It's been a month since I've launched this
channel, and I think it's time I said something
about my intentions.
What prompted me to become a youtuber was
the intellectual awakening that I witnessed
happening on YouTube, particularly in response
to the rise of what is now being called the
"regressive left".
I've been following this new awakening for
a while, but it felt to me that something
was missing.
The existing YouTube channels are doing a
very good job at criticizing, debunking and
ridiculing the regressive left, but there's
not much effort being put into trying to formulate
a truly liberal alternative, a coherent set
of values that is up-to-date with the realities
of today.
The regressive left has twisted and perverted
liberal concepts to the point where they turned
against themselves, and even true liberals
are now confused by them and don't know which
values they should uphold.
My background is in philosophy, and I intend
to use this background to attempt to untangle
the mess that leftist thought has become,
and help put us on steady ground again.
In this video, I chose to criticize Sargon
of Akkad, one of the leading intellectual
voices in this new movement to save liberalism.
Sargon is most famous for his show 'This Week
in Stupid', in which he presents a weekly
review of everything stupid in today's Western
spirit, more than 90% of which coming from
the regressive left.
The show is the best and most comprehensive
introduction to the detestable ideals and
tactics of the regressive left, and is also
highly entertaining to watch.
But that means that Sargon's videos, by nature,
are focused on the negative.
He does not present a fleshed out worldview
that will provide a positive alternative.
He generally says that he believes in the
ideals of classical liberalism, but he doesn't
spend much time elaborating on how these ideals
should manifest themselves in today's world.
When he does make counter arguments, I find
them to be incomplete, bogged down by incorrect
language, and occasionally self-contradictory.
Which is fine because, as I said, his channel
is dedicated to exposing the regressive left,
not to thinking beyond that.
But I think the time has come that we do take
that extra step, and make a more concentrated
effort to say not just what is wrong with
today's left, but also what today's left should
be about.
In this video I'm going to discuss a couple
of examples where I think Sargon's argument
are not completely thought out, and I hope
it will help us make a clearer argument.
In the past few months, Sargon has been focusing
mainly on the refugee crisis in Europe, particularly
on how the regressive left is stifling any
attempts to have an honest discussion on the
issue.
One of the things that he is most annoyed
at is the regressives' refusal to criticize
the retrograde attitudes held by these refugees,
a refusal which is driven by two regressive
ideas: first, the idea that the refugees are
an oppressed minority group so any criticism
of their culture is a form of bigotry; second,
the idea that morality is a relative thing,
so we have no right to criticize the customs
of another culture even if we perceive them
as immoral.
In his video titled 'Attitudes within the
Refugee Crisis', Sargon had this to say about it.
Ok, this is the first thing that 
I want to talk about.
Sargon has repeatedly attacked cultural relativism,
describing it as a regressive left notion
that is preventing us from defending the rights
of minorities in Muslim societies.
I, on the other hand, consider myself a cultural
relativist.
What I am not, is a moral relativist.
And I think that this is a much more useful
position to hold, whereas denouncing cultural
relativism, as Sargon does, will lead you
to positions I'm not sure you want to subscribe
to.
First of all, when you say that you're not
a cultural relativist, that usually means
that you think that your culture is the right
culture, and all the other cultures are wrong.
But that's not actually Sargon's position,
as we've heard in this segment.
He believes that there's a hierarchy, in which
some cultures are better than others.
For instance, that Western culture is better
than the cultures in North African countries.
But that raises questions: was it also better
in the first half of the twentieth century,
when it was responsible for two world wars,
totalitarianism, the Holocaust and weapons
of mass destruction?
Are you sure that it's not going to go crazy
again in the future, and be worse than others?
If we start creating cultural hierarchies,
they might be abused by forces who want to
impose their culture on others.
That's not something we should be doing as
liberals.
Finally, culture is not just moral values.
If you say that your culture is better, you
are basically saying that your food is better,
your music is better, your manners are better,
etc.
I don't think that this is really the position
that Sargon or most of us want to be in.
What Sargon does actually mean, I believe,
is that he is not a moral relativist.
The moral relativist argument is basically
that morality is a social construct, so every
culture has the morality that is suitable
for it, and therefore you should not impose
your moral code on another culture.
The moral absolutist, on the other hand, would
say no.
Morality is universal.
It only manifests itself differently in every
culture, but if we follow the logic of every
culture's moral values, we will find that
they are all based the same set of fundamental
moral laws.
Laws like 'thou shall not murder', 'thou shall
not rape', 'thou shall not steal', 'thou shall
not betray' and so forth are the basis of
every moral code, and we can actually reduce
them all to one fundamental moral law: 'Thou
shall not cause unjustified suffering'.
This is what morality is about: not causing
suffering, unless it is justified.
And the only moral justification for causing
suffering is if it is the only way to prevent
greater suffering.
And this is also what explains why different
cultures have different moral codes: the internal
logic of their culture leads them to believe
that certain acts that cause suffering are
necessary to prevent something worse, and
therefore justified.
So if for instance you would ask someone why
their culture bans homosexuality, thus causing
suffering to its gay people, they will probably
answer that homosexuality has a corrupting
effect on society.
If you inquire why that is bad, they will
probably reply that a corrupt society eventually
loses its social order.
If you further inquire why this is bad, they
will probably say that in social disorder
there is more crime.
And if you ask why that is bad, they will
say that more crime produces more suffering.
And after that, there is no need to inquire
any further.
We all agree that preventing greater suffering
is what morality is about.
Let's take a monumental crime like the Holocaust.
Why did the Germans feel they had a right
to kill Jews?
Because they believed they were acting in
self-defense, convinced that the Jews were
conspiring to destroy their society and take
over the world.
So, you see, even the Nazis actually obeyed
universal morality, believing that they are
preventing a greater evil.
Which brings us to the question: how can we
condemn them?
If the beliefs of their culture led them to
conclude that the Jews were a danger to them,
how can we say that the Nazis committed an
immoral crime?
Well, let's think of a case when someone kills
someone else, and claims he did in self-defense.
Will we just accept it?
No, we will investigate to see whether he
had reasonable grounds to believe that the
other person presented a danger to him.
The same thing goes for WWII Germans.
When we investigate their beliefs about the
Jews, we see that they were based on falsehoods,
and furthermore, that applying reason to the
information that they had should have revealed
to them that these were falsehoods.
Therefore, what they did was a crime.
And this is how you deal with what you perceive
as immoral ideas and customs of another culture:
you attack them with reason.
When talking to someone from that culture,
don't tell them that their culture is inferior,
but ask of them to explain why they think
they have the right to do these things that
cause suffering.
If they reply that this is the morality of
their culture, don't let them get away with
it: if it's their culture, they should be
able to defend it rationally.
And once they start using rational arguments,
they are in the realm of reason, in which
their views can be criticized and dismantled.
If we go back to the example of those who
claim that homosexuality corrupts society,
ask of them to provide proof for that claim,
and then you can use logic and empirical evidence
to undermine their argument.
Now some people won't listen to reason, and
in their case you'd better not waste any time
arguing with them, but most people are reasonable,
and most people are moral.
So if you demonstrate to someone that a certain
idea or custom that they have cannot be reasonably
defended as moral, they will be driven to
change.
They can either decide that their culture
sucks and choose to leave it, or they can
reinterpret its core values in a way that
is still faithful to it and also consistent
with morality.
In any case, it will be an improvement.
In summation, cultural relativism is a liberal
idea, to counter cultural supremacy.
It basically says that no culture is superior
to other, and every culture has the capability
of being moral.
One culture may be more moral than the other
at a given time, but that doesn't mean that
there's something inherently wrong with the
latter, and that it can't improve.
But the regressive left has expanded the notion
of cultural relativism and took it too far,
into the realm of moral relativism.
In moral relativism, you no longer demand
of every culture to be moral, because you
believe you have no right to determine what
morality is.
They have perverted leftist thought by claiming
that this is what cultural relativism actually
is, and Sargon, by using the same definition,
is unwittingly helping them.
This is what I want to fix, because this is
where I believe liberals should make their
stand.
Liberals should uphold the idea that morality
is universal and above any culture, and every
culture must adhere to it.
Doesn't matter which country you come from,
doesn't matter if you are religious or atheist,
you should always interpret the tenets of
your culture in the way that is most consistent
with fundamental moral laws.
This position, I believe, is the most effective
in fighting against retrograde ideas and customs.
Now, elsewhere in the video, while discussing
evidence that the migrants are responsible
for a spike in sexual crimes in Europe, Sargon
says this:
The attitudes and opinions that the migrants
have towards women is what Sargon, understandably,
focuses on most of all.
In another video that he made titled 'Sweden's
Rape Culture', Sargon opened by saying this:
Well, which is it, Sargon?
Is it Islam, as you claim in this segment,
or is it the cultures in those countries that
the migrants come from, as you claim in the
previous segment?
If you say that the problem is Islam, then
you'll have to show where the Muslim faith
teaches that it is ok to rape women.
As you say yourself in those videos, different
Muslim countries don't all have the same retrograde
attitudes in regards to women.
And if you say that we should focus on those
countries that have these attitudes, then
you'll have to concede that they are not all
Muslim.
In the first video you mention that such attitudes
are prevalent amongst migrants from Eritrea,
a country which has a Christian majority.
And if that's the case, then why are you talking
about Islam?
You are trying to argue that migration from
Muslim countries is unique, that it is somehow
different and worse from other immigrations
we've experienced.
But whether you focus on Islam or on the cultures
in their origin countries, it seems that your
argument doesn't hold.
So what is it that makes it unique?
The answer, quite obviously I think, is that
it is a combination of both.
The attitudes they bring from their home countries
could have been tolerated, but when you combine
them with their Muslim faith it results in
a unique problem.
Every migration from a less developed country
has brought problems with it, due to retrograde
attitudes held by the migrants.
But we know from experience that these problems
are temporary, and every immigrant group eventually
integrates into society.
So we've learned to tolerate these problems
and accept them as an inevitable phase.
What makes Muslim immigrants unique is that
there are forces within the Muslim world that
are encouraging them not to integrate, to
hold on to their attitudes.
That's what makes Muslim immigration more
problematic, pardon my French, and that's
why it should be discussed in a different
way from what we've known in the past.
When we come to discuss this sensitive issue,
we should be mindful of this distinction,
otherwise we might find it very hard to defend
our position.
These, then, were two examples of how I believe
that clarifying our definitions would help
us form better arguments, in trying to create
an up-to-date liberal discourse.
This is one of the things that this channel
will be dedicated to achieving.
Sargon is going to keep on bringing you the
stupid.
I'm gonna try to give you something else.
