In the language I quoted in the previous post from Rand, she referred to Arabs (Muslims I assume is what she had in mind) as "savages." She also said harsh things about American Indians as well. With respect to Indians she said, "why should you respect the 'rights" they don't have or respect?" [Ayn Rand Answers, p. 103, emphasis added.] I'm not saying I completely agree with Rand in her description of Arabs and Indians, but her point is that Indians didn't have "rights" because rights are culturally contingent, so to speak. So the next time someone tells you that Rand supported "open immigration,"* remember that Rand wasn't speaking in the context of mass third world and Islamic immigration.
The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of
respect for and protection of individual rights. Fortunately for those
who love and want to preserve American culture, the principle of
individual rights is the basic principle of that culture; respect for
that principle is an essential characteristic of a true American; and
foreigners who immigrate to America, for the most part, embody that
Note the separation of culture and "respect for and protection of
individual rights." Freedom has been rare in history. It arose in only
a few places after a long cultural gestation. There is no reason to
think that a free country can survive a massive influx of people from
non-rights respecting culture. Biddle does claim that immigrants "for
the most part" accept individual rights. But if what if they don't? In
any event, there has been large third world immigration into the US and
Islamic immigration into Europe. There is enough data to make a
judgment, but nowhere do Brook, Biddle and Binswanger discuss this. The
evidence is incresingly coming in that immigrants don't. To take one
example, the Washington Post recently gloated that thanks to massive
immigration, the Second Amendment will go to the way of the Do Do. **
And Late-Stage Objectivism combines the neo-con belief that it's
always 1933 and that Jews are always in great threat of their freedom.
So Brook and Binswanger believe Israel should keep out Etheopians and Eritreans while the United States should allow almost unlimited entry.
* As Mark Hunter (ARI Watch) points out, Rand didn't write anything on immigration.
** The standard open immigration argument is that citizenship should
be limited. But under the Constitution, as interpeted by the Supreeme
Court, if you are born in the US then you are a citizen. So the
immigrants' children, who are likely to share their parents values, will
be citizens and the end result will be the same.
Europe is currently undergoing a tax payer funded Islamic invasion. The effects are clear: the rape of women and children, crime, terrorism, the general unpleasantness of life* caused by the presence of large number of people whose loyalty is to Islamic religion.
The entire Objectivist world has been largely silent on the cultural
transformation Europe is undergoing at the hands of Muhammad's children.
The only Objectivist I know who has discussed the abuse of women is
Yaron Brook. Brook blamed the attacks on native women in Sweden and
Germany not on Islam, but on the police. He specifically denied that
Islam is a misogynistic religion which encourages abusive behavior
toward women. He is not concerned about Europe becoming Islamic, but
Europe becoming fascist with the Muslims being thrown into concentration
Why would Brook say such things, given the 1400 year track record of
Islam? Why would such a champion of "uncompromising individualism" not
blame the perpetrators and the culture from which they sprung, but
instead blame the police?
A few years ago a Vlogger who called himself Fringe Elements (I
believe he now goes by the name "Ryan Faulk") presented a fascinating
theory: human beings have an innate desire to hate. So whom should
liberals hate the most? Of course it should be Muslims. Islam is the
most "racist, sexist and homophobic" religion the world has ever seen.
But the Left can't hate Muslims, because Muslims are a minority.
Instead, the Left hates the bigots.
Yaron Brook, then, is basically following the Leftist narrative.
Muslims are a minority and to the extent that they behave poorly, it is
not their fault - it's the fault of (what's left of) Western
Civilization for failing to assimilate them, deter them from committing
crime, and giving them welfare. The people Brook hates are the bigots
and fascists who actually believe that Muslim misbehavior might have
something to do with Islam.
Harry Binswanger is another Leftist. He supports open immigration of
Muslims into Europe (he exempts Israel, according to a former member of
his HBList). Opposition to mass immigration of Muslims is based on
racism. "I’m very afraid that the actual reason for limiting
immigration is xenophobia, which is simply a polite word for racial
bigotry."** And Binswanger can't bring himself to have a particular
dislike of Islam: "I don't believe that Islam is any more violent than
Christianity was when Christianity was at the same stage (i.e., pre-
I could quote similar comments from Amy Peikoff, Craig Biddle and
others, but I'll save the effort. The point is clear: Objectivists are
not fighting the Left, they are the Left.
Late-stage Objectivism is a combination of Peikoff style analysis
(Kant is evil and leads to fascism) and the contemporary Leftist
oppressor/oppressed narrative. ***
* Here is a recent description of Molenbeek, Belgium (where the
mastermind of the Paris attacks was able to live for 4 months without
"Over nine years, as I witnessed the neighborhood become increasingly
intolerant. Alcohol became unavailable in most shops and supermarkets; I
heard stories of fanatics at the Comte des Flandres metro station who
pressured women to wear the veil; Islamic bookshops proliferated, and it
became impossible to buy a decent newspaper. With an unemployment rate
of 30 percent, the streets were eerily empty until late in the morning.
Nowhere was there a bar or café where white, black and brown people
would mingle. Instead, I witnessed petty crime, aggression, and
frustrated youths who spat at our girlfriends and called them 'filthy
whores.' If you made a remark, you were inevitably scolded and called a
racist. There used to be Jewish shops on Chaussée de Gand, but these
were terrorized by gangs of young kids and most closed their doors
around 2008. Openly gay people were routinely intimidated, and also
packed up their bags."
**Admittedly this wasn't in the context of Islamic immigration, but
nowhere does Binswanger exempt opposition to Islamic immigration from
*** Compare Rand: "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures.
They are still practically nomads. Their culture is primitive . . .
[they are] savages." [Ayn Rand Answers, page 96.]