Yaron and Linz :-)

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2016-11-30 22:26

Yaron Brook and I will be debating our differences on the Amy Peikoff Show, Friday February 10, 2017, at midday, Pacific time. That's 9 am Saturday morning, Feb 11, NZ time. Can't wait! Smiling


Lindsay Perigo's picture

You have nothing to reproach yourself for.

Your paper, and everything everyone posted on the "Great debate" thread, was enormously useful to me, though as you will see from my Open Letter, what I eventually (would have) said was very much my own work.

I frankly, at this juncture, think there was never any intention of having a true debate, a free and frank exchange of opinions. Nothing within OrgOism has changed. You're right, Ed—Yaron cuts off even people who agree with him (which is the majority of his sparse number of callers). I think he is congenitally incapable of listening. A natural born bloviator. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank Galt I don't have to listen to his podcasts any more in the name of research. Grisly listening.

It was I

edpowell's picture

I posted the comment that "Yaron was not a good spokesperson for Objectivism." First, because he isn't. Second, because I was in a really bad mood that day after just listening to one of his more recent podcasts on the topic of immigration.

On the other hand, I have been called a "racist", a "xenophobe", and a "liar," by other Objectivists, that last by Brook for "misrepresenting" his views on immigration. As I tried to show in my paper, based on both my listening to his podcasts and Mark's transcriptions, Yaron is all over the ballpark on this issue. He's literally taken every single position on immigration at one time or another. That's why, though arguably worse on this issue than Yaron, I so respect Harry Binswanger for putting his thoughts down in writing. You can argue against writing. You can't argue against shifting, non-transcribed, ephemeral assertions with no facts to back them up, week after week. I don't think you could say Yaron has ANY position on immigration, where by "position" I mean a well-thought-out well-researched logical and consistent set of arguments based on a valid set of principles presented in a context. It was my sheer frustration with him that caused me to "put my pen where my mouth was" and write my article, and send it out to Amy more than two weeks in advance for her consumption. I thought if she was going to be a fair moderator, she'd need a consistent presentation of the other side in advance so she could, if she wanted to, press Yaron in the question period.

I regret my statement on Amy's post that started this row, and I would take it back if I could. My goal is not to make an enemy out of Amy, as she is the one member of organized Objectivism (what I call "Objectivism, Inc.") who truly is open to discussion of complex and difficult topics, and to hear out people with whom she disagrees. Yaron simply cuts people off on his show before they get a word (or fact) in edgewise.

On the other hand, having put together such a long paper whose thesis is that ARI by supporting unlimited immigration are traitors to Western Civilization (and Ayn Rand), the chance of me being invited on the show again to discuss this topic is exactly zero. And of the many people who helped me with the paper, (only some of whom are listed in the Acknowledgements section), I am one of the most moderate and pleasant and considerate of the bunch. I think most of the rest would, like Linz, approach the field all guns blazing, having like me been insulted, denigrated, and called "racist" one too many times over the years that they think "propriety be damned, I'm gonna give him a piece of my mind!"

Anyway, now we'll never know.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's over to Amy whom, if anyone, she replaces me with. As it stands, I think she's just going to talk to Yaron. More echo-chamber.

Both you and Ed would be excellent replacements, if you can observe the constraints. For me, "sweeping statements" is a catch-all, way too restrictive. Amy cited to me as an example of a "sweeping statement" something someone tried to post on her Faecesbook page, “Yaron is not a good spokesperson for Objectivism.” When you compare something as mild as that with what I proposed to say—none of which I consider "rude" in context—you can see I would have been cut off in five seconds flat!


Mark Hunter's picture

Can you choose an alternate to replace you? I volunteer. The case against Brook’s open borders position is so absurd that even I, who have no experience with public speaking and am not a good talker (thinking on your feet is very different from writing), would win the debate.

All I have is a cell phone, no landline, and I pay by the minute plus it’s not reliable. I gather there’s a way to make phone calls over the Internet (I have broadband) but I haven’t looked into it.

Ed Powell would be a good replacement too. He was on Amy’s show once before, but not with Brook.


gregster's picture

You got that correct. I too thought it was too good to be true. Amy shows her true colours.


Neil Parille's picture

I guess I was wrong - not the first time.

This was inevitable, I suppose

edpowell's picture

Yaron apparently needs a "safe space" in which to debate. In my thirty years of Objectivism, this would have been the FIRST debate against a serious Objectivist opponent that the leaders of the Objectivist movement have ever permitted. Yaron's tour where he "debates" that person from the socialist Demos organization were jokes. That guy was utterly unserious.

I called Brook a "traitor to Western Civilization" in my essay, an evaluation I thought at the time was strong but fair. I now know it wasn't't strong enough.

It's off! :-(

Lindsay Perigo's picture

With heavy heart I just sent Amy the following email. She had come back to me a couple of days ago with an additional request that I not make "sweeping statements" about my adversary:


I'm sorry about this, but having listened to Yaron's show this morning and reflected on your request not to make "sweeping statements" about him I feel I cannot undertake to comply. I worked on my opening statement after the show, in a somewhat incensed frame of mind, and ended up making a number of comments Yaron would no doubt find highly objectionable. Nonetheless I am determined to say them. I shall withdraw from the debate and expand my opening statement and send it out as an open letter to Objectivists. What's happening is not good. Yaron is on the wrong side of history.

Again, apologies.

Open letter to follow.

Cultists Pure and Simple -- NOT Objectivists

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- I distrust the ARIans completely. I consider them vermin. In my lifetime they've abused, censored, and excommunicated me 100%. This includes Amy Peikoff and Yaron Brook. And this despite the fact that I'm unfailingly polite, respectful, and friendly to them. Exactly as I am on here, RebirthOfReason.com, ObjectivistLiving.com, YouTube, The Objective Standard, and everywhere else. Makes no difference. The moment I show up, no matter what pseudonym I use, they almost instantly excoriate me, delete my words, block my account, and pussy out like the sissyboy-faggots and slimy worthless failures they truly are.


Neil Parille's picture

No, I haven't. And based on Brook's smarmy radio show and how he cuts people off who disagree with him, it is somewhat surprising. But Amy tweeted that it will be happening soon, and who am I to distrust the former Mrs. Peikoff.

Never in Human History

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Neil -- Don't be so sure about that debate ever actually happening. I've NEVER seen a debate between a real Objectivist and a cultist pretender. NEVER. Have you?


Tore's picture

You should have a podcast!


Neil Parille's picture

I have no inside info on this but I think the debate will happen.

Radio Show

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I hope like hell this debate actually happens. I'll believe it when I hear it.

I’m not racist —I hate his white half too.

gregster's picture

From Doug’s link: America’s first black president said the national conversation about race is “long overdue.” Ridiculous, next he’ll be blaming the Russians. He’s the one bringing race up all the time—the actual racist. I’ve read the thesis his bitch wrote for Uni—more racist boilerplate.

Zero: “All these smartphones suddenly taking pictures are not documenting a suddenly worsening relationship between the African-American community and the police,” the president said. “They are recording what has been a long-standing tension and the sense on the part of police that they’re put in a very difficult situation of trying to manage law enforcement in poor communities where guns are easily accessible, the African-American community being rightly convinced that there is a long history of racial bias in our criminal justice system.

Sniveling liar—surely he knows it’s his preferred statist system that amplified coloureds in crime statistics. Only capitalism can alleviate their problem, but they’re too far gone, and gone too stupid.

A recent BIG positive is that enough Americans saw through the DemocRat BS, despite the efforts of ARI and its blind followers.

"Browner Country"

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Regardless of what President-elect Donald Trump’s plans are for immigration, President Barack Obama says there will be “inevitable” changes to the demographics of the United States.

“If you stopped all immigration today, just by virtue of birth rates, this is going to be a browner country,” Obama told NPR’s Steve Inskeep in an interview that aired Monday.


This is said not in any desire for liberty. This is said out of hatred. Hatred for whites. This alone will encourage nationalism. The entire Western World was way too premature on multi-racialism. By centuries.

Liberty should have been conceived of in a European ethnic context. Which is exactly what you find in Rand's novels despite all the individualist language.

This is Really a Thing

Grant Jones's picture

I'm curious as to why ARI has adopted the United Nations' "one world" stateless utopia, while parroting its rhetoric of treason. When will Brook declare December 18 the new "Rand's Day?"

"Throughout human history, migration has been a courageous expression of the individual’s will to overcome adversity and to live a better life. Today, globalization, together with advances in communications and transportation, has greatly increased the number of people who have the desire and the capacity to move to other places.

This new era has created challenges and opportunities for societies throughout the world. It also has served to underscore the clear linkage between migration and development, as well as the opportunities it provides for co-development, that is, the concerted improvement of economic and social conditions at both origin and destination."


Replacement Migration

Grant Jones's picture

I suspect that Brook won't be interested in discussing the United Nations' plan for the cultural genocide of Western Civilization. It's a price he's willing to pay for cheap yard service.

"United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates."



Neil Parille's picture

Even if Yaron doesn't know his history, he can see what is happening in Europe. Yet he does not call for an end to Islamic immigration and in fact wants to see open immigration of Muslims into Europe.

This man has a lot to answer for. I hope Linz holds his feet to the fire.

Brook wants to allow this into America

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

When Yaron Brook argues for Islamic immigration, this is what he is allowing into America and the West:

Give my a hundred Dr. Bill Warners over the ARIans any day of the week.

When discussing Muslim immigration, Linz should pound Brook over the reality of Islamic history. He should also counter the stupid ARIan argument that nuking the Muslim world would teach them to respect us and win them over. Warner's work shows that Muslims can't coexist with non-Muslims. They are and always have been an existential threat to non Muslims. Everywhere.


Neil Parille's picture

From what little I've read, NZ has a rationally selfish immigration policy which is focused on the national self interest of NZ.

The USA has an altruistic immigration policy which goes against the self interest of the country.

Brook also changes his views, accuses people of being liars, etc. So while I'm sure Perigo will do great, he will have his work cut out for him.

I'm really looking forward to this event...

Olivia's picture

I don't think Linz needs advice on what to read or say though. Crikey! He is probably the only person who actually doesn't. All he has to be is himself in all his glory and it will be wonderful, thought provoking and entertaining. Yaron will have his work cut out for him.

Good on you Amy for putting this together. Respect.

Open Immigration Thread

Neil Parille's picture

The Big Debate Will Be Here

Neil Parille's picture

Presuming this debate is

Andrew Atkin's picture

Presuming this debate is recorded, can someone provide a link please as soon as it's available?

...oh, read it properly. Didn't realise it was so far into the future.

It will be great

gregster's picture

Good on Amy. I think she means well. She hopes it will be 'awesome.' Here's hoping The Donald doesn't screw up too much in the meantime.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't think he'll pull out. Neither should he. Apart from anything else, for him to debate me will be a telling p.r. coup against TAS, who withdrew a speaking invitation to me some years ago after hysteria from The Brandens and sundry other O-Liars. That was the tolerationists' lowest moment bar none.

Amy is to be congratulated for her perseverance in setting this up. It will be a major departure from OrgOist echo-chamberism!


gregster's picture

I will have to record in case they decide it's too hot to leave out there. I imagined Susan Devoy wouldn't be up to the task, I hope Brook won't pull out.


Neil Parille's picture

I'm looking forward to the debate. If you need any advice about how to combat Brook on specifically American issues, just contact me, Doug, or Grant. Big smile


Lindsay Perigo's picture

It will be live.


Luke Setzer's picture

That the parties in question actually choose to engage one of their harshest critics just raised my opinion of them unexpectedly.

Please post a link to the recording and let us know how it went!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.