Yaron Brook Hates Hungary but Loves Red China

I've just finished listening to a twenty-five minute interview of the Ayn Rand Institute's Board Chairman Yaron Brook. The interview was conducted by an Englishman named Thor Holt. I have never heard of Holt, but he does a good job given the limited time available. 

Budapest: Hungarian Parliament: Not a part of the West per Brook's diktat

The first fifteen minutes of the interview provided me with some brief, false hope. Holt asks good questions and Brook actually sounds reasonable. The first part of the show is dedicated to Brook explaining the rudiments of Objectivism. Holt hasn't studied the philosophy and doesn't have any critical follow up questions. So, Brook handles this part of the interview well. He then is asked about his book Equal is Unfair. He presents the standard liberal argument that it's irrational to expect equal outcomes based on the free choices and actions of unequal individuals. Although, it was rather churlish of Brook to not even mention Don Watkins his co-author on the book. 

Brook makes a few surprising remarks on the current refugee crisis. At around the eleven minute point he says that "I don't believe in mass migrations." He elaborates that it's absurd to expect countries to take-in and absorb such massive influxes. He even states that Africans have a "responsibility to bring about a free society in Africa" in order to make it a place worth living in. So far so good. The first half of this interview is the most reasonable Brook has ever sounded in all the lectures I've heard from him. Alas, it is not to last. At around the fifteen minute mark, he goes off the rails. 

Holt asks Brook about his travels around the world giving lectures on Objectivism and capitalism. Holt specifically brings up Brook's recent visits to Hungary and Red China. In response, he extols the virtues of the "vibrant" Chinese people. He is effusive in his praise of the hard-working, brilliant Chinese. He criticizes the Communist dictatorship. However, the nature of Red China's Communist regime has not prevented him from supporting "free trade" with this odious and dangerous tyranny.  

Brook has nothing good to say about Hungary or its people. Although he has visited the country on two occasions, the ever churlish Brook doesn't mention his hosts or qualify his condemnation with some positive statement on the place or people. What set Brook off was Holt's statement that many Europeans believe that the rest of the continent should follow Hungary's example for dealing with the "migrant" invasion. Brook's not having any of that and launches into an amazing diatribe beginning at around the eighteen minute point. Only an extended quote can do it justice:

If you want to be poor. If you want to have no free speech. If you want to have no independent media. If you want elections to be rigged by an authoritarian. Hungary's the way to go ... No, Hungary is anti-Western. Hungary represents everything the West is opposed to. It represents authoritarianism. It represents ethnic tribalism, really ... It's not a police state yet. But, it has all the characteristics of a country heading in that direction ... He [Viktor Orban] uses the threat of the immigration to clamp down ... If you think about Hungary, Hungary was never at risk of being flooded with Muslims. All those Muslims [were] coming in to Hungary to get to Germany. Not a single one of those Muslims wanted to stay in poor, pathetic Hungary ... Nobody wants to be in Hungary. 

One thing Hungary also doesn't have is massive Moslem rape gangs and constant jihad attacks upon its citizens. Of course, freedom of speech is under much greater attack in Western Europe. The governments of England, Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands are at war with free speech and political dissent in order to suppress their own people's desires to emulate Hungary's immigration policy. 

Hungary's Most Excellent Border Fence

Yaron Brook stated his opposition to mass migrations. But, any country (except Israel) that does anything to stop such invasions will earn his undying enmity.  

P.S. The British government's vicious repression of Tommy Robinson and those associated with the English Defence League is particularly appalling. On 25 May 2018, Robinson was again arrested for livestreaming in front of the Leeds courthouse. Inside the courthouse many members of a Moslem rape gang are on trial. He was arrested for "breaching the peace," which means in Airstrip One reporting on a story that has been officially blacked-out by the authorities.

There is a good chance that Robinson will be murdered in prison by members of the Religion of Peace. This is called judicial murder in order to silence all dissent on Britian's slow motion suicide. Don't hold your breath for the hypocrite Yaron Brook, or the rest of his ilk at the Ayn Rand Institute, to speak out in Robinson's defense. Although Brook said he opposes "mass migration," he only supports the free speech rights of those like George Soros who tirelessly work for Europe's population replacement with savages.

Gangs of New York: The Book and The Movie

Herbert Asbury published his popular history The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the Underworld in 1928. It is one of four books that Asbury wrote on the criminal elements in different American cities. The other three deal with gangs in Chicago, New Orleans and San Francisco.The book is inaccurate in places. However, it is based on a substantial amount of primary documents from both periodicals and memoirs. 

NYC - Mulberry Street

Asbury doesn't quite define his meaning of the term "gang." He is clear that for the purposes of his book, "gangs" refer to the large, but loosely organized, street gangs that originated in such notorious neighborhoods as Five Points, the Bowery, the Lower East Side waterfront and Hell's Kitchen. These gangs were ruled by charismatic leaders such as Bill "the Butcher" Poole, John Morrissey, Johnny Dolan, Paul Kelly and many others. Although these were ethnic gangs, they were held together by loyalty for and fear of their leaders. Asbury makes a distinction between this type of gang and the organized crime that would come later and flourish with Prohibition. 

The author documents that the reason the gangs were able to terrorize the streets of New York for so long was their political usefulness to Tammany Hall - New York City's corrupt Democratic machine. Asbury shows that even in the aftermath of the infamous Draft Riot of July 1863, gangsters were protected by the political machine. They were too useful for padding the ballet box and intimidating rivals. He is clear about the causes and consequences of the Riots: 

The disturbances were the natural end of the ruinous road along which the city had travelled during the preceding fifteen years, and the logical result of the governmental corruption which had permitted Manhattan Island to become the Mecca of criminals from all parts of the United States and the slums of Europe ... Many gang leaders of the Five Points, the water front and other criminal infested areas were caught leading their thugs on looting expeditions, but politicians rushed to their aid and saved them from punishment. (pp. 108, 155)

The author doesn't dwell on the politics of the era. His main focus is on the gangs, their leaders and activities. He does note that most of the gangs were dominated by immigrants and their progeny. The exception was the "nativist" Bowery Boys who resented the political pull of the immigrant gangs.

The book can be divided into two sections: before and after the Civil War. The first section is the best. The book tends to lose focus when dealing with the proliferating gangs in the post war era. That said, it's an entertaining read from which I learned a great deal. One interesting aspect of the book is the number of riots that occurred in New York City during this period. In the slums of New York there were always large numbers of people all to happy to engage in such criminal mischief. The author argues that around the time of the First World War crime in New York was changing. The heyday of this type of gang had passed and organized crime was taking over the "rackets." Of course, Asbury was sadly wrong on this score. Vicious street gangs are still a part of American urban life. And, as usual, there are politicians who have use for their "spark of divinity."

One of the earliest gangster films was D.W. Griffith's The Musketeers of Pig Alley that was made in 1912. It is a "short" of around sixteen minutes in length. It stars Lillian Gish and the scenario was written by Anita Loos. It was filmed on location and the New York street scenes alone make it worth watching. 

The story goes that sometime in the 1970s director Martin Scorsese read the book. He was so impressed that he made a mental note to someday make a film based upon it. Scorsese played so fast and loose with the source material that the film was nominated for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar. Of course, film makers have always taken "artistic license" with their source material. But, in this case, Scorsese also had a political ax of his own to grind. The didactic message of the movie is made clear in the forward to the 2008 edition of Asbury's book. The forward's author is Russell Shorto who, of course, possesses impeccable liberal establishment credentials. But, at least he's honest about the damage wrought on America by the mass importation of collectivists who view the purpose of the state as a partisan in ceaseless tribal warfare:

In between the polyglot Dutch port city over which Peter Stuyvesant reigned and the birthplace of New Deal policies lay two centuries of unparalleled immigration, in which waves of mostly poor newcomers from a variety of backgrounds poured into Manhattan's mean streets ... The era that Asbury chronicles is one not of out-and-out lawlessness but of poor immigrant communities taking some of the law into their own hands [!], and working both within and outside the existing system. The gangs, and the machine politics, gave way, finally, to new ideas about the role of government in protecting citizens. The gangs of New York can thus be seen not only as precursors to the gangsters and gangstas of later eras, but as a node in the development of American political reform. 

There is it from the horse's mouth. Bloody riots, organized crime and massive political corruption brought to these shores are not a problem if they help lead to a bankrupt welfare state that the Founding Fathers would have considered an abomination. This is not an exaggeration on Shorto's part. The theme of the movie that "America was born in the streets" is now "liberal" dogma. According to the "liberal" nomenklatura there was no such thing as American culture prior to the mass immigration that began in the 1840s. In fact, prior to this era, the American people were incapable of self-government. The failure of American "democracy" is best illustrated by the peaceful transition of power from the Federalists to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans in 1801.

Scorsese makes this point repeatedly in his film. Without immigrants, the four foundational groups of Anglo settlers could not have created the United States and formed a more perfect union. But, of course, they did. It's an aspect of American history that the Current Truth is designed to stuff down the Memory Hole.  

Scorsese makes some mistakes in this film. He was self-indulgent and made it way too long. It should have been cut by at least forty minutes. The entire ending section should have been deleted. The faux climax about two hours in should have been the film's actual ending. Scorsese does deserve credit for the lush cinematography and careful set production that gives the film its look of authenticity. 

What's interesting about this film is that Scorsese's is too good a story teller to let his political agenda completely destroy the entire drama. The putative hero of the film is the ethnic Irish character played by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio's Amsterdam Vallon is two-dimensional and boring. His motive is revenge. His target is Bill the Butcher played by Danial Day-Lewis. Bill the Butcher is the villain of the film. But a combination of great writing and Day-Lewis's bravura  performance makes him the film's central figure. Bill Cutting is obviously based on Bill Poole. Cutting is a "restrictionist" on immigration, and therefore, a very bad guy. Whether by design or accident, he gets his opportunity to have his say and steal the show. His character has the most depth of any in the film and is the most interesting by far.  

Bill the Butcher - 2020

As is usual, in this case the book is better than the film. But, the movie is worth watching, even if the last hour becomes tedious and predictable. 

Kenneth Clark's Magnificent "Civilisation" and Its Desecration

Kenneth Clark (1903-1983) was an eminent, British art historian and museum curator. His most well-known work is the landmark documentary series Civilisation that was aired on the BBC in 1969. He sub-titled the documentary - and the companion book that followed - as "A Personal View." His concentration is on the visual arts that was his forte. He also emphasizes the deep connection between art and religion during most of the time-frame covered in the book and documentary. 

Kenneth Clark at Notre Dame

By "civilisation" Clark is referring to Western Europe from the fall of Rome to the end of the nineteenth century. His justified focus is on the heart of Western Civilization that can be located in a five hundred mile radius centered on Paris. He begins with early Celtic Christian art, but quickly moves on to the Carolingian Renaissance of Charlemagne. The photography is spectacular. With fine period music in the background, the camera lingers over masterpieces for the edification of the viewer. 

Bust of Charlemagne

Civilisation is a fascinating work by a man who deeply loved and cared about Western art and culture. He was fortunate to have been educated before cultural/moral relativism and self-loathing had become the West's official state religion. (The nihilistic "art" of the present will never compare to even the most mediocre of church art from the Middle Ages.)  The entire thirteen part series is available on YouTube. Hopefully, you will have time to watch it before it is declared thoughtcrime and taken down. 

Clark makes no apologies for his belief in the obvious superiority of Western Civilization to all other cultures. In the book's introductory chapter he compares a Greek statue to an African mask,

Whatever its merits as a work of art, I don't think there is any doubt that the Apollo embodies a higher state of civilisation than the mask. They both represent spirits, messengers from another world - that is to say, from a world of our own imagining ... But, all the same, the contrast between these images means something. It means that at certain epochs man has felt conscious of something about himself - body and spirit - which was outside the day-to-day struggle for existence and the night-to-night struggle with fear; and he has felt the need to develop these qualities of thought and feeling so that they might approach as nearly as possible to an ideal of perfection - reason, justice, physical beauty, all of them in equilibrium. (pp. 2-3)

He judges that such a mentality requires - among other things - cultural confidence. 

But, by far, it requires confidence - confidence in the society in which one lives, belief in its philosophy, belief in its laws, and confidence in one's own mental powers. (p. 4)

Obviously, none of the above will do for those that now occupy the West's commanding heights. The avowed mission of the West's "intellectuals" is to destroy such confidence. If you think that this is an exaggeration, then look no further than the BBC's recent production of Civilisations. What a difference a letter makes. In this "update" of the classic, three trendy academics (not one an art historian) commit cultural vandalism in order to eradicate the ability of their viewers to have any confidence in or love for their forebears' accomplishments.

One of the three vandals is the BBC's darling Mary Beard. She is best known for attempting to rewrite the history of Roman Britain in order to make it less white. The purpose of this latest work isn't any different. "Putting an 's' on the end of 'civilisation' is only the first, and easiest, step in wondering how we can make the very idea of civilisation less exclusively white, European and male." As with most cultural Marxist critiques, it all boils down to "too many white people." As is her usual song-and-dance routine, Beard whines about how dead white males used up all the culture and scholarship and left none for the ladies. Ironically, in order to play the victim, she must airbrush such scholars as Edith Hamilton and Eileen Power out of existence.  

PBS is now airing the nihilists' answer to Civilisation. The first three episodes of what should be called anti-Civilisation are now available online. The first one-and-a-half episodes are not too horrible. (Although, its very brief depiction of the art being discussed is a favor to the viewer regarding the modern rubbish that litters the presentation.) The series contains the expected jibes at the West, odes to multiculturalism and worship of primitive art. It's not until the middle of the second episode that it really goes off the rails.  At around the thirty minute mark, the narrator finds it necessary to scold the Greeks for their "obsession" with the beauty of the human body - during this sequence the background "music" is heavy and malevolent in case the narration isn't sufficiently overbearing. It goes downhill from there. 

The pretentious garbage of "Civilisations" has only one value: it illustrates the degenerate nature of our so-called intellectual elites. Watching three episodes of this dreck is my absolute limit. But, by all means, take the time to watch Clark's masterpiece. One can quibble with some of his choices. Those choices are part of the "personal view" he presents. It's the acquired lifetime of wisdom and knowledge and judgement that is desperately needed in our present day.