Is Rand Relevant?

People should take care not to confuse the Ayn Rand Institute with Ayn Rand's early work and attitudes. I have a deep appreciation for Ayn Rand. The ARI and Yaron? Not at all. Even Ayn Rand isn't the same through out her life, people change, and I can respect that. But it was her early epiphanies and the brilliant way she brought them to life with her writing and other work...that I admire most. Later on, she expressed some views that in my opinion were a little inconsistent, but that's OK. We are just human after all, and her early work more then makes up for it. On the other hand, ARI and crew, in my opinion are just riding her coattails, and have nothing of value to offer.

http://ariwatch.com/

http://ariwatch.com/TheMoralCaseForSupportingIsrael.htm

The reporter quotes Mr. Brook directly: “Israel represents the core values that the Institute is fighting for – freedom and individual rights. We believe that you have to care about Israel if you care about Western values.”

ARI, though originally set up to promote Ayn Rand’s philosophy, after 9-11 began publishing article after article in support of Israel. Here is a sample from dozens of titles:

# We Are All Israelis Now
# Allowing Israel to Destroy the PLO Helps Defend the U.S.
# We Are Either With Israel, Or We Are With the Terrorists
# Israel’s Enemies Are America’s Enemies
# Why Israel Must Not Withdraw
# The Palestinian Victims?
# Israel Has a Moral Right to Its Life

http://ariwatch.com/RelentlessPropaganda.htm

Why We Are Losing the War on Terrorism – Yaron Brook, interviewed on the Peter Mac radio show, Sept. 6, 2002.
The interviewer points out that “the United States now seems to be gearing up for an attack against Iraq.” Mr. Brook replies:
“I think it is important that we go after Iraq.”
Then after saying, “as a side note,” Iran should be “our primary source” – that is, target:
“I think Saddam Hussein backs terrorism, as a tool to get at the United States.”
In fact Saddam Hussein never backed an attack against the United States. Then after saying that “the only way to [“attack the ideology ... of militant Islam”] is to attack the center of that ideology, which is Iran” Mr. Brook continues:
“But I don’t think the Bush administration is ready to do that [attack Iran], so given that they’re not going to do that, then I think Iraq is a good target. I think that there’s substantial evidence that Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction. [Comment: There was no objective evidence.] I don’t think there’s any question about his willingness to use those kind of weapons against the United States [Comment: It was extraordinarily questionable.] and against its allies, particularly Israel. Uh, so I think we need to take care of that risk before it manifests itself in a direct attack against the United States. ...”
The interviewer suggests different ways of removing Saddam Hussein. Mr. Brook replies:
“... we need to take him out and how we do it is kind of secondary ... what President Bush should be telling his people is: Get rid of him, tell me what the best ... way of doing it is, and let’s go ahead and do it. And if that means a massive invasion then so be it. ...”

http://ariwatch.com/Torture.htm

ARI is of two minds about the U.S. torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the torture of prisoners “rendered” by the U.S. for the purpose to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Singapore, Thailand, and Pakistan. People at ARI deny that this torture exists, and make self-righteous noises against anyone who says it does. And they say the U.S. ought to torture, in order to help wage the War on Terrorism. I do not explain the contradiction, merely point it out.