Response to the November 6th Ayn Rand Club event with Dr. Yaron Brook has featured much back-and-forth in the New University. In addition to two news stories [1, 2], it has run a couple op-eds [1, 2], the first of which was written by Paul Backus, who also wrote one of the news stories. The newspaper has also printed letters to the editor about the event [1, 2].
Asked to respond to the criticism, Eric Brunner, president of the Ayn Rand Club at UCI, clarified his position and discussed the recent articles in an e-mail:
My event was a total success. It was a success because about 170 attended, and those who disrupted my event where escorted out and/or arrested by the police. I was interviewed by UCI’s campus newspaper and had two articles about my event in the paper last week, and I have three articles relating to my event this week. It is laughable to say that the U.S. should attack Iran preemptively. Iran has declared war on us long ago. It started with the takeover of the American embassy in Iran in 1979 and the holding of American hostages for 444 days. They have been involved with the murder of marines in Beirut in 1983 and the bombing of Americans at the Khobar Towers in 1996 and have supported or have been involved in other attacks against Americans. For years government-sponsored rallies have chanted “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is a major inspiration for Islamists all over the world. The U.S. government and others know that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah, the insurgency in Iraq, and other groups, all of which support the murder of Westerners, including Israelis. I fully agree with Dr. Brook that we must defend ourselves from Iran.
Brunner also responded to the Muslim Student Union’s comments to CampusJ, which called the Ayn Rand Club a “fringe group.”
I am not sure how much credibility the person you quoted has if she criticizes a lecture she didn’t attend. Such a person does not have a legitimate voice. Dr. Brook does not advocate murder; he stated explicating at the lecture that he is only for retaliatory force. Dr. Brook didn’t speak about race. Ayn Rand and Objectivists have written extensively against racism and the initiation of force. Real Muslims do hold human life or this world as sacred, Muslims hold Allah and the afterlife as sacred. The purpose of the talk wasn’t a lesson on Islam or Muslims, it was on presenting the fact that some people want to kill us, and we should defend ourselves. These are objective facts. I have yet to see Muslim students seriously condemn terrorism. I have yet to see Muslims students agree that there are Islamists in the world who want to kill Americans, and that Americans should defend their lives.
“explicating” should be “explicitly”
I am not the American they want to kill… Even if I was… what do you say to the American who doesn’t identify with your statements. Or, like me and many like me, Identifies with his fellow American but not with this American you talk about. Many Americans I identify with simply do not want to be told to do anything, furthermore, very few Americans feel threatened by you and your fear mongering simply because they don’t believe you. Even when I watch you videos, read your comics and transcripts, I don’t believe that what they want to kill is who I am.
What I do believe is that you and people like you wish to spread fear and terrorize your fellow American, nay, I wouldn’t even call you American, you are an outside force, in order to gain some recognition and power. Your club is a petty group, there is no doubt in that, but your message you will continue to spout because of the little power and recognition it affords you.
As for CampusJ, I won’t tell you what to do. But, just because this man spouts something you like to hear is no reason to feed his fire of fear mongering, giving him the attention he craves. He should be treated like the crazy christians who speak on Ring Mall, throw him scraps of your attention as you pass him by and return to your studies.
I’m done with this topic.
Eric,
That was a very good reply and I’m glad to see your efforts are producing your intended results. I agree fully with your view on this issue.
Patrick’s comments are a desperate, hostile attempt to assert falsehood. It won’t take long, however, for anybody who examines the issue objectively and critically to see who’s ideas are truly the “petty” ones.
Hi Patrick. Thank you for taking the time to comment. The reason I wanted Eric Brunner to clarify his position is not because I agree or disagree with him. I don’t characterize myself as an objectivist or a follower or Ayn Rand. To be honest, however, my views are not relavant to the discussion at hand because, as a journalist for CampusJ, I simply present the news as objectively as possible. My role is to get all sides of the story — The MSU, the New University, Eric Brunner — they have all had something to say about the Dr. Yaron Brook event. The controversy with the Ayn Rand Club is indeed news because so many people have been writing about it. If you look at my earlier posts, you will see that I’ve been making every effort to to present objective news to readers and to interview all parties who have an opinion. It doesn’t matter what the event or the topic I am writing about is. If a party has a view on something, I would love to show their view to my readers.
I appreciate it when readers take the time to comment to my posts. Disagreeing is wonderful. Discussion is great! You don’t have to agree with the person I’ve interviewed and it is perfectly reasonable for you to respond to his comments. Please also keep in mind that just because I’ve interviewed a person, does not mean that they reflect my views or the views of CampusJ. Please contact me with any further questions or comments, and feel free to respond to any postings.
I feel that, to some extent you are correct Cohen. I don’t blame you or campusj in anyway for what is happening, you are responding to a culture here at UCI, I see that now, the NewU shouldn’t have ever reported on this, it simply wasn’t newsworthy. However, your coverage of a response is a bit more newsworthy. That doesn’t mean I think it is right to give this issue undue attention.
As to dimon, there is nothing hostile or false about what I said. However, and I mean this to cause no offense, you either need to reanalyze the meaning of petty or what I said. I said the group is petty. It is insignificant, it is a small following of a not-all-to-prominent philosopher/theologer that died years ago. In that sense it is petty. Its ideas are abviously not petty, they are grand in their intention, petty in their scope. My ideas? I didn’t really give any of my ideas. I gave some of my thoughts on this issue when I saw a comment section. As Eric knows too well, I am addicted to comment sections. My thoughts are inherently petty, as petty as this article… but we are all here arn’t we? At least three of us?
Reut, your comments are right on the money!
“Real Muslims do hold human life or this world as sacred, Muslims hold Allah and the afterlife as sacred.”
Is there a correction to be made in the article, the last quote? I thought it should go as follows:
Real Muslims do [not] hold human life or this world as sacred, Muslims hold Allah and the afterlife as sacred.