00:00:16.320 Something different today. I've done one of these response videos before. I did one all the way
00:00:22.080 back when Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson actually spoke to Euron Brooke. So it was very,
00:00:27.920 very, very interesting, that discussion. Today I'm going to be talking about a recent debate
00:00:33.920 that Douglas Murray had. And I did not disagree with the sentiments that Douglas was expressing,
00:00:40.800 but I thought that some of them were worth refining and sharpening up in light of
00:00:46.880 certain kinds of developments in philosophy we might say that have happened over the last few decades.
00:00:52.320 Now just before I begin the main part of this video, I wanted to emphasize the respect I have
00:00:59.760 for Douglas Murray. I think he is one of the most courageous speakers of our age willing to say
00:01:06.400 things that other people won't say for fear of reputational damage, career ending comments,
00:01:13.920 loss of opportunity, loss of friends, loss of face, loss of respect, the list is long of reasons
00:01:21.360 why people will not speak up on these issues that Douglas is willing to put his neck on the line
00:01:26.800 for. So none of what I say here is at all a deep criticism of Douglas and the way in which he
00:01:33.040 conducts himself. I am a great admirer of Douglas in this respect. My purpose here is merely to
00:01:38.720 try to refine perhaps clarify I think what his underlying intent might be. And I'm not saying
00:01:46.480 he subconsciously holds these ideas but rather the ideas that he does hold need to be refined
00:01:52.880 and I think that they are good ideas coming from a somewhat deeper place than perhaps he can get
00:01:57.840 across in a short interview or a short debate such as this one. Indeed this format is not the
00:02:03.360 greatest way in which to get across these ideas at times. Reading his book is the best way to try
00:02:08.720 and understand Douglas's sentiment and I think his the sentiments expressed in his book,
00:02:12.800 the strange death of Europe, will indeed mirror my own when looked at insufficient detail.
00:02:19.040 In discussions on migration, people moving across borders. The thing that is left out in many of
00:02:26.720 these kind of discussions is the fact that it's not the fact that certain people are crossing the
00:02:32.960 borders but rather that ideas are crossing the borders. Now one might think that this is splitting
00:02:39.360 hairs but it's not splitting hairs because confusion about the difference between
00:02:46.080 people crossing borders versus ideas crossing borders leads to certain conclusions which are
00:02:52.960 I would say misdirected. Now even in someone as wise and with whom I normally have furious
00:02:59.920 agreement with Douglas Murray. Douglas was quite animated in his concern about the sheer numbers
00:03:07.040 and in fact this is a theme in his book The Strange Death of Europe. He talked very much about
00:03:12.720 the rate at which people were coming. A questioner in the audience posed what at first
00:03:20.640 seemed to me like a silly question, posed the question about how the rate of change of things
00:03:28.320 recently has continued to accelerate across all areas and for example we all know that technology
00:03:36.080 for example is causing the rate of change in culture and in society to accelerate.
00:03:43.120 And so he wondered how is it any different if the sheer number of migrants crossing borders
00:03:49.120 is any different to that? And wanted Douglas if there was a theme earlier amongst the rate of change
00:03:59.120 you raised the point of the 5% in the UK in the with the Normans. Is it not just changing
00:04:08.800 that everything's changing really quickly nowadays and so if there's a lot of change with
00:04:12.880 immigration we've got smartphones now we didn't have that 20 years ago so it's it all washes
00:04:19.440 out all comes out in the wash. Oh fine. Let me ask you that's a very interesting question.
00:04:24.720 It is possible that we do of course live in a time of extraordinary change. The technological
00:04:29.360 change that the questioner just rightly referred to perhaps the most fundamental of all in the
00:04:34.080 era that's gone on address this evening. The extraordinary benefits and negatives of living in an
00:04:39.440 era where we all have access to all of the information in the world at the top of the finger.
00:04:44.800 It's enormous blessing and it brings a lot of problems and yes there is an extent which you can
00:04:51.280 say that I would say that however the churn of populations that is significant population change
00:04:57.840 is one of the most significant changes. We know this and we talk about it historically
00:05:02.720 when large movements of people happen in history. We who write about history reflect on them
00:05:09.200 still. There are things like the Huguenot movement in the 17th century in my own country which
00:05:15.680 has still talked about that was relatively small movement of people but it's mentioned because it was
00:05:21.600 it was quite an important thing at the time. It's true that these things have all sped up.
00:05:27.840 It's true that the question of migration when we haven't really got onto it tonight at all but
00:05:32.240 but the question of migration is a complex one. It isn't simply something like open borders versus
00:05:38.800 right-wing populists. It is one that as I say in the in strange depth of Europe goes down the
00:05:44.640 heart of each one of us as well as down the heart of our society. It's an exceptionally complex
00:05:48.880 question but as I say I go back to this point that even with everything else it's changing in the
00:05:53.680 world the population change is the most long lasting such change because people are not all the
00:06:02.560 same. They don't all bring the same ideas. They don't bring the same culture. They bring the same
00:06:06.800 religions or anything else and there are upsides to that and downsides to that as I said earlier
00:06:11.440 you can deprecate it or praise it but most of us think that it's a it's a somewhat mixed bag.
00:06:17.920 Douglas was right to pause at this and to be concerned that there's a qualitative
00:06:23.760 difference between the two between technological change in a society on one hand and cultural
00:06:31.200 change upon the other. Here's the difference. There really is a difference between
00:06:38.320 cultures who have traditions that remain the same over time and cultures that have traditions
00:06:47.040 that protect change over time or indeed encourage change over time. This is one of the great
00:06:54.080 dichotomies that David Deutsch has explained in the beginning of infinity. There are societies
00:07:00.480 the overwhelming majority of which have existed throughout history that we might call static societies.
00:07:06.640 Societies that resist change or that change so little that during any one person's lifetime
00:07:14.000 a very little difference can be told from one day to the next or one year to the next.
00:07:19.600 But our society is something different. It is not a static society as something called
00:07:24.000 a dynamic society in David Deutsch's nomenclature and a dynamic society is one in which
00:07:29.760 allows for progress which is stable over time that great changes can occur and yet the society
00:07:39.200 remains stable. What's the difference? One of the differences is that traditionally if you like
00:07:46.960 tradition is about maintaining the status quo. One mechanism a society has or a culture has
00:07:54.240 for maintaining the status quo is to ensure that the existing practices and the existing ideas
00:08:01.600 and behaviors in that society are not criticised. Or insofar as they are criticised they are criticised
00:08:08.720 in such a way that it forces them to remain in place in the form they have or rather in so far
00:08:16.080 as criticism exists in such societies that our creative capacity for changing our ideas exists in
00:08:23.200 static societies. But what that ability to criticise is used for is to criticise existing
00:08:29.840 structures such that they are entrenched ever more deeply. That the behaviors are adhered to
00:08:37.600 ever better. This is how one shows their virtue in such societies. Consider any ancient religious
00:08:45.280 society. In any ancient religious society the people there had much the same brains as we do.
00:08:51.520 Similar kinds of minds to the extent that they were creative and they could be critical.
00:08:58.640 But now if they are rituals they need to enact. If they are in a static society the ritual itself
00:09:04.800 will change very little. But in order to show your virtue in such a society in order to show your
00:09:12.880 worth you will defer to the ritual in ever better ways and ever more strict and disciplined ways.
00:09:20.000 That is how you will use your creativity and show that you are a virtuous person.
00:09:25.520 This is the hallmark of many static societies. That the creative ability of our minds
00:09:32.640 is not used to create something new but to keep in place the existing practices.
00:09:40.400 This is the sign of a static society. A society which rejects criticism of existing practices
00:09:47.280 and uses it as an instead to ever more vigorously defend the existing practices.
00:09:53.440 Now the Enlightenment had perhaps in David Deutsch's view the defining characteristic
00:10:01.920 of creating a tradition not of maintaining the status quo, not of trying to adhere to
00:10:09.760 present practices ever more closely but rather enabling criticism to flourish across all areas of
00:10:17.920 society. To promote in his words a tradition of criticism. And traditions of criticism means
00:10:26.720 that it becomes safe to criticize any idea, behaviour or practice within that society.
00:10:32.880 And so now we come to present day. And when we are concerned about people crossing borders
00:10:41.360 the target of our concerns is misdirected. What we are actually concerned about is the ideas
00:10:47.680 that cross borders and one kind of idea in particular. The idea that says you should not
00:10:55.440 criticize this idea, that idea, this practice, that practice. Because when that kind of idea
00:11:03.520 starts to gain a foothold in a society then it spreads across the entire society through all ideas.
00:11:12.080 It becomes what's called an anti-rational meme. An anti-rational meme is an idea essentially
00:11:18.400 that holds itself immune from criticism. We want to be able to improve all ideas,
00:11:25.600 we want to improve all of our behaviours, the practices, the cultural practices we have in our society.
00:11:32.000 But that becomes increasingly difficult to do the more that people think they are not permitted
00:11:38.640 to criticize certain ideas. It doesn't matter the sheer number of people that cross borders
00:11:44.720 and the traditions of Great Britain for example recognise this and recently the politicians there
00:11:52.800 made the excellent decision to allow almost anyone, not anyone, but almost anyone from Hong Kong
00:12:00.000 who wished to migrate to the United Kingdom to come. Now these cultures are different in many ways
00:12:08.400 different language, different cuisine, different sporting interests and cultural interests but
00:12:14.880 there is one fundamental similarity between the two cultures Great Britain and Hong Kong and that
00:12:23.040 is a tradition of criticism in Hong Kong who are free until recently you are free to criticize
00:12:30.160 the government, to criticize cultural practices, to criticize ideas without fear of being imprisoned
00:12:37.280 without fear of violence but now things have changed. The Chinese government has cracked down
00:12:46.560 on the freedom loving people of Hong Kong and quite rightly Britain has said people of Hong Kong
00:12:53.760 please come you are free to come and I think Australia has done the same and quite right too
00:12:59.200 and should hundreds of thousands of people from Hong Kong wish to come to either of our
00:13:03.520 countries we should allow them to do so because we share a belief in freedom, we share a
00:13:11.200 culture of criticism, a tradition of understanding what criticism is about. There are things like
00:13:17.920 the Huguenot movement in the 17th century in my own country which is still talked about
00:13:23.840 that was relatively small movement of people but it was mentioned because it was quite an
00:13:28.960 important thing at the time or only 50,000 people then. Okay so there we have Douglas talking about
00:13:35.280 the Huguenot. Now is the 50,000 number a big number? Well compared to today it's not and this is
00:13:44.160 Douglas' worry and this is Douglas' concern that we still talk about as in British people still
00:13:51.040 talk about this movement of Huguenot. The Huguenots were a religious group, our religious group
00:13:57.840 from France who moved from continental Europe to Great Britain and just reading from the Wikipedia
00:14:05.600 article it says London financed the emigration of many to England and its colonies around 1700.
00:14:13.200 Some 40 to 50,000 settled in England mostly in towns near the sea and in southern districts with
00:14:18.320 the largest concentration in London where they constituted about 5% of the population in 1700.
00:14:24.400 Okay so should we be concerned that given that back then the year 1750,000 Huguenots, foreigners
00:14:36.880 moved from Europe to Great Britain changing to some extent the culture of England at the time
00:14:44.400 but today we don't have tens of thousands rather we have hundreds of thousands. Are the numbers
00:14:50.560 are concerned? Now we have certain people that say open borders is the way to go. Certain people on
00:14:59.760 my side of the ledger to some extent who believe in minimal government. Now there is a wrinkle
00:15:06.080 in this idea that government has either very little place or it perhaps even no place in determining
00:15:13.920 who can come into a country. These are very minority views that there should be no borders whatsoever but
00:15:20.960 let's consider exactly why a border is necessary. Once more it comes down to the ideas, not the numbers.
00:15:31.440 The numbers could be in their millions, numbers that perhaps Douglas would object to.
00:15:37.360 I come back to the point that it can't just be numbers. What we're aiming to protect our societies
00:15:44.320 from is not sheer numbers of foreign people. It is a certain kind of idea, anti rational ideas,
00:15:54.480 ideas that refuse to allow themselves to be changed and indeed protect other bad ideas from
00:16:01.680 being changed because they disable the critical faculties of their holders. This is what an anti
00:16:07.360 rational meme is. Anti rational memes for example include something like you must not criticize
00:16:14.640 my god or anything my god has said in their holy book and if you do we will kill you for it.
00:16:22.480 Now this kind of idea which is well subscribed to by some people or an idea similar to this
00:16:29.600 that if you desecrate criticized ridicule certain holy books then the penalty for that is death.
00:16:39.840 This has a chilling effect not merely upon talking about that holy book, not merely upon talking
00:16:46.960 about that god or that religion but it causes people to be extremely concerned about talking about
00:16:53.680 anything to that might have any point of contact with that religion or with that holy book.
00:17:00.640 And so anti rational memes like this that say you must not criticize this thing
00:17:05.760 also cause other people who might be fearful to not criticize a whole bunch of other things as
00:17:10.880 well. For fear they could make a mistake according to that religion, according to that set of
00:17:15.760 anti rational ideas. I'm not saying that all of religion consists of anti rational ideas
00:17:20.880 not by a long shot. Much of religion instantiates important in explicit knowledge that helps to
00:17:27.280 maintain a stable society over time and in fact in certain traditions enables us to have a tradition
00:17:34.320 of criticism. It also provides for that that's a separate issue but we must recognise that
00:17:40.880 there do exist traditions out there that consist in large part at the present time as they have
00:17:48.000 in the past of anti rational memes. These are the ones that we want to protect our societies from.
00:17:55.520 We want to protect our own minds from these things. We can't be perfectly successful at that.
00:18:00.480 Everyone is walking around with anti rational memes of their own making, of their education
00:18:08.320 that they were brought up with. It is very difficult to identify them all but because we know
00:18:14.640 the dangers of anti rational memes. They're the things that cause people personal pain in their
00:18:20.640 own life. They're the things that cause damage to a society. They're the things that slow down
00:18:26.640 progress in a society. We have enough of them already. We don't want to go importing even more of
00:18:32.880 them and so it isn't about the numbers of people. After all we could have vast numbers of people
00:18:41.200 coming from the United States to Great Britain or vice versa. There'd be very little cultural
00:18:46.320 difference there and as I said earlier you can have vast numbers of people coming from Hong Kong
00:18:53.280 for example to the United Kingdom and it wouldn't be a danger to the United Kingdom but can there
00:19:00.640 be ideas that are a danger to the United Kingdom? Absolutely. Anyone who comes with the idea
00:19:07.200 that the democratic institutions of the United Kingdom are evil and that should be torn down
00:19:14.240 replaced with a theocracy say. Then that idea is a danger and anyone who holds that idea
00:19:21.600 should not be permitted entry into the country. Now that seems like a strong statement but it has
00:19:27.920 absolutely nothing to do with who the person is, what culture they're from, nothing to do with that.
00:19:35.360 It has to do with their personal ideas. They can change their ideas but they need to change their
00:19:41.600 ideas before they come into a tradition of criticism, into a culture which respects criticism and
00:19:49.600 if the more of those ideas that we have individual instantiations of those ideas,
00:19:56.480 people who hold those ideas. The more difficult it is to maintain that tradition of criticism
00:20:03.280 and therefore to maintain the democratic institutions and to maintain the other institutions
00:20:10.400 that enable us to remain stable despite rapid progress and that's what we want rapid progress
00:20:18.080 and any time we have vast numbers of people with bad ideas we slow down the rate of progress.
00:20:23.840 People like to call, people like to call our willingness to have open borders let's say progressive
00:20:31.120 but in fact it's exactly the opposite. It can cause regression. It can cause a society to become
00:20:40.720 concerned about criticizing certain ideas. A society to become more fearful, more violent because
00:20:48.960 more and more people within that society refuse to allow criticism. Great Britain has a
00:20:56.880 long-standing tradition of criticism, of people standing literally on soapboxes,
00:21:03.040 in Speakers Corner, in Hyde Park, standing up and delivering speeches to anyone who will listen
00:21:10.800 and it wouldn't matter how crazy these ideas sound. It wouldn't matter how ridiculous these
00:21:15.200 ideas sound people were willing to listen and have always been willing to listen. But now we know,
00:21:21.920 we know that if you were to stand on one of those soapboxes in Hyde Park, in Speakers Corner,
00:21:29.200 there would be certain things that you could say that could cause you to be murdered in London.
00:21:36.720 We know this, we saw this recently in France, that there are certain ideas that you can espouse
00:21:44.160 in France which will cause you to be killed. This is wrong. Now it is not due to the sheer number of
00:21:53.600 people immigrating into France, that's not the issue. It's because a certain kind of idea has been
00:22:01.440 allowed to come across those borders in greater and greater numbers and that's the ideas that we
00:22:08.160 have to stop. And once they're there, and they're there now, they have to be counted, they have to
00:22:14.800 be changed. These people that hold these ideas are a danger to that society. They're not a danger
00:22:22.400 to the static societies from which they came or the static societies where those ideas are promoted.
00:22:29.920 Those where those ideas maintain the stasis of those static societies. They're not a danger there
00:22:35.520 and that's why they would be better suited in those static societies. And if they change their minds
00:22:40.720 and think that it's fine to criticize everything, then they've taken on board the most important
00:22:46.320 element of being in a society like ours. The willingness to criticize any idea at all and the
00:22:52.800 willingness to have any of your ideas criticized at all. But so long as they hold on to an idea that
00:22:59.040 says you cannot criticize X, where X is anything at all, then they need to remain in a static
00:23:04.160 society because that is the key feature of a static society. And it wouldn't matter if there were
00:23:09.440 two of those people or two million of those people. It's too many. On the other hand, if the
00:23:17.360 person believes that anything can be said more or less within reason, we know what we're talking
00:23:23.680 about when we talk about free speech, that if you are able to criticize it, the key feature of
00:23:30.720 free speech, by the way, free speech means you're free to criticize anything at all. I think
00:23:38.080 that's missed a lot in the free speech debate as well. It's like, should you be allowed to
00:23:41.680 yell fire in a crowded theater? Yes, if the theater is on fire. Should you be allowed to call for
00:23:48.000 violence? These things are edge case concerns about free speech. Really what we're interested in
00:23:54.560 is, should you be allowed to criticize anything at all? That's the key part. Should you be allowed
00:24:00.880 to criticize any religion at all? Now, if the answer to that at any point is no, that idea has no
00:24:07.120 place in a society which is governed by a tradition of criticism because the tradition of criticism
00:24:12.080 is about criticizing anything that you like. And the reason for this is that it enables
00:24:18.000 fast and faster progress. The only way to identify flaws and failures, deficiencies in ideas,
00:24:23.840 the ways in which we can improve things is via criticism and then finding out where the problems are
00:24:30.560 so that we can then create new solutions. It isn't simply something like open borders versus
00:24:36.960 right-wing populists. It is one that as I say in the strange step of Europe goes down the
00:24:42.880 heart of each one of us as well as down the heart of our society. It's an exceptionally complex
00:24:47.120 question. So Douglas says it's a question that goes down the heart of each one of us as well as
00:24:52.400 that heart of our societies. And I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. But I don't know that
00:24:58.240 he identifies precisely what that thing is that goes down the heart of us and our societies.
00:25:04.000 What goes down the heart of us is that distinction between a person who holds the idea
00:25:11.280 that you are free to criticize any idea or not. And in our societies, whether you are a static or
00:25:17.680 a dynamic society, whether you endorse being in a static or dynamic society. And that is about
00:25:25.200 whether or not you have this tradition of criticism, this willingness to embrace the ability to
00:25:30.000 improve any idea, no matter what it is, not holding a moon, certain ideas, certain books,
00:25:36.560 certain supernatural beliefs, as being unable, in principle, to be improved because it's perfect in
00:25:42.000 some way, or that you are the possessor of the ultimate and only interpretation of those ideas.
00:25:48.480 As soon as you start saying you may not criticize, you may not insult, you may not make fun of,
00:25:53.360 you may not draw certain things. Then you are not a part of this society, of this culture of
00:26:03.840 criticism, this tradition of criticism, this way in which we can ensure the improvement,
00:26:11.600 gradually, incrementally, over time of our societies and of our institutions, of ensuring that
00:26:19.520 progress happens as fast as possible. And yet, in our societies, despite the rapid change, the rapid
00:26:28.320 progress, we remain stable because the institutions we have are able to course correct when we
00:26:35.520 make a mistake, when the criticism is misdirected, when the new idea is a bad idea, then those
00:26:42.320 institutions are able to course correct and enable us to continue to make rapid progress over time,
00:26:48.960 and despite that rapid progress, we remain stable. This is the tradition that we've had,
00:26:56.480 and we can look to places like the United Kingdom, especially, that has remained relatively stable
00:27:03.200 for the longest period of time, and the United States, that has remained relatively stable for
00:27:07.440 the longest period of time. There have not been modular, a few exceptions over the years,
00:27:13.360 huge revolutions. There haven't been huge changes in the way in which government operates,
00:27:19.200 for example. And so, these are the places that we wish to preserve, because we don't know all
00:27:25.200 the reasons why these institutions, these governments, these nations remain stable over time.
00:27:32.160 We can look at all the failed states around the world, and we can point to the reasons why they fail.
00:27:39.040 One of the reasons why they fail is specifically for what I've been talking about. They have
00:27:43.040 anti-democratic institutions, and once you have an anti-democratic institution, by poppers lights,
00:27:48.480 by the idea that the only way of removing the leader is through violence, because you have a
00:27:54.720 tyrannical government, because you're not able to vote out the leaders. Then once you have that
00:27:59.440 kind of thing in place, then you will get violence, you will get instability. And if you have
00:28:05.520 cultures or traditions or governments that say you cannot criticize me, or you cannot criticize
00:28:10.880 this tenant, this idea, this law, then indeed you will ultimately end up with violence, because
00:28:17.040 the revolution will come. The revolution, the overthrow of the enlightenment, of the Western
00:28:24.880 tradition, of Western democracies, has not happened. And in my opinion, we'll not happen,
00:28:30.720 because the institutions are robust enough to ensure that we can course correct in time,
00:28:37.120 and the overwhelming majority of people still endorse this idea that anything can be criticized.
00:28:44.320 Now, I'm not sure that things couldn't go south completely. I'm not sure that a majority
00:28:49.040 eventually won't think that there are certain ideas in our society that you cannot criticize.
00:28:53.280 If that happens, then hope fades, then we're in trouble. At the moment we're not there.
00:29:00.160 I don't think we're there by any stretch of the imagination. I think there's a lot of
00:29:03.360 as David Deutsch has observed as well, a lot of hyperbole going on out there.
00:29:07.760 There's a lot of people saying that this is the end times, that this is late capitalism,
00:29:13.040 that the institutions of the United States, for example, are right for being removed,
00:29:18.640 that Donald Trump is the assign of the apocalypse, that the huge migration that's happening in
00:29:24.880 Europe is a sign of the death of Europe. And although I understand a lot of what Douglas Murray
00:29:30.240 has to say on this, I don't agree with the ultimate conclusion. I don't think he ultimately
00:29:34.560 does conclude this. He has optimistic passages in his book, by the way, so I'm wrong to say that
00:29:39.360 he is, that the title is actually telling you the conclusion. There is not going to be a death of
00:29:44.720 Europe. There will be an evolution of Europe. Now whether or not in the interim places like Europe
00:29:53.040 go down a road which is more towards static societies where you are less and less able to criticize
00:30:01.840 certain ideas and perhaps people are elected who refuse to allow themselves to be criticized.
00:30:08.240 Whether or not we go down that road or whether or not we re-learn to appreciate
00:30:13.440 it, and to have great gratitude for the tradition that we've inherited, namely a tradition
00:30:20.240 of criticism, is yet to be seen, but I'm hopeful. So I hope you enjoyed that. This is not meant
00:30:28.400 to be a criticism of Douglas Murray. This is a reflection upon Douglas Murray. I have great
00:30:34.320 respect for Douglas, but I do think that in any of these conversations it is rarely mentioned that
00:30:42.240 the key factor that we're interested in using our borders for is keeping out certain ideas.
00:30:50.880 When we focus on keeping out particular people, then the accusations begin.
00:30:58.880 But it's not racist prejudice or discriminatory to say that certain ideas should be left at our
00:31:05.520 gates, that they cannot be permitted to come in, that we have enough bad ideas here of our own
00:31:10.720 and we do not need to bring in more bad ideas. We're trying to improve our societies.
00:31:16.240 Everyone comes with bad ideas, everyone has bad ideas, but there are certain bad ideas
00:31:21.600 that are so beyond the pale that we cannot afford to allow them to gain a foothold in the society
00:31:27.440 that we have. Thanks for that. If you enjoyed this, then you can find me on Patreon,
00:31:32.480 um, Topcast or Brit Hall. Thanks very much for any support. Bye-bye.
