In Which Yaron Brook Pontificates at Length and Displays His Ignorance of American History

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Sat, 2017-05-20 01:42

My response to Brook's latest rewriting of Western and American history. It contains two short videos of Brook in all his glory. In the first one, he states that Christianity has little to do with the composition of Western and American culture.

In the second video, Brook provides his interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. He doesn't disappoint. I'm not surprised that the witless, naturalized citizen Yaron Brook is unaware that he swore an oath to defend the entire Bill of Rights with his life, if necessary.


Brook is so wrong

edpowell's picture

There are three related but distinct rights involved with guns. First, subject to property rights, there is the right to hunt game. Second the is the right of individual (and family) self-defense against criminals. And third, there is the right of "collective" self-defense against tyranny or invasion. As Anoop says, rights mean nothing if a person has no right to the means of exercising the rights. So there is no freedom of the press is you need government permission to buy a printing press (or a printer, or a web site). So the three rights above imply the rights to implement them, that is the ownership of appropriate weaponry: hunting rifles and shotguns for hunting, handguns, shotguns, rifles, tasers, pepper spray, etc., for personal self-defense, and infantry arms for collective self-defense. I personally think crew-served arms are appropriate for private use as well, under the rubric of a "well regulated militia."

It is certainly true that if the US military were employed against a rebel group in the service of a tyrant, it would be difficult to defeat them. The US military is the finest military force in the history of the world. I have no doubt the US military could crush Alexander, Caesar, or Genghis Khan even if only armed with equivalent ancient weapons. However, the US military has not been able to defeat the Taliban, the Islamic State, or any other jihadi group, all of whom are armed with at most AK-47s and a devotion to the righteousness of their cause. The reason for this lack of ability to defeat the jihadis is an effect of 1) poor leadership, 2) lack of support from home, 3) irrational goals and rules of engagement, and 4) foreign support for the jihadis with no consequences. Perhaps all of these would apply in an attempt to put down a rebellion in the US, combined with the fact that American soldiers as a class are more devoted to the constitution than any American group these days. Some might fight for the tyrant. Some might decide to sit the battle out. Some might join the rebellion. The problem is that from a tyrant's perspective, the US military is not reliably ruthless or anti-constitutional enough to serve the tyrant's purposes. The result is that the military would probably not be used.

The stormtroopers of a future American tyranny are the members of federal law enforcement. Almost all of these agencies are illegitimate from a constitutional perspective, and are dedicated to stomping on the rights of Americans rather than protecting them. No one at the ATF, IRS, DEA, etc., has a job protecting constitutional rights. Event the FBI is hopelessly compromised these days, and is a far cry from the days of Elliot Ness. No, federal law enforcement is the SS of America in the future. When one realizes that fact, then one realizes that an armed citizenry is EXACTLY what is needed to prevent tyranny, because an armed citizenry is armed and trained at reasonable parity with federal law enforcement. When you add state law enforcement into the mix for the rebellion, the chances of success against a tyrannical president look very good. That's why the advocates of tyranny want to disarm Americans. They can do the math too. Brook can't do the math and doesn't know enough about American history, American politics, guns, rebellions, world history, the history of his own country's independence (I speak of Israel, not the US), etc., to understand what the real threat is in the US.

The one objection is that the US military has in fact been used to put murder fellow Americans in the past, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War to the Bonus Army. But the circumstances were much different in these times. Washington led the army against the Whiskey Rebellion, most of whom fled, a few were arrested, and the Congress essentially caved in to the rebels demands and repealed the tax. The Civil War was preached as a religious crusade to restore that mystical entity "The Union" (think "The Force" and you'll get an idea of how irrational it was) at the absolute height of the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening. America today is much less religious, and the Left's religion is so anti-American that most people draw away in horror from it, that I don't see a religious crusade against Americanism happening any time soon. The Bonus Army episode was again at a time of hardship, was localized in DC (where there was no anti-government support) and was over pretty quickly. No rebellion started in DC is ever able to succeed.

The upshot is that the US military is much more professional, much more devoted to the constitution, and much more sympathetic to opponents of a tyrant to every be useful in suppressing a righteous rebellion. But federal law enforcement would be just such a group of stormtroopers, yet these people are matched pretty evenly against the armed populace. Therefore, Brook is wrong that an armed populace would be ineffective in rebellion against a would-be dictator.

Right to own guns is an implementation of right to self-defense

Chanakya's picture

People have the fundamental right to self-defense, and of this right the right to own a gun is the specific implementation. We don't need any kind of complex argument to establish this because out in the real world people actually use guns to defend themselves on a regular basis.

Most dictators try to disarm their populace. Look at what has happened in Mid East dictatorships, in Asia and in Africa. It has even happened in USA. The Southern states banned the blacks from owning guns to make them second-class citizens. All this has been discussed in detail in many court rulings.

If i have the fundamental right to life, then I have the fundamental right to self-defense and this implies that I have the right to own the means of self-defense, which is guns.


Grant Jones's picture

Olivia misses the point, as usual. "along with your anti-human (anti-freedom) stance on voluntary euthanasia." There we go. Typical Obleftivist who's incapable of presenting a reasoned argument when encountering Thoughtcrime. As with your friend Hubbard, all you have is ad hominem. What got to me was people that I once had some respect for supporting Hubbard's emotional, anti-intellectual personal attacks, while refusing to provide an actual case for their support of state supported assisted homicide.

"Saying what's right," Hubbard's response to someone who honestly disagrees with him: "You anti-intellectual, mystical, barbaric cock. Yes, you fail. That's why it's a litmus test.

My choice of euthanasia doesn't affect you at all, but you would bully me. What a life hating, freedom hating, rights hating, bastard."

The above is what Obleftivists like Olivia "think" constitutes reasoned discourse.


Olivia's picture

Thanks for noticing. I noticed that you never lectured Mark Hubbard on the nature of "good from."

Mark Hubbard outed a Jew hating, human hating, misogynist bastard here and didn't relent - Doug. That, along with your anti-human (anti-freedom) stance on voluntary euthanasia, as I recall. Why the hell would I lecture him about saying what is right? Seems you have no standards, not I.

He really got to you didn't he.

Targeting gun owners

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"I forgot to mention that also in the video Brook says he favors gun registration."

So does Binswanger. The Left aims at totally disarming the citizenry and they will stop at nothing to do this. Gun owners *will* be targeted at a future date. The left will probably try to use national health care as a weapon against gun ownership which is why Trump's and the alt-right's pro-national health care positions are stupid and short-sighted. Also, as has been speculated, it could very well be an attempted gun grab by the Federal gov't that triggers the 2nd Civil War.

Brook is just terrible on almost every issue.


Grant Jones's picture

Thanks for noticing. I noticed that you never lectured Mark Hubbard on the nature of "good from." People with double standards have no standards.

gun registration too

Mark Hunter's picture

In my last post. besides misspelling “rifles” (card players do riffles) I forgot to mention that also in the video Brook says he favors gun registration.

We’re not talking about forbidding convicted felons from owning guns. Gun registration consists of the government writing down the name and address of an innocent gun owner. Its only conceivable purpose is to make gun owners easily targeted at some future date. This is what Brook wants. Again, another Leftist position when they cannot ban gun ownership right away.

Brook - not a serious thinker

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Anyway, opposition to the Second Amendment is a Leftist position and Brook has shown himself to be a Leftist on many other issues.

Yes this is yet another demonstration of his cultural leftist bent. Its also the exact opposite of what libertarianism advocates. Serious libertarians are almost always pro-gun and second amendment. But I guess Brook would consider it a badge of honor to oppose libertarians. I can also see how Rothbardians will look at this and say "see, minarchism will always end up despotic". I'm increasingly sympathetic with anarcho-capitalist theory even if it is even more difficult to conceive than the voluntary night-watchman state.

That said, Brook's argument that the second amendment can no longer protect us against the government the way it could during the Framer's time is one I have seen elsewhere from intellectuals I consider legitimate unlike Brook. David Friedman, who I like, has discussed the 2nd Amendment in his videos. But he's a scholar and has studied the subject. He too doesn't think that gun ownership can protect against today's governments but he hasn't abandoned the idea of state militias. He has a system of how they could work in today's context; ie he understands the importance of political decentralization which was one of the crucial concerns of the Founders. But Brook has no such interest in decentralization. He's what Jeff Deist calls a "libertarian supremacist" as well as a Hamiltonian Nationalist. And sadly, I think both of those positions are consistent with Rand, as from what I've read, she was not knowledgable on American history.


Mark Hunter's picture

That wasn’t his argument. Brook didn’t say individuals have no right or duty to overthrow an oppressive government, he said that any opposition is impractical.

The fallacy he engages in is “all or nothing.” He assumes, without coming out and saying it, that either armed individuals can overthrow government or they are completely ineffectual.

Perhaps they could not overthrow an oppressive government but they certainly could limit its oppression. Government doesn’t want to kill en masse, it wants to control each individual. Brook claims the battle is riffles and handguns versus tanks but when it comes right down to it, it is thugs showing up at your door with guns. Remember those videos after the Boston Marathon massacre:

Furthermore, the thugs are cowards fighting for a paycheck, they have no morale at all.

An armed citizenry is a lot better than none at all. Brook argues “all or nothing” in order to make you unconcerned about the demise of the Second Amendment.

Why does he do it? Who knows. Given his perpetual victim mentality I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s afraid the Evangelicals will rise up one day and shoot all the Jews. Take their guns away! Anyway, opposition to the Second Amendment is a Leftist position and Brook has shown himself to be a Leftist on many other issues.



Neil Parille's picture

He is typical of the Orthos. Knows next to nothing about history or anything else.

He once said that what he knows about Kant comes from Rand and Peikoff. Yeah those two were authories on Kant or intellectual history.

And he praises The Renaissance. Guess he doesn't know it was mostly Platonic.

Big Brother and Big Rand

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I think there's an interesting parallel between Brook not thinking the individual has a right and duty to overthrow political and intellectual tyranny. Evidently we're all supposed to quietly, selflessly submit to established authority, governmentally and philosophically.


Olivia's picture

I notice that you only comment here now to do drive by hits, usually of your host, or to support pricks like "Bandler." But when it comes time to link to your own writings, you post here? Obviously, Lindsay is bigger-hearted and broader minded than I am to mind much, but I would like to call attention to your lack of good form.

Bwook ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is quite correct to emphasise how recent and rarefied the idea of freedom is. A moment's further reflection should persuade him that by dint of this fact the Binswangerian claim that every human being on earth has the inalienable right to travel wherever he wants because he's a human being is rationalistic hogwash. If only we had a movement that encouraged the hashing out of these sorts of questions. Alas, OrgOism is not that movement.

Evidently Bwook thinks the part of the Declaration of Independence about the populace having the right and duty to overthrow despots is obsolete. I think that goes into the "Well, he would think that, wouldn't he?" category.

Comment viewing options

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