Yaron Brook Talks Israel And Immigration

Neil Parille's picture
Submitted by Neil Parille on Sun, 2017-06-11 01:59

At 1 hour 36 minutes on. Most important part starts at around 1 hour 42 minutes on.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/y...


Assimilation

Richard G McGrath's picture

BTO: "Furthermore, second and third generation immigrants seem to become even less attached to the host countries than their ancestors, becoming more "radicalized", which in the specific case of Islam means they become less and less distinguishable from their prophet, who wished to impose and spread through force his religion."

That is a very good point, as I suggest most people assume the opposite (I once did). I wonder whether anyone has studied the degree to which different cultures have assimilated into America, embracing Western values and abandoning those that conflict with the politics of peaceful co-existence.

Bruno

Lindsay Perigo's picture

It's deliciously hilarious that the official ARISIS line, as you accurately depict it:

The underlying premises and reasoning is essentially the following.
Every individual has free will and he can choose to think and reach certain conclusions, abandoning prior education and upbringing. Hence, when these individuals enter a Western nation and the host culture is proud of itself and invites newcomers to assimilate into it, rather than "integrate" only in a geographical sense, they will be "induced" to do so.

... is both determinism and intrinsicism. This "inducement" is ineffably inexorable! The intrinsic superiority of civilised ideas will imprint itself irresistibly on the minds of savages, who have not the slightest grasp of the concept of rights and very little inclination to acquire one, irrespective of anyone's will.

I say "hilarious" ... well, it would be if it didn't lead to garbage such as "everyday Muslims are no threat, there's no Muslim invasion of America, so stop being so afraid"; "building a wall is defeatist"; "Hillary would have been better than Trump," etc..

The rationalism of the current clique who have hijacked Objectivism makes Harry Binswanger look like a raving empiricist.

Oh wait. Binswanger is still part of that clique. 'Nuff said.

Drive Obleftivists Out!

Just listened ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to the last 14 minutes. The attacks on the Israeli walls, followed by, "There's no Muslim invasion [of America] so stop being so afraid." This creature is pure evil. And there he is representing OrgOism. An insidious double agent. The "cwush them" posture is a ruse. Dear Galt. Wake up, Objectivists! To Iwan with Bwook!

If one were to ascwibe Bwook's evil to innocent ewwor, the error would be the intrinsicist view of rights of which I wrote in my Open Letter. But note: not one OrgOist has stepped up to address this.

Bwook and his associates are not innocent. As Obama sought a "fundamental transformation of America," his fellow-travellers within Objectivism have sought a fundamental transformation of Objectivism into Obleftivism. They know what they are doing. Drive them out!!

Groan!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Haven't listened yet. Must I?! Smiling

Good connection

Bruno's picture

This whole self-esteem business is probably indeed connected with a primacy of consciousness mentality.

Moreover, you'll notice that others from ARI push a similar narrative; and I use the the postmodern verbiage of narrative purposefully. They'll insist that denying the right of the entire globe to immigrate into the US is a rejection of free will.

The underlying premises and reasoning is essentially the following.

Every individual has free will and he can choose to think and reach certain conclusions, abandoning prior education and upbringing. Hence, when these individuals enter a Western nation and the host culture is proud of itself and invites newcomers to assimilate into it, rather than "integrate" only in a geographical sense, they will be "induced" to do so.

This kind of reasoning is not in line with Objectivist epistemology. Their conclusion is not reached by looking at reality (i.e. historical precedent and statistical analysis) and inducing an effective method of assimilation. It is purely based on rationalistic speculation.

In fact, what we are seeing now in many cases is the exact opposite. Indeed some immigrants become well adjusted and identify themselves as either hyphenated Westerners or fully Western, but many others do not; neither when they are born in the West nor even when their parents were.

Granted, the host cultures are decaying rather than proud and flourishing, but I find it hard to argue that hardline Islamic culture is somehow better than ours.

If you accept the premise that muslims, or any other immigrant populations, are better off by being in the West and embracing Western culture, you would not expect them to "radicalize" and revert back to ancestral cultural identities. So I think it's safe to say something is missing from the picture.

It's as if Westerners are incapable of believing that populations from elsewhere in the world do not want to become exactly like us. It's the reason behind the whole "white man's burden" line of reasoning, and we can see how wonderfully India or South Africa are (not) doing after they booted us out. Or take a look at how well our democracy-exportation worked out in the Middle East.

Maybe if the West was Galt-Utopia we could be baffled in a fully justified manner at their refusal to assimilate. But as of now, it seems that the primary motivator for immigration is economic benefit, not cultural assimilation. It's time to wake up and look at the facts. Primacy of existence!

Bruno

Neil Parille's picture

Great points.

Yaron is a primacy of consciousness guy. He just knows that if all we had was a little more self esteem we could assimilate potentially hundreds of millions of third worlders and Muslims.

Leonard Peikoff booted out people for far less. It's time for him to clean house and starting with Brook

What does "under siege" even mean?

Bruno's picture

"He also said Israel is "under siege." Sounds like London is under siege and yet he still supports open immigration into the UK."

Yes, precisely. Good point, Neil.

Looking at simple demographics alone, we could say that all Western nations can be considered "under siege". We know that millions, even tens of millions, of people from all over the globe would enter Western countries if they could. The reason they don't is that they can't. How are smaller countries like New Zealand or Sweden supposed to "integrate" these kinds of numbers?

Plus, we know that:

1) we have welfare states, and in general they all gladly hand out many many goodies to immigrants, even the illegals.

2) we have very soft citizenship laws, which coupled with a democratic system means that in just a few decades immigrants can overturn in a drastic manner the direction of our countries.

3) islamic immigration in particular is very destabilizing. These populations tend to segregate even more than other immigrants groups and create special "shariah zones" (i.e. "no go zones" for the host population).

4)Furthermore, second and third generation immigrants seem to become even less attached to the host countries than their ancestors, becoming more "radicalized", which in the specific case of Islam means they become less and less distinguishable from their prophet, who wished to impose and spread through force his religion. In the case of so called "hispanics" (they ain't from Spain last time I checked), they tend to sympathize more and more with their origin country, and support groups which wish to radically transform the host country, or even have the origin country re-annex the South-West in the case of the USA vs Mexico.

How is any of this supposed to benefit us Westerners exactly?

The whole issue with democracy is that the demos decides the fate of the country. The people need not be simply informed about politics but actively direct politics towards specific goals. If you radically change the composition of the people, you radically change the direction of politics. This is not difficult to understand.

This last issue is precisely what made me rethink immigration and border policy. I've seen the voting patterns of "new citizens" over two, three generations, and what the future has in store for us if we continue down this path is complete leftist domination of the political sphere; as if they're domination of the culture and education system wasn't enough.

No Islamic Invasion

Neil Parille's picture

Brook says there is no Islamic invasion of the US, "so stop worrying about it." Well he just said a few minutes before that he got a concealed carry permit in part because he lives near San Bernadino. What happened there?

And the only reason we don't have an Islamic invasion is because we don't have open immigration.

He also said Israel is "under siege." Sounds like London is under siege and yet he still supports open immigration into the UK.

Brook

Neil Parille's picture

He thinks that because Israel is "at war" and the whole world is anti-Semitic that Israel needs to restrict immigration. He said immigrants wouldn't want to fight in the Israeli army.

He also said the southern wall wasn't built to keep out immigrants.

In an ideal world there would be no Jewish, no white, no Christian countries. Imagine all the people . . . .

Comment viewing options

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