All Episodes
Previous Next
March 17, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
11:53
An Exhortation to the English
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You might think that this video is going to be about nationalism, but I promise you that it isn't.
I want to read you a passage from The Road to Serfdom that I think has particular relevance today, because I think what we are seeing is the resurgence of ideas that were in previous generations discredited, and for good reason.
I really think this is relevant, because I think history is repeating itself, and I think you'll understand why after I read this passage.
There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism, which at the present time provides special food for thought.
It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem, and which consequently become rarer, are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves, and in which they were generally recognised to excel.
The virtues possessed by the British people, possessed in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, and the successful reliance on voluntary activity, non-interference with one's neighbour, and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.
British strength, British character, and British achievements are to a great extent the result of a cultivation of the spontaneous.
But almost all the traditions and institutions in which the British moral genius has found its most characteristic expression, and in which turn have moulded the national character and the whole moral climate of England, are those which the progress of collectivism and its inherently centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying.
A foreign background is sometimes helpful in seeing more clearly to what circumstances the peculiar excellencies of the moral atmosphere of a nation are due.
And if one who, whatever the law may say, must remain ever a foreigner, may be allowed to say so, it is one of the most disheartening spectacles of our time to see what extent some of the most precious things which England has given to the world are now held in contempt in England herself.
The English hardly know to what degree they differ from most other people in that they all, irrespective of party, hold to a greater or less extent the ideas which in their most pronounced form are known as liberalism.
Compared with most other peoples only 20 years ago, almost all Englishmen were liberal, however much they may have differed from party liberalism.
And even today, the English Conservative or Socialist, no less than the Liberal, if he travels abroad, though he may find the ideas and writings of Carlisle or Disraeli, of the Webbs or H.G. Wells, exceedingly popular in circles with which he has little in common, among Nazis and other totalitarians, if he finds an intellectual island where the tradition of Macaulay and Gladstone, of J.S. Mill or John Morley, lives,
he will find kindred spirits who talk the same language as himself, however much he may differ from the ideals for which these men specifically stood.
Nowhere is the loss of the belief in the specific values of British civilisation more manifest, and nowhere has it had a more paralysing effect on the pursuit of our immediate great purpose than in the fatuous ineffectiveness of most British propaganda.
The first prerequisite for success in propaganda directed to other people is the proud acknowledgement of the characteristic values and distinguishing traits for which the country attempting it is known to the other peoples.
The main cause of the ineffectiveness of British propaganda is that those directing it seem to have lost their own belief in the peculiar values of English civilization, or to be completely ignorant of the main points on which it differs from that of other people.
The left intelligentsia indeed have so long worshipped foreign gods that they seem to have become almost incapable of seeing any good in the characteristic English institutions and traditions.
That the moral values on which most of them pride themselves are largely the product of the institutions they are out to destroy, these socialists cannot, of course, admit.
And this attitude is unfortunately not confined to avowed socialists.
Though one must hope this is not true of the less vocal but more numerous cultivated Englishmen, if one were to judge by the ideas which find expression in the current political discussion and propaganda, the Englishmen who not only the language speak that Shakespeare spake, but also the faith and morals hold that Milton held, seem almost to have vanished.
Now, I find this to be something that is happening now.
I am really tired to see the denigration of English values and fundamentally the English losing confidence in themselves.
I think what Hayek is talking about when he says the peculiar English moral character and excellence thereof is the deep and abiding need the English have for fairness.
And this can be demonstrated in a phrase that is a colloquialism of the golden rule.
And every Englishman has said it at some point in their lives.
How would you like it?
That's the most common thing you will hear out of the mouth of an English person when someone has done something.
It's taught to children.
It's literally what's said to children and to adults all the way through English life.
Everything about it.
How would you like it if you were treated that way?
And there are many reasons that this approach is taken and why it's better than other approaches.
You could just dictate down from on high to those people who are doing something wrong and simply parrot at them that what they're doing is wrong because you say it's wrong.
But instead, saying, how would you like it, speaks directly to their own responsibility and agency?
Merely asking the question forces them to re-evaluate their position.
It forces them to think about what it is they're doing and it forces them to empathise with someone else.
Merely asking the question makes them the judge.
It makes them the highest moral authority.
It's not someone talking down to them saying, you are doing wrong.
It is saying to them, are you doing wrong?
And they will inevitably come to the conclusion that whatever it is wrong they're doing, they wouldn't choose to have done to themselves.
And therefore, it's self-evident that what in fact they were doing was incorrect.
I think this is the root of the English moral excellency Hayek was writing about.
And I really do think that people don't understand why these things are so good.
They know it, inherently, they know that this is a much better way than having someone with lots of authority and power simply dictate to you what right and wrong are.
Everyone knows that it would be better for you as an individual to figure it out because then you don't need monitoring.
You don't need to have someone watching over your shoulder because you are the highest moral authority.
That's everything encapsulated in the phrase, how would you like it, name?
Even the dullest Englishman understands on a subconscious level, if nothing else, why this is an important way to view the world.
And I'm so sick of continental ideologies infesting academia just like in Hayek's day, and then taking an authoritarian stance towards right and wrong.
I really think it's important to just remind the English and anyone who holds to the English system of values, you have a better value system than almost everyone else.
Be proud of it.
If someone comes to you and says something that violates your values, your sense of fairness will probably make you want to try and treat what they're saying with credence.
But if it's wrong, it's wrong and it is your duty to tell them how it's wrong, to explain to that person why it's wrong.
It is your moral duty to other people to proselytize these ideas.
Because we know these ideas are better than the alternative.
We know it.
History has shown it.
If we go down the continental road of collectivism, we know it ends in purges.
If we go down the Enlightenment English road of individualism and liberalism, it ends up in prosperity for everyone.
It is just a better way of looking at the world.
The English moral character is based on fairness.
It's based on tolerance.
It's based on anti-authoritarianism and the responsibility of the individual as the highest moral actor in society, which they are, or at least should be.
Do not be afraid to be proud of these things.
These are things that we should be encouraging other people to adopt.
They are not something with which we should just shrug and say, well, I mean, they do seem rather certain of their own ideas.
Of course they do, but they're wrong.
So to anyone who holds these values, I implore you, do not be afraid to express them.
Do not be afraid to engage with others on this moral level.
Because it is a better, a superior moral level to others.
Self-doubt, self-reflection is a damn fine thing.
And the English do it all the time.
And once rationally you have come to the conclusion that in fact yes, you have the best way of doing things, explain it to other people.
It may seem odd for me to do an exhaltation to the English or to anyone holding English liberal principles.
But the rise of the regressive left has shown us that there is a great number of people who have lost confidence in this system.
And the more confident they become, the more people who hold these values begin self-doubt.
Don't let these people fool you.
There is nothing new under the sun.
This is just what happened about 80 years ago.
This is just coming back around and we need to be ready for it.
We need to remember why we are morally superior to these people.
And we are.
There is no doubt about it.
History has shown what happens when you adopt these sorts of collectivist ideologies.
Their way is purges.
Their way is oppression.
Our way is liberty and happiness and prosperity.
Don't let them persuade you that judging people based on arbitrary characteristics and denying the agency of the individual is in any way moral.
It is the antithesis of English morality.
They are wrong.
▲
Export Selection