some debating rules that Perigo found unreasonable and it never happened.

(I agree with Ed Mazlish’s – and Ed Powell’s – criticisms of Yaron Brook / ARI but disagree with their alternative.  Our immigration disaster cannot be fixed merely by ideological screening, which is impractical anyway.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You all heard Yaron Brook and Leonard Peikoff on immigration and you all read Harry Binswanger on immigration. Here is Anni Cyrus on immigration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That says a lot. Friends of mine who emigrated to the US from RSA also had to jump through hoops and suffer long delays. They accepted all of that because 1. it was worthwhile, they had a greater value in mind 2. because the new land showed itself to have clear, rational standards of personal responsibility and freedom. Getting away from low, arbitrary and non- standards was their purpose in the first place. They don't want to find there what they escaped.

Yaron's intrinsicism (and his rationalism - ideas out of touch with reality, those adverse and dangerous ideologies, rampant) declares itself in the mind-reading presumption that ~everyone~ who wants to flood into the USA and any Western nation is arriving with the best of honorable intentions, in order to better themselves, get ahead by their efforts and assimilate as good citizens - or else, will be transformed magically by the very nature of *becoming* French, Swedish, American - and consequently be of 'benefit' to the country (his utilitarianism, also - as those panelists pointed out). Some or many are, certainly, but whom? Which others, conversely,  view this far free-er nation they want to enter, one perhaps weakened already by ideological and political elements from within, as one they can slowly impose their own ideology upon and change to another regime, abusing their new liberty? Or - those who enter merely to take advantage of welfarism? Or, see the criminal pickings available? They are hard questions, not answered by the Leftist/emotionalist push to open up borders to "all in need": in effect - "whatever happens, happens (who cares) - and what "standards" and "culture" of this nation are there worth protecting, anyway? The feelings of the people is the abiding principle". 

By logic, if your first act as a migrant is to subvert the rule of law of a country by entering illegally and avoiding its due process,  you are, de facto, a criminal who is further capable of subverting other laws. An individual who's at least ~willing~ to patiently go through the vetting process indicates his measure of good faith, shows "nothing to hide", although the rigorous, objectively done, checks can never be an accurate process of predictive "mind-reading" and should not attempt to be.

Much too assertively, Brook arrogates to himself to speak for ARI and all Objectivists in his pronouncements on immigration and that's annoying. He is not an intellectual of Peikoff's level, and however some criticized LP and his past authoritarianism and lapses of judgment, like I sometimes did, I think it is clear he is-was a top Objectivist thinker and political predictor, who should be overriding Brook, recently. I'm glad to see resistance from some Objectivists to the rationalism and intrinsicism - and altruism - being voiced by ARI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's incredible to listen to Yaron Brook, who allegedly has a PhD. in something called "finance," talk out of both sides of his mouth.  Do we have a good culture that can withstand potentially hundreds of millions of immigrants (which is what open immigration will result in) or don't we?

Also, he's so in the thrall of the idea that everything that's wrong with the world is caused by intellectuals.  Considering how bad the intellectuals are, I'm surprised that we still have a somewhat healthy culture.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Mark:

Quote

Here is Amy P's webpage for the immigration show, started a few days before the show itself. There are many posted comments including some by Ed Mazlish.  Since then she hasn’t given opponents of open immigration any time on her show.  At one point Lindsay Perigo was scheduled to debate Yaron Brook but then Brook insisted on some debating rules that Perigo found unreasonable and it never happened.

I believe Amy mentioned on the debate with Ed Mazlish and Crazy Stuart that her friend Sunny Loehmann told her how unpleasant Minneapolis was becoming because of Somali immigration.  Amy has since unfriended Sunny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very conservative estimate I make is that 1%-5% of Africans would dearly love to get into America tomorrow. Can't blame them. Who could refuse them, all 10-50 million, without admitting to racial discrimination? Why welcome and open doors to all Central Americans (ETC.) and not us?

They don't think causally, the Lefties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, anthony said:

A very conservative estimate I make is that 1-5% of Africans would dearly love to get into America tomorrow. Can't blame them. Who could refuse them, all 10-50 million, without admitting to racial discrimination? Why welcome and open doors to all Central Americans (ETC.) and not us?

They don't think causally, the Lefties. 

Charlize Theron: South African born, and star of 1998’s “Mighty Joe Young.” In 2007, Theron became a naturalized citizen of the United States, while retaining her South African citizenship. "I grew up on Bette Davis movies, and Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe." "I mean I tried to transform myself through characters throughout my career." "I hate actors who come and quote Nietzsche." "You are only as great as the opportunities that are given to you." "I treat my relationships like marriages. The ceremony isn't that important to me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use Google Maps to count how many mosques are near you. Then listen to this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 7:42 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Ayn Rand would never agree to open immigration from today's context, which is war.

Brant,

That's an interesting point.

I could never see Rand agreeing with open borders during war time. That would be an invitation for enemy soldiers and sympathizers to walk right into the country without a fight. If the enemy uniforms would be a problem, they can change clothes once they are inside the US.

I can't see Rand agreeing with this logically, practically or ideologically. 

But think about this. George Bush declared a "War on Terror" right after 9/11.

On May 23, 2013, President Obama announced on that the Global War on Terror was over.

That's a technicality.

Still, I can't see Rand agreeing with allowing wholesale communist immigration to the US in an open borders policy. Ditto for Islamist. Taking the logical chain from there, you have to arrive at a conclusion that there is a reality-based need to set legal immigration standards if a country wants to survive as a country. Rand loved the US, so I doubt she would have agreed to its destruction by foreign governments using mass immigration as a weapon.

I would love to call Brook stupid for his views, but he is not. In posture, he is an Objectivist, but, politically, I see him as a proponent of globalist values more than Objectivist ones.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on Rand was more her emotional response than her intellectual justification re her attitude toward American Indians. In today's context Moslem terrorists would be worse than the worse of them, real or imagined.

My intellectual orientation is all property in this country, including real property, belongs directly to private citizens or is held in trust by the government for them. The purpose of that government is to protect the citizens and their property and therefore control access to same through citizenship and it's ancillaries and visas. Private parties cannot do this for none can control their guests sufficiently to keep them in non-rights'-violating  line.

It's the exigencies of the modern world that made me come up with this formulation. I think Rand would have done the same albeit spitting between each word.

Regardless, no ideology can overcome the go to war to save our asses need of the general population which is human biological. Trump up ideas down. This is the age of the "businessman" vrs the left entire including the left libertarians.

We are a long way from brains (ideas) and so close to Mexico.

--Brant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

My take on Rand was more her emotional response than her intellectual justification re her attitude toward American Indians. In today's context Moslem terrorists would be worse than the worst of them, real or imagined.

My intellectual orientation is all property in this country, including real property, belongs directly to private citizens or is held in trust by the government for them. The purpose of that government is to protect the citizens and their property and therefore control access to same through citizenship and it's ancillaries and visas. Private parties cannot do this for none can control their guests sufficiently to keep them in non-rights'-violating mode.

It's the exigencies of the modern world that made me come up with this formulation. I think Rand would have done the same albeit spitting between each word.

Regardless, no ideology can overcome the go-to-war-to-save-our-asses need of the general population, which  is human biological. Trump up ideas down. This is the age of the "businessman" vrs the left entire including the left libertarians.

We are a long way from brains (ideas) and so close to Mexico.

--Brant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the world's countries had an imposed, globalist, blanket, 'equal' standing - under e.g. Socialism, statism or Shariah law, the problem wouldn't exist. (Ditto if every nation were individual rights-affirming). Anyone would move when and wherever he/she wants, across borders. Therefore the basic problem is the discrepancy of values - broadly between the free-est nations, of greater objective value, to less free, to the authoritarian and value-less. If one was softened up by the lie of multiculturalism i.e. cultural relativism and the equality of nations and cultures, open migration would seem moral and desirable. Further, if believed, any host nation would be duty-bound to take in the numbers who come.

Why then do people wish to move in the first place? Obviously, simply ~because~ everyone perceives (if only, perceptually, from pictures) the inequality of values between what they presently have, and what there exists, "over there" - across a border. Wealth, over there, much less or none here - simply. How and why, such an inequality comes about, escapes many. "Multicultural equality" invalidates itself by the desire many have to be somewhere else.

Two lose-lose consequences of large movements of people will be that the safety valve or outlet the free-er nation provides them will preclude the old country's citizens of the strenuous efforts to improve its own conditions towards liberties of their people (and to empty it of able individuals and thinkers who would perhaps effect changes) - and a country, and several more, will descend further into a hopeless --hole. But more importantly, there will be dissipation and compromise of the new, free-er country's virtues by weight of demographics, stress on the institutions and any welfare system - ultimately bringing it down to 'equality' -- level with the others.

A majority of people observably 'bring themselves', their ethics, religions and politics and their traditional habits and cultural laws with them wherever they go, and to a point, the variety of personal beliefs, customs or cultural habits is benign. But it is particularly in a free country, by its nature, that entering, huge numbers won't see the need to change a thing from their un-free past, nor be forced to, but can work within the system to impose other ideologies upon it. One thing that's loathsome, the advantage some take of the virtues of better nations and individuals  - and the envy, hatred and whatever, which makes some want to bring them down to their level, instead of seeing the virtue in lifting themselves up. Worse, stiil, those who could allow it to happen to their country from guilt and self-contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, anthony said:

A majority of people observably 'bring themselves', their ethics, religions and politics and their traditional habits and cultural laws with them wherever they go, and to a point, the variety of personal beliefs or cultural habits are benign. But it is particularly in a free country, by its nature, that entering numbers won't see the need to change a thing from their past and can work within the system to impose themselves upon it. One thing that's loathsome, the advantage some take of the virtues of better nations and individuals  - and the envy, hatred and whatever, which makes some want to bring them down to their level, instead of seeing the virtue in lifting themselves up. Worse, stiil, those who could allow it to happen to their country from guilt and self-contempt.

Record number of Americans want to leave U.S. — and Canada is the top choice: poll

New immigration rules make it easier for Americans to work and stay in Canada

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be because of TDS or the lure of the rodeo and the stampede up in Calgary. Does Canada have the equivalent of New Orleans during Mardi Gras or the beaches of Oahu? Nope. I guess you could still pick up all the prime TV channels on satellite.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree it is not totally Mexico’s fault. It is the immigrants’ fault. Mexico is guilty of being too poor and weak to stop the invasion, because it is in their self-interest to stop the drain on their economy too. The illegals are not refugees.

And why not attack the problem on the “near side” by making it illegal to hire illegal aliens to work? Put all the American hirers in jail for flagrant or even occasional abuse of the system. A retired immigration honcho said the overwhelming answer to the question of why did you come to America is “For the jobs.” So, no jobs no illegals.  

Fox news is spouting clichés like, “Would taxing Mexico into submission on illegal immigration turn into a catastrophe?” and “Is the pain worth the long term gain?” Oh no Jose where are our cheap avocados and winter tomatoes? Will America’s unemployment rate rise to 25 percent? Will they steal American jobs and lower the average salary?

Hmmmm. I need to “vent” some more.  We could electrify the fences, string more barbed wire, play ear piercingly loud music, spray them with pepper spray, incarcerate the invaders in a Gulag, and then put them on modern slave ships and ship them to really poor and weak countries like those found in sub Saharan Africa. We could even go East German on the immigrants / invaders and shoot them at the border. But alas, we can’t do that because we are Damn Yankees.

A Farside take off on “America” by Neil Hearts and Diamonds.

Far
We've been traveling far (well OK. Central America ain’t that far) Without a deluxe home but we did have a shack. But not with a star like Jennifer Lopez. Free, we only want to be free and we are too lazy to make our own country free like you gringos. On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America. Oh wait. I got that wrong Senor. We are walking to America
Home, to a new and a shiny place which we will immediately cheapen, Every time that flag's unfurled, we will spit on its laws anew. My country 'tis of thee. Today

The real, “America” by Neil Diamond.

Far
We've been traveling far
Without a home
But not without a star
Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream

On the boats and on the planes
They're coming to America
Never looking back again
They're coming to America

Home, don't it seem so far away
Oh, we're traveling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm

Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we'll say our grace
Freedom's light burning warm
Freedom's light burning warm

Everywhere around the world
They're coming to America
Every time that flag's unfurled
They're coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They're coming to America
Got a dream they've come to share
They're coming to America

They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
They're coming to America
Today, today, today, today, today

My country 'tis of thee
Today
Sweet land of liberty
Today
Of thee I sing
Today
Of thee I sing
Today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:
2 hours ago, anthony said:

A majority of people observably 'bring themselves', their ethics, religions and politics and their traditional habits and cultural laws with them wherever they go, and to a point, the variety of personal beliefs or cultural habits are benign. [...]

Record number of Americans want to leave U.S. — and Canada is the top choice: poll

It must be because of TDS or the lure of the rodeo and the stampede up in Calgary. Does Canada have the equivalent of New Orleans during Mardi Gras or the beaches of Oahu? Nope. I guess you could still pick up all the prime TV channels on satellite.     

Yes, it must be.  "Does Canada have the equivalent of New Orleans during Mardi Gras[?]"  No but yes, it is called Montreal.  The greatest summer festivals on offer in North America.  And the food, did I mention the food?

"Does Canada have the equivalent of the beaches of Oahu?"  Nope.  It just has Vancouver and 'the lake' ...

7f5f038faaa402efefb2642600183d56.jpg

Here is a chart from the article that may have been skimmed ...

161118_immigration.jpg?quality=70&strip=

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is it short sleeve weather where you live? Here it will be 86 Wednesday and 87 Thursday but with rain, and then in the high seventies for a while. Did Canada draft men in the past? And thanks for the info William.

A brief excerpt from the Ayn Rand Lexicon. A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes—if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army—an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why—is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective. end quote

Rand was so right. And our defense against Radical Islam has shown that Americans will volunteer to defend their country.   

Another brief excerpt from the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents "involuntary servitude." end quote

As I have said before, I was drafted during the Vietnam War, but ended up in South Korea. I would guess ninety five point five tenths (95.5) of the men who were drafted went where they were assigned. For me, a “military brat” who felt like he had been in the military all his life, I accepted the two years instead of volunteering for three which was the minimum, and the coast Guard may have been longer than that. Peter

George H. Smith wrote back around 2001: "As a military brat, I know very well what "scrounging" is, especially since my father was a master of this. But scrounging normally refers to expropriating military property from one's own side, whereas "shooting and looting" do not." end quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From the first: "The poll found that Americans looking north has [sic] increased in the past two years".

In honesty, it adds:" The note explains, however, that desire doesn't equal action".

William, what we are hearing is people "virtue signaling" to pollsters, I think. Many loudly declaim and wish, fewer will come. Too bad - you'll not soon see many Hollywood celebs arriving...

I will add that I am not singling out America specifically, on immigrants/migrants. I base my views and opinions on four locations of major interest and concern of mine, though predictably they have more in common, than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter said:

How long is it short sleeve weather where you live? 

Check out and compare Salisbury in Delmarva with Chilliwack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilliwack#Climate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury,_Maryland#Climate

salisbury.png

chilliwack.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:
5 hours ago, Peter said:
6 hours ago, william.scherk said:
6 hours ago, anthony said:

A majority of people observably 'bring themselves', their ethics, religions and politics and their traditional habits and cultural laws with them wherever they go, and to a point, the variety of personal beliefs or cultural habits are benign. [...]

Record number of Americans want to leave U.S. — and Canada is the top choice: poll

It must be because of TDS or the lure of the rodeo and the stampede up in Calgary.

Yes, it must be.

William, what we are hearing is people "virtue signaling" to pollsters, I think.

Could be.  The statistics show that relatively few Americans permanently emigrate to Canada, in proportion to the US population. The graph shows some of the absolute numbers over time. 

One thing to bear in mind is from the second link, Tony. Since NAFTA (and rolled over into USMCA/NAFTA+ awaiting ratification), a handful of professions are pre-cleared or green-lighted as workers. This means there are no quotas or hoops to jump -- if you want to take a job south/north of the border, it is easier than any other way (in terms of Canadian paperwork at least).

The point being that permanent residence in Canada is easier to achieve for in-migrating people, including refugees. A mix of civil and private efforts and sponsorships means that the aim of full participation in society is everyone's goal and benchmark. Social mobility is by several measures easier north of the border.  Immigrants from all nations find a degree of welcome and assistance in integration that some find remarkable in comparison. Of course, having a gigantic, resource-rich geography with a relatively teeny population means The More The Merrier.  If America is 'full,' Canada is not, in other words.

As for ...

Quote

Many loudly declaim and wish, fewer will come. Too bad - you'll not soon see many Hollywood celebs arriving...

There are four major television/motion picture production locations in America+Canada. The first is metropolitan Los Angeles, the second New York City, the third and fourth being  Vancouver and Toronto. Vancouver is in addition a huge 'digital media'/games production centre. These industries are large and booming -- part of the reason why Vancouver is often touted as the number one or number two city for filmed production -- and why global digital industries make their home there.**

Hollywood 'celebrities' are thus a constant presence in Toronto and Metro Vancouver (as Canadian 'celebrities' are always found in LA and NYC). One American celebrity in the news lately filmed her final TV series in and made her home in Toronto: the present Duchess of Sussex. 

_________________________

** 'None of this, of course, would have been possible without a huge labour pool that constantly grows thanks to the support of organizations such as The British Columbia Council of Film Unions, whose executive director, Tom Adair, notes: “The unions in B.C. have marketed directly to the studios and producers for decades. We seek to balance the needs of the creative controlling interests with the practicality of constantly enhancing the local skills. Actors teach other actors. Costumers teach the next generation of wardrobe workers. Lighting department gaffers move into roles behind the cameras.  It is an evolutionary, collaborative environment.”'

Edited by william.scherk
Grammer and spelking and sintax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...