On Neocons and Neurotics: Yaron Brook and the Folly of Preemption

James Wald

Yaron Brook

Though America is undoubtedly more politically polarized than ever, the view that the War in Iraq was a fiasco is something that almost everyone outside of think tanks or the military industrial complex can agree on. For those familiar with the works of paleocons like Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried, the idea that the war was a gross waste of American lives and treasure is a recurring theme. That many neocons remain unrepentant (and unaccountable) is not surprising. What may perhaps surprise the reader is that there are some intellectuals who believe the problem with our intervention is that we didn’t go far enough.

Yaron Brook is an Israeli-American who writes for The Objective Standard, a kind of Randian objectivist/rational egoist outlet that makes Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard look reasonable. In “‘Just War Theory’ versus American Self-Defense” Brook wastes no time in getting to the heart of the matter when he informs the audience (the piece is adapted from a talk) that in order for the US to win decisively in the Middle East it would have been necessary to “inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations” deliberately.

His models for what should have been done in Iraq include the Allied attacks on Japanese and German cities, which he acknowledges killed “hundreds of thousands.” Brook even approvingly quotes Winston Churchill, who wrote “the severe ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort…but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.”

Apparently, the threat of what Brook calls “Islamic Totalitarianism” is to be dealt with in the same way as “the Nazi and Japanese imperialist threats,” which were in no small part resolved by “America’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.”

Brook also demonstrates a curious bloodlust when searching for earlier examples of total war that could provide current military strategists with useful examples: “After burning the city of Atlanta, Sherman’s army ravaged much of the rest of Georgia by burning estates; taking food and livestock; and destroying warehouses, crops, and railway lines.”

These efforts were successful not only because they succeeded in “disrupting the supply of provisions to Lee’s army in Virginia” but they made “the war real to the civilian population that was supporting the war from the rear.” This strategy was effective because it “broke the spirit of the men on the front lines, who were now worried and demoralized by what was happening to their homes and their families.”

I served in the U.S. Army for four years, roughly a year of which was in Iraq. Speaking from personal experience I can say that holding the average Iraqi civilian responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime or the insurgency left in his wake is ridiculous. The level of fear of those I talked to (even long after Saddam’s statue was toppled from Firdos Square) was palpable, and the people were still essentially powerless pawns in the hands of an insurgency whose native-to-foreign ratio was never conclusively established. I once asked an Iraqi translator if Iraqis commiserated privately in their homes about Saddam Hussein when he was in power, or if they felt safe speaking negatively about the Sunni strongman behind closed doors.

The interpreter shook his head gravely and responded, “No, because once in a parade, a boy sees Saddam and says, ‘My father, when he sees you on TV, he spits at the TV’ and they take the boy’s father away. So you see, no talking shit about Saddam, even at home.”

Another time, after playing American-rules football with an Iraqi child, I offered to let the boy take the football home, and his father became apoplectic. I didn’t speak Arabic, so a translator had to explain that if other Iraqis saw the boy with an American football (rather than a soccer ball) they would assume his family was friendly with American soldiers or contractors, and the boy’s life and the lives of his family would have been in danger.

Yaron Brook and his hero Ayn Rand (born Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum) might wish to hold the average civilian responsible for the actions of their rulers and their regimes, but those who are asked to pull the trigger or drop the bombs on civilians must live with the consequences of their actions, not leapfrog from hotel ballroom to boardroom to university auditorium, raking in speaking fees, sinecures, and book deals. There is evidence emerging now that even those who do their fighting remotely are grappling with PTSD.

To suggest that we should have resorted to the use of nuclear arms against Iraq because the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan is to ignore many differences between the two conflicts, not the least of which is the disparity between the atrocious acts American POWs were subjected to by the Japanese (see Hidden Horrors and Knights of Bushido) and those comparatively weak propaganda efforts manufactured for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, like that of POW Jessica Lynch or NFL player-turned-ranger Pat Tillman. Japanese soldiers were torturing and eating American prisoners, and their military regime murdered perhaps as many as ten-million people between 1937 and the end of the Second World War; before our invasion, Iraq was a remote Middle Eastern nation that posed no direct threat to the U.S A., notwithstanding phony/hyped intelligence to the contrary. Many geopolitical strategists and politicians believed that Saddam’s Ba’athist regime functioned as a bulwark against the Shia-dominated Iran and that we not only had nothing to gain by intervention, but much to lose. What John Derbyshire said of Colonel Gadhafi could also be said for Saddam, that he was very much the devil-we-knew, and replacing him invited the risk of something worse filling the vacuum.

Regarding the current Zionist idée fixe of Iran, Brook pulls out all the stops, using argumentum ad hitlerum to make his case: “Hitler…was an objective threat to his neighbors. He was a threat as soon as he came to power, and then increasingly so as he built up a military, explicitly rejecting existing treaties with England and France.”

Brook, after lavishing praise on the tactics of Sherman and Churchill, then proceeds to lecture about a “proper morality,” informing the audience that we are not required to “be directly attacked in order to retaliate” (even though retaliation, by definition, is a response to an attack). We should not, he says, “sit idly by as Iran builds nuclear weapons and missile launchers; we need not wait to respond until they have destroyed an American city.” Brook’s proposed solution? “A preemptive strike is justified,” based not only on the actions of other nations, but even the “official statements” of a dictator. The kind of verbal threats that routinely emanate from North Korea or Iran are regarded in the realist school of foreign policy as bluster or passive-aggressive attempts to open new negotiations rather than dire warnings of imminent war (and, considering we haven’t engaged in a round-robin mutual nuclear exchange with Russia or North Korea, the realists have been proven right thus far).

Brook then cements his argument with a specious analogy: “When a …man is making death threats against his wife… [the state] properly throws him in jail — it does not wait until her corpse is found, on the grounds that he might change his mind and not carry out the threat.”

But if Mr. Brook is making the argument that an entire nation should be leveled, and have its earth scorched and its entire population punished based on a dictator’s provocative words, a better analogy would be that a woman calls 9-11 to report that her husband is beating her, and the police promptly destroy every building within a five-block radius of the battered spouse’s apartment building.

What, ultimately, is to account for Yaron Brook’s sociopathy (for there can be no other word for it)? Nouvelle Droite philosopher Alain de Benoist takes aim at Brook and the mentality behind his logic in his work, Carl Schmitt Today: Terrorism, ‘Just’ War, and the State of Emergency. He notes that this Manichean/anti-realist view (animating both the objectivist Brook and to a lesser extent the comparatively moderate neocons) has “a strongly ideological and moral character … [it] rather reminds us of the wars of extermination that are narrated in the Bible” (47).

This is political theology, but, according to de Benoist, it is a “primitive political theology” (47) which does not allow for much gray area or ambivalence, completely antithetical to the kind of accords/ deal-making that our current commander-in-chief prides himself on being able to realize. This rhetoric has its apotheosis in the phrase “‘axis’ of evil’” (47) which is attributed to Bush speechwriter David Frum, but actually has antecedents in a work written by the Israeli-American political scientist Yossef Bodansky.

Alain de Benoist is smart enough to recognize that this political theology has more to do with theology than geopolitical strategy (as Yaron Brook’s duality is too stringent even to fall into the “Hard Wilsonianism” category of neo-conservatism). Benoist misses the mark however, when he places the onus on what has sometimes been called the Protestant deformation. He quotes the Italian jurist Danilo Zolo who observes that a “‘polytheism’ of morals and religious beliefs is systemically denied by the theoreticians of global war. A monotheistic vision of the world-particularly the biblical and ardently Christian one of the present group directing the United States … is opposed to the pluralism and values of the complexity of the world” (47).

I don’t need to tell you how laughable the idea of an “ardently Christian … group directing the United States,” is, especially regarding foreign policy, but it bears pointing out that Monsieur de Benoist perhaps tips his hand in mentioning how this harsh unilateralism reminds one of a secular, modern instantiation of another monotheistic (albeit Old Testament) tradition. Not only isn’t Yaron Brook’s philosophy implicitly Christian (contra De Benoist and Zolo); he is at great pains to slander the Justinian tactics of Just War as fickle “half-measures”. Benoist even seems to acknowledge the fact that it isn’t quite a Christian conspiracy, when he notes that this “new ‘pre-emptive’ strategy borrows from the first its essentially moral conviction … assigned to a chosen nation.” (48) [My emphasis]

Brook’s weltanschauung is not just a matter, however, of believing one has a nigh-on divine mandate to wreak Old Testament wrath on the enemies of Israel in the Middle East. It is the joining of this (self-) righteous political theology with a neurotic constitution that shows how ill-suited Jews are toward making these life-and-death decisions, and how all this posturing of great strength does quite a bit to expose their own weakness, a lassitude that is both moral and intellectual, that relies on force as a first recourse in any interaction with a potential threat.

I usually find the postmodern philosopher Paul Virilio to be the poster boy for the kind of “fashionable nonsense” decried by Alan Sokal in his book of the same name, but he is fundamentally on the mark when Benoist quotes him on “the recourse to preventative war by reference to the omnipresence of fear in the midst of postmodern societies” (48). Virilio observes that “‘preventative war is an act of panic…The preventative war is, in fact, a war lost in advance’” for to “‘attack preventatively proves that one is not sure of oneself…This is a hysterical situation.’” [Emphasis added]

Virilio is right and Brook is wrong, for the simple reason that relying on a toxic blend of emotional fear and paranoia is not the same as pragmatically weighing political realities, parsing haughty rhetoric and sifting hollow bluster for the kernels of actionable, genuine threats. Yaron Brook or William Kristol are quintessential Jewish neurotics whose incessant worrying they conflate with geopolitical theorizing. This irrational obsession might come off as slightly humorous nebbish behavior in someone like Larry David. It stops being funny when a person with this mindset has access to nuclear weapons. And despite all of the handwringing over Donald Trump having access to nuclear codes, I somehow think he’s far less keen or constitutionally-adapted to start World War III than Yaron Brook.

Too much is ultimately at stake for Yaron Brook’s ideas to be anything but terrifying and enraging, no matter what philosophy supposedly undergirds them, or what kind of bona fides are brandished as window dressing on what essentially is the mentality of a sociopath who yearns to cradle the globe in his hand like a hostage, a Judaized globus cruciger.

The Objective Standard and its staff do not enjoy the same kind of establishment imprimatur as the neoconservatives at The Weekly Standard, but if the day comes when Brook’s ideas metastasize into plans that get implemented, it is no hyperbole to say that millions of lives could be lost, and for no good reason. I somehow doubt that would cost Brook so much as a good night’s sleep, but for the kind of young man who joins the military with a set of naïve assumptions (a young man like the one who used to be me), the cost could be quite high, even and perhaps especially if he survives.

Indeed, if those actors currently seeking to undermine Donald Trump in Washington manage to impeach, weaken, or somehow otherwise successfully defenestrate him, that may not only destroy any chance for the implementation of the populist measures that first attracted the White-working class to the dark horse candidate. It may also embolden those Republicans with Randian leanings of their own, who can barely tolerate Trump.


Works Cited:

Benoist, Alain de. Carl Schmitt Today: Terrorism, ‘Just’ War, and the State of Emergency. Arktos, 2013.

Brook, Yaron. “‘Just War Theory’ versus American Self-Defense.” The Objective Standard. vol. 1, no. 1, Spring, 2006. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory/


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

47 Comments to "On Neocons and Neurotics: Yaron Brook and the Folly of Preemption"

  1. Zaida's Gravatar Zaida
    March 25, 2017 - 8:45 am | Permalink

    The main focus should be on Nationalism, not on the endless antisemit litany of Jews being behind all evil.
    Most normal people get put off by over the top antisemitism. Jews are not to blame if the Hutus and Tutsies are hacking each other or the Arab tribes are at each other throats.
    David Duke is going nowhere with his pathological obsession with Jews.
    Nationalism first and foremost!

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      March 25, 2017 - 6:09 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but WHO are the enemies of nationalism of all peoples except of themselves ?

    • Nice Guy Eddie's Gravatar Nice Guy Eddie
      March 25, 2017 - 6:33 pm | Permalink

      Jews may not be to blame for Hutus and Tutsis hacking each other but they are to blame for throwing open our borders so they can come over here and hack us.

      Jews may not be to blame for Arab rivalries but they are to blame for using the West’s military muscle to inflame the situation, encouraging them to hate us.

      The Jews use cultural Marxism and neo-Cohen ideology to destroy, with malice aforethought, the very nationalism you claim to support.

      David Duke’s “pathological obsession” with Jews is simply a reaction to the Jews’ own pathological obsession with destroying White nations.

      May I cordially invite you to go away and do some research on the subject. It might save you from making such a tit of yourself in future.

    • ariadnatheo's Gravatar ariadnatheo
      March 25, 2017 - 6:44 pm | Permalink

      “Nationalism first and foremost!”
      For Goyim too, Zaida? You’d allow it if only we stopped mentioning the Jews?

      • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
        March 26, 2017 - 3:57 am | Permalink

        Precisely, Ariadnatheo, as a”cattle” we simply are not entitled to anything that the “chosen” ones did not bestow on us.

        • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
          March 26, 2017 - 11:45 pm | Permalink

          Alicia, if memory serves, you are Polish, but live in Sweden and do research at some university.

          A week ago the Tel Aviv daily Haaretz, featured an article titled ” Why didn’t the Polish Elite help the Jews more during WW II ? ” In a comment I reminded them that there would have been ca. 22,000 more of the Polish Elite that might have helped them, had they not bestially murdered them in Katyn with their Jew-founded and -lead NKVD. Followed by some remarks about shame when Historians [ Grabowski ] allow themselves to be turned into propagandists, motivated by narcissism, ego and the academia childishness of ‘publish or perish’. First they decapitate your nation in order to enslave it; then they whine that you looked the other way. They are unable to draw a line between even these mere two dots, so close in time and causality. .
          Take care.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 25, 2017 - 7:00 pm | Permalink

      Truth-telling first and foremost.

    • Rabbi High Comma's Gravatar Rabbi High Comma
      March 25, 2017 - 9:36 pm | Permalink

      “Now keep sending those 4 billion shekels goyim”

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 27, 2017 - 3:21 am | Permalink

      Zaida, I wouldn’t speak too loudly yet about the Jews not being involved with the enmity between the majority Hutus and the minority, but socially ” superior ” Tutsies.

      After the reunification of Germany I made friends with a former Major of the STASI. He was second in command of the Ernst Thaelmann Brigade protecting the Communist Party leadership and elite just outside of East Berlin in their very gated community with a garage of forty state Volvos, equipped with the finest Panasonic could offer.

      He had a degree in zoology from the E. German University of Halle and landed, or was steered to a job with the WWF to purportedly reintroduce rhinos to Uganda.

      Ca. 20 years ago, an Irish journalist asserted that the WWF, headed by Prince Philipp then, used its vast and secluded animal reserves for clandestine guerilla training. The Queen owned the majority of Lonrho [ London-Rhodesia ] natural resources, not limited to Rhodesia.

      My friend had married a Tutsie princess of the ruling family of that numerically smaller ruling tribe. He came to Germany about three times: once causing a national incident and being momentarily arrested by the Baden-Wuerttemberg state police for dealing in prohibited ivory.

      The Director of the Basel Zoo was in the habit of signing death certificates for rhinos and other animals ostensibly having died in captivity; making their ivory legal.

      My friend’s rhino horn, worth ca. $ 300,000 as an aphrodisiac in the far east disappeared through false identification from his large deposit box at the Deutsche Bank in Ueberlingen: which started the avalanche. It had been poached but fraudulently certified in Basel.

      One night friends and I got him a little drunk in order to elicit certain information. I asked him point blank whether Schalck-Golodkowski, a holocaust survivor and four more in his criminal gang, was also leaning on the zoo directors of East-German Leipzig and East Berlin to falsify such certificates to participate in this lucrative smuggling operation.

      His instantly sober, angry look confirmed my suspicions. Soviet authorities were already looking for these five Jews in Dresden in 1953 for ‘crimes against the economy’. [ It should be noted, that Putin was stationed there as a KGB Officer, who certainly would have had his fingers in this dragnet ].

      The Ernst Thaelmann Brigade was not only STASI but also paramilitary, closely controlled and surveilled by the Minister of State Security Mielke and his third in command, the Jew Markus Wolf. I strongly suspect my late friend to have trained the Tutsies militarily and to have supplied them with weapons from former East German inventory.

      Schalk-Golodkowski advanced to trusted member of the inner party circle and was mandated to accumulate, by whatever method, needed foreign exchange. His criminal imagination and methods to the detriment of West Germany are legion. In the tens, if not hundreds of millions.

      My educated guess, given all of the above, is that Jews were indeed involved in Rwanda, in their financial divide and conquer interest; as they are even today, especially in ” blood diamonds “.

      Gold, sapphires, tungsten for weapons manufacture, and the ” conflict mineral ” coltan for ALL electronic devices. Sound familiar ? The upper caste Tutsies in all probability wanted to retain control over these resources, but were defeated by those out for an immediate shekel. Of course China is present as well now, but likely observant of the land titles bought at a discount during the period under discussion here.

      So, Zaida, your sarcasm about Jews, Tutsies and Hutus don’t work none too good no more !

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        March 28, 2017 - 5:00 am | Permalink

        In other words, the ruling Tutsies minority had to be bolstered in their war-making ability against the rebellious majority Hutus, who, due to their overpowering majority won and repaid with mining rights.

        A not previously unheard of formula.

  2. Gayle Parker's Gravatar Gayle Parker
    March 25, 2017 - 9:57 am | Permalink

    More young Americans will die unnecessarily if forced to fight wars with hands tied behind their backs. Yaron Brook is right. First name the enemy then impliment a strong defense.

    • Peter's Gravatar Peter
      March 25, 2017 - 3:56 pm | Permalink

      You are either a Jew or completely ignorant. Maybe both. I suggest you read David Irving’s Churchill’s War” and Patrick Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”.
      Mr. Irving details how wealthy Jews paid Winston Churchill to start a war with Germany and how Hitler was repeatedly trying to make peace while Churchill was lying, saying Germany wanted to conquer Britain. Buchanan writes how Germany did not want a war with Britain and how Churchill destroyed their empire. You might also want to do some reading on the west’s big ally, the USSR. Jews created and led that gov’t that murdered millions of Christians while pre-war Germany had little violence.

      Russian President Putin on the Jew’s domination of the murderous USSR

      John F Kennedy’s diary is being published. Here are some snippets. Writing from Germany in 1945 on Adolf Hitler he says ‘You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived,’ and ‘He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.’.


      Unfortunately Germany had too many enemies to win and the Atlantic Ocean separating it from the USA. IF you’re an American, I can only say that if we fight again I hope we have the advantage you had in WW II and your descendants are among the first obliterated.

      • Alicia's Gravatar Alicia
        March 26, 2017 - 4:29 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the links, Peter.

      • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
        March 28, 2017 - 10:02 am | Permalink

        Hitler engaged in reckless brinkmanship, constantly pushing the envelope, taking the Ruhrland, Czechoslovakia, and finally the Danzig corridor, until it blew up in his face when England and France declared war against him. By the way, it was the Chamberlain government, and not a Churchill government, that declared war on Germany. Hitler didn’t want a war with England at the time, but he provoked one.

        The German occupation of Poland, in close coordination with Germany’s ally, Soviet Russia, showed that Hitler already had further aggressive plans and was going to continue his brinkmanship.

        It’s a lot easier to start a war than to end it. This is the same lesson Jefferson David learned when he took the cataclysmal step of attacking Fort Sumter.

        I have every good feeling toward Germany and hope they solve their Muslim problem. But, Germany brought its World War II calamity on itself. Incidentally, you spoke the the many enemies Germany had. One of the most significant enemies was the United States. But recall it was Germany that declared war on the United States. It is quite possible that had Germany not declared war on the US, the US would have officially stayed out of the European war.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      March 25, 2017 - 6:42 pm | Permalink

      The enemy is JIM- Jewish International Mafia [includes Brook, Journo, and the Ayn Rand Institute] [and Dr. Peikoff who fell into “Objectivism” cuz his cousin was Barbara Branden] Here Peikoff calls for attacking Iran when O’Reilly was young:


      • March 25, 2017 - 7:39 pm | Permalink

        In the Q&A of Peikoff’s Why Ancient Greece is My Favorite Civilization, he answered a question about Judaism, calling it “PRIMITIVE SAVAGERY, which it is.”

        I remember having to pick my jaw up off the ground. That Q & A is now removed.

    • Ben's Gravatar Ben
      March 25, 2017 - 11:37 pm | Permalink

      can you loan me some shekels, Gayle?

    • Joe Jones's Gravatar Joe Jones
      March 26, 2017 - 11:14 am | Permalink

      Why not keep the Muslims out? Yaron is a jewish supremeciast when it comes to israels immigration policy.

  3. Gayle Parker's Gravatar Gayle Parker
    March 25, 2017 - 10:32 am | Permalink

    I suggest this book for a completely rational approach advocating global human flourishing and how to end war. ‘Winning The Unwinnable War’ by Elan Journo and Yaron Brook.

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      March 27, 2017 - 5:23 am | Permalink

      Gayle Parker,

      “I suggest this book for a completely rational approach”

      1967 Context

      3. Such differing Jewish historians as Jacob Neusner, Deborah Lipstradt, and Norman Finkelstein all note the significance of the Jewish victory in the Arab-Israeli war in establishing the Holocaust Memorial Movement. Journalist Judith Miller agrees: “… there was nothing inherently exploitative in the Jewish push for monuments, memorials, and public tributes in the period of their most intensive suffering. But the linkage of the Holocaust with campaigns to raise money and enhance support for the State of Israel marked the beginning of serious abuse and misuse of the Holocaust…. American Jews discovered that the Holocaust could be used as a weapon not only for garnering sympathy at home, but also for insisting on unquestioning support for Israel abroad.”

      From “Jewish Eugenics” by John Glad, 2011

      • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
        March 28, 2017 - 9:21 am | Permalink

        Unfortunately, Israel is setting up a dynamic that will harm it seriously in the long run.

        By trading on the Holocaust, Israel lessens the discussion on Israel’s own merits as a relatively free, democratic, stable state providing protection to it’s people. Since US support of Israel is based on emotion, rather than rational self-interest, as soon as the emotion dissipates, or is replaced by other emotions, US support for Israel will vanish.

        You can already see the tensions in the far-left mainstream Jewish organizations as they attempt to reconcile their dedication to cultural Marxism with their support for Israel.

        For the record, I think it is important for the US to shield Israel from the organized international sanctions and boycotts organized by the left-Muslim coalition. But, it is not necessary, or desirable, that the US provide massive (or any) foreign aid to Israel, or take military responsibility for protecting Israel, which is quite capable of both supporting itself and protecting itself.

  4. joe six pack's Gravatar joe six pack
    March 25, 2017 - 12:18 pm | Permalink

    1.3 million deaths as the result of America’s War on Terror.
    Titled “Body Count,” 101 pages from a detailed account by Physicians for Social Responsibility.


    Are we any safer?
    Have all the Muslims slapped their forehead and said, “Now I see where we were so wrong. We give up. We will just pray quietly.”
    Or are we in more danger because we are led by a Hostile Elite who care not a whit for Whites. So they use our boys to stir up the WASP nest and then encourage more WASP immigration? (Here… WASP=Muslim).

  5. Peter G.'s Gravatar Peter G.
    March 25, 2017 - 2:58 pm | Permalink

    If the dream of a Greater Israel is ever to be realised it will require ethnic cleansing on a colossal scale. The saturation bombing of Iraq was bound to be attractive to one like Yaron Brook.

  6. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    March 25, 2017 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

    That Jews play such a big role in fomenting the violence against Trump and everything else they oppose while there is no Japanese or German around that will knock all that Jews teeth out is a problem. I didn’t read the whole article. I don’t want to. But I read enough.

    • Luke's Gravatar Luke
      March 26, 2017 - 3:24 am | Permalink

      I thought the article started out pretty well, but then wandered off into the wilderness and had me struggling (and yawning) to reach the end.

      Zeroing in on this mentally insane, blood thirsty jewish psychopath Yaron Brook and exposing him for the monster in waiting that he surely is – could have been done for more effectively with this article cut in half.

      Nevertheless, Yaron Brook bears keeping a very sharp eye on.

  7. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 25, 2017 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Japanese mistreatment of Allied POW’s is substantiated and well-documented. The figure of ten million Asians “murdered” by the Japanese, however, seems fanciful. The Nanking Massacre, for example, most likely never happened (see #8 & 9 of the attached). One wonders whether the Tokyo Trials weren’t imbued with the same spirit of justice that prevailed at Nuremberg.

  8. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    March 25, 2017 - 6:25 pm | Permalink

    On the justifiable death of “innocents”, Jewish paranoia, Iran (2008!) and Old Testament morality:

  9. Nice Guy Eddie's Gravatar Nice Guy Eddie
    March 25, 2017 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    I for one would like to thank Yaron Brook for spelling it out for us stupid goyim: we must be ruthless and there can be no half measures.

    What we must be ruthless with, of course, is not “Islamic Totalitarianism” – to equate the relative feebleness of ISIS with the military might of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is beyond ridiculous – but Jewish power in the West and Israeli aggression in the middle-east.

    The real war, the only war that matters, is the Jewish war being waged on White, Western nations. If we lose that war, a war most people don’t even understand is being fought, then we lose everything.

    Our primary objective is to expose the Jews for what they are – an evil, parasitic race hell-bent on our destruction – and send them all back to Israel (here at least we can agree with that nice Mr. Netanyahu).

    Once they are all in one place again we can start talking seriously about a “ruthless bombing” campaign.

    • March 26, 2017 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Yes. I think Krauthammer said something about ruthless killing etc. They presumably feel invulnerable, but one must wonder about the long-term wisdom of Jews saying their puppets must be ruthless.

    • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
      March 28, 2017 - 9:04 am | Permalink

      You’re totally loony. Not to mention pathologically homicidal.

      Israel has a relatively few number of Jews, compared to the populations of most countries. The arguments concerning territory are over a few lots in the occupied territories, or water rights with countries like Jordan, which are pretty friendly with Israel anyway. Israel couldn’t take over the Middle East even if they wanted to: they just wouldn’t have the population.

      I agree, however, that the threat of ISIS could be eliminated simply by not admitting any immigrants from the areas where ISIS exists: or where Muslims exist. ISIS is going to be defeated anyway, because the local Syrian government teamed up with Russia to protect its own territory. US intervention is not required at all.

  10. March 25, 2017 - 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Like buying time shares with televangelists, many white nerds dumped their life savings into the (((Ayn Rand Institute.))) Yaron Brook milked it at ARI for $415,000 per year. Of the $572,000 administrative expenses, he devoured 72% of it. No wonder Ayn Rand’s ideas went nowhere.


    Robert Tracinski continues to shill for the neocons, as well. You would think he would have learned something, but his hatred of the white race is proof objectivism is not a rational philosophy….and is doomed like communism.

    Open borders Objectivism demands bombing non-whites over there, so they come over here. You can’t win at whack-a-mole.

  11. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    March 25, 2017 - 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Germany was hated for one prime reason- it had a monetary system not under jewish control.

    Iran is one of the very few countries not having a jew-controlled central bank. Therefore “Iran Must Perish.”

    • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
      March 26, 2017 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

      And the second reason was Germany’s social policies. Parliament forbade the further docking of ‘ Kraft durch Freude ‘ [ Strength through Joy ] liners who brought German common folk to GB as tourists.

      Where are your children ? In free kindergarten ! How can you afford this trip as a teacher ? It’s subsidized ! How can you afford time off ? Oh, I get two weeks paid vacation – twice a year ! Where do you live ? In our own home with healthy hot water heat, centrally supplied. I pay a nominal interest rate on a low mortgage; the purchase price itself reduced by a considerable proportion because we have two children !

      Naturally we had to be knocked off ‘en masse’, to avoid the spreading of this virus into GB’s hinterland, and oh my god, to America.

      Not only ” Iran Must Perish “, to allude, as you do, to the famous book by the NY Jew Kaufman [ Merchant ]: ” Germany must Perish “, ready for printing in 1940, PRIOR to the construction of Auschwitz-Birkenau; but Gaddafi and his regional currency went for the same reason, through Goldman Sachs’ Hillary.

      The Jewish-initiated and lead Fed. churns out dollars without stop. To disallow a too rapid world-growth of dollars, diluting its value, all countries had to buy the dollar from the NY Fed for an unearned commission to settle with oil producing states. Saddam changed to the Euro which lead to and oversupply of dollars: and settled his fate. That’s what happened to the fellow who received poison-gas missiles from France and GB at the behest of glad-handing, smiling Rumsfeld to war on Iran.

      Furthermore, a retired former head of Germany’s BND [ CIA ], stated on Canadian TV, that parts of Yugoslavia were attacked in order to force them into the IMF and World Bank. Yes, that IMF to which Truman appointed Harry Dexter White [ Weiss ] of Bretton Woods conference infamy, as head, FOUR WEEKS AFTER HOOVER HAD INFORMED TRUMAN, THAT WEISS WAS A SOVIET SPY: most likely after an [[[ intercepted }}} written communication.

      Mahathir Mohamad, PM of Malaysia, would have been the next corpse, had he not lost an election. He founded the 56-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation., with its proposed own monetary and economic union. In his case, messaging with the downing of two airlines sufficed; with the bonus of sweeping the second one before Putin’s door where it was downed, after re-direction northwards, off its regular route by air traffic control in Dnipropetrovsk, capital of the province of the same name, governed by the Kiev-appointed Jew multi-billionaire, Igor Kolomoyskyi, as provincial governor, holding three citizenships. Those of Ukraine, Cyprus and Israel, while the Constitution forbids even dual citizenship: but, as this Jewish intellect puts it : NOT THREE !

      After Soros stole 15% off the ringlit currency value, MH called him a dirty Jewish little speculator, which made it around the globe in seconds.

      The next time I go fishing I shall take my college history texts with me and finally put them to use: to start a cooking fire.

      • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
        March 27, 2017 - 4:58 am | Permalink

        Expand on this comment and it would make an excellent essay. As is I found it more interesting than the feature.

  12. Rabbi High Comma's Gravatar Rabbi High Comma
    March 25, 2017 - 9:32 pm | Permalink

    He’s a jew. Jews want more land – i.e. “Greater Israel”. Less Arabs makes that easier. He’d prefer the dumb shabbos goyim use their blood and treasure towards that end, without jews garnering the hatred of the survivors.

    Not sure this long article was necessary. When a jew talks assume they are trying to manipulate you into doing their will. You will rarely be wrong.

  13. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    March 26, 2017 - 12:38 am | Permalink

    Also another issue, a little bit out of place. Jews donate a lot — to Jewish interests. White donate a lot — mainly against White interests, like third world relief and whatever. It would be good to publicize that it is a waste of resources by pointing our that it is wasted and doesn’t actually do what they say. This is one bit of keeping resources within Whites.

  14. Amasius's Gravatar Amasius
    March 26, 2017 - 2:39 am | Permalink

    Judaism is terrorism.

  15. Mark Martinson's Gravatar Mark Martinson
    March 26, 2017 - 7:20 am | Permalink

    Yaron would rather kill millions of Muslims instead of keeping them out. Strange man.

  16. helvena's Gravatar helvena
    March 26, 2017 - 8:58 am | Permalink

    Good article and to this I couldn’t agree more, “It is the joining of this (self-) righteous political theology with a neurotic constitution that shows how ill-suited Jews are toward making these life-and-death decisions” Perhaps yaron is telling us, subconsciously, what he would do to answer the jewish question.

  17. Mark's Gravatar Mark
    March 26, 2017 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

    A minor correction. Yaron Brook hasn’t been associated with The Objective Standard since 2010. Before that he was one of the contributing editors.

    A major correction. The article refers to “Republicans with Randian leanings.” What Republicans would that be? Don’t be misled by newspapers stories. The closest, but still distant, would be Dave Brat and Donald Trump.

    As the article notes, Brook is the president of the “Ayn Rand Institute” – which I place in quotes because that’s what it calls itself. It was created after her death, and they are just profiting on her reputation.

    There is considerable evidence that one of the ARI’s board members and their largest financial supporter is a former leader in the Church of Scientology. Read about it at  Who is Carl Barney?

    • RonaldB's Gravatar RonaldB
      March 28, 2017 - 8:51 am | Permalink


      I’m very familiar with the works of Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged most of all. I know of nothing she wrote justifying the mass slaughter of people in other countries, particularly as an optional preventive measure. I believe Ayn Rand would have supported strong borders and withdrawing from any global or international organizations, but she would have left other people alone to work out their own destinies.

      If Israel decides it’s in Israel’s vital interests to bomb Iran, Israel should do so on its own, without US military support. I’m not against Israel; quite the contrary. But, any decision to attack another country should be made with full appreciation of the consequences, without the US interceding. If Israel believes Iran is likely to launch a nuclear attack on its own, Israel is 100% morally justified in bombing Iran, civilian population and all. But this would be a case of fighting for their survival, rather than the influence chess game favored by neocons.

      • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
        March 29, 2017 - 11:00 am | Permalink

        From Atlas [1957]:

        You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe.

        About the Rand Cult- I think it started in 1958 with the “Nathaniel Branden Institute.” [Natan Blumenthal]

        No NBI, no cult.

  18. Fenria's Gravatar Fenria
    March 26, 2017 - 3:26 pm | Permalink

    “argumentum ad hitlerum” I’m so using this!

    Indeed, from the PNAC agenda of the Bush years to present day, Jews have been beating the preemptive war drum that always seems to read as, “We tell you Christian goyim whom to make war with, and you go do it.” It’s gotten so threadbare that even the hollowhead communists on the left are seeing through it. What worries me though, is as you said, it matter not what populations think when madmen have the ear of the King.

  19. March 27, 2017 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    “And despite all of the handwringing over Donald Trump having access to nuclear codes, I somehow think he’s far less keen or constitutionally-adapted to start World War III than Yaron Brook.”

    Funny, isn’t it, how so many of those hysterically reacting to the thought of Trump having access to nuclear codes are themselves proponents of endless wars and saber-rattling against Russia. And countless people fall for their act!

  20. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    March 28, 2017 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Randian objectivist/rational egoist outlet

    This writer, unlike some others at TOO in the past, knows what he’s writing about. A dead giveaway that the writer doesn’t know what he’s writing about is when he refers to either Ayn Rand or her illicit disciple Yaron Brook as “libertarians.” Neither are.

  21. traducteur's Gravatar traducteur
    March 29, 2017 - 5:24 am | Permalink

    Dang goyim, no matter how many of them we kill, there are always more of them afterward than there were before. That glorious vision of a goyimrein Jewish state seems to recede before us like a mirage. Clearly, what we need is a more efficient way of exterminating them. Maybe a few thermonuclear bombs would do the trick.

  22. Old Ez's Gravatar Old Ez
    March 29, 2017 - 1:12 pm | Permalink

    All of his arguments apply mutatis mutandis to the Jews vis-a-vis gentiles. Objectively, the existence of Jewish identity poses a grave threat to all non-Jews. Therefore, non-Jews not only have a right, but an obligation, to totally extirpate Jewishness from the earth. If his arguments are valid, that is.

Comments are closed.