Sargon writes worst critique of Liberalism I've ever seen

Sargon of Akkad wrote two articles titled Five False Assumptions of Liberalism, both subpar and riddled with contradictions and errors. In this video, I systemically debunk point by point ‪@SargonofAkkad‬ claims and rebuke his so-called evidence against Liberalism.
▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Intro
5:05 Five False Assumptions of Liberalism
5:43 Pre-Social Man and The State of Nature
09:55 Everyone is Equal
15:34 The Universal Man
27:08 The Blank Slate
33:04 Equality of opportunity
40:19 Man is Born Free
50:42 The Social Contract
01:07:41 Unalienable Rights
01:22:02 The Will of The People
01:30:24 Enlightened Leadership
📚📚Introduction to Western Philosophy 30% off Summer Sale📚📚:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
📚Introduction to Metaphysics and Epistemology 30% off Summer Sale📚:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
📚Introduction to Ethics and Politics 30% off Summer Sale📚:
perspective-philosophy.teacha...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
TIP JAR 💰 paypal.me/PerspectivePhilosoph?
Book recommendations📚 www.amazon.co.uk/shop/perspec...
Discord: / discord

[@AkkadDaily]

12 minutes in and you're very wrong about almost everything you said. Not going to watch further because this is clearly an emotionally-driven defence of liberalism rather than an attempt to address what is actually said. To claim, for example, that nobody believed in the state of nature (wrong, Locke certainly did, its literally the justification for the right of revolt, and Hobbes certainly believed in the state of war, and Rousseau predicates his arguments on the state of nature in critique of previous philosophers "who never got there") and then going on to the idea that you think nobody believed in the Divine Right of Kings (lol okay), I'm just not going any further. Nothing you've said so far has any substance.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

I am more than happy to debate you. Your employment of ad hominem does not cover the cracks in your reasoning. 1. You said, "Most of these philosophers admit this is merely a thought experiment" (Timestamp 07:30), which contradicts your anthropological critique. 2. Locke affirms biblical scripture as literal in his first treatise on government. The Genesis story is incompatible with a literal state of nature (chimpanzee tribes). Hence, Locke argues that the state of nature is merely our natural faculties unbound by law derived via induction. (Source: Second treatise of government section 40) 3. Hobbes also affirmed Genesis, going so far as to argue for a Christian commonwealth as ordained by God himself. The rejection of divine command leads to a state of war. However, we have one eternal sovereign in Heaven. 4. Rousseau states verbatim that it's a thought experiment. 5. Social contract theory is an egoist ethic used to account for ethics after the protestant reformers rejected universals, i.e. a naturally derived universal moral law. Instead, they argued from particulars and used this to exemplify the truth of scripture. 6. I did not say, "People did not believe in the divine right of kings". I said they did not believe in a pre-ordained social order set forth by God himself. You are arguing for a caste system derived by holy appointment as a Medieval European standard; It was not. The great chain of being could be scaled or descended depending upon the person's virtue. As I said above. I am more than happy to debate you.

[@Fallface77]

Carl Benjamin is the Chinese bootleg of an intelligent person.

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

That's being very generous. He's almost the definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[@jamesguinan415]

I wish I had a fraction of the confidence Carl does. But only if I don't have to take the delusions, though.

[@paulfletcher3454]

If Carl wrote this even at an undergraduate 101 level, he would be slaughtered. I have never encountered anyone misinterpret so many philosophers for their own, some may suggest malicious, ends. Even if you allow charitability to Carl here and "When you have eliminated all which is impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth", you are left with stupidity.

[@TheVeganVicar]

leftism: Otherwise known as “progressivism” and even more inaccurately as “liberalism”, leftism is a term originating from the French Revolution of 1789, in reference to the political faction that opposed the French (so-called) king. However, the term is currently used in common discourse to describe those criminals who actively support (or at least tacitly condone) a host of OBJECTIVELY-WICKED ideologies and practices that contravene dharma, such as non-monarchical governances and corrupt economic systems (particularly socialism, communism, fascism, and liberal democracies), egalitarianism, feminism, perverse sexuality (especially homosexuality, bestiality, and transvestism), multiculturalism, and the illegitimate abortion of innocent, defenceless, unborn children. Cf. “dharma”. In the past decade or two (of this treatise being composed), the mass media, especially the motion picture industry and television production companies, has been aggressively promoting all the above CRIMINAL ideologies and practices, helping to expedite the destruction of human civilization. Recently, large corporations have jumped on the leftist bandwagon (so to speak), in order to profit. As explicated in Chapter 11 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, the state of being of any particular human (or any other animal, for that matter) is due entirely to his or her genetic sequencing and his or her conditioning. Therefore, the explosion of the leftist/liberal mentality in recent decades, particularly in Western countries, has been caused by poor breeding strategies overtaking the more conservative tradition of mate-selection of previous centuries (and indeed, millennia), as well as the concerted effort of Marxists to spread their nefarious ideology throughout the school system. In other words, due to the fact that criminal behaviour (especially the deviant sexual acts mentioned above) has become increasingly more tolerated, condoned, and even GLORIFIED in most countries, there has been a proliferation of corrupt genetic codes within the wider human population. According to genealogists, for (almost) the entire history of humanity, most women have successfully reproduced, whilst a far far smaller percentage of males have bequeathed their genetic sequence to proceeding generations. Due to the gradual phasing-out of polygamous marriages in even the most conservative societies, as well as the eradication of poverty in most every country, more and more men (as well as women) have been producing offspring. Thus, the human genome has rapidly become adulterated by inferior genetic material (that is, DNA from truly pathetic, uxorious beta-males, bisexuals, and even homosexual couples who engage surrogate mothers or sperm donors in order to conceive children - something of a rare occurrence in previous centuries/millennia). For centuries, breeders of elite animals such as horses, cattle, and dogs, have known that selecting the finest examples of a breed of animal will result in offspring with desirable characteristics. For example, present day thoroughbred horses boast a pedigree of the best-available horses from the seventeenth century. Such breeders are willing to pay enormous sums of money merely to hire the fastest stallions on earth in order for them to mate with their mares. In the case of we humans, women have traditionally chosen the most competent and masculine men with whom to bear children, and in general, have totally eschewed those males who displayed effeminate traits, and who showed themselves incapable of properly supporting a nuclear family. Unfortunately, due to rapid moral decay over the past few decades, Western women have become extremely sexually promiscuous, resulting in a multiplication of unwanted progeny (and, of course, an escalation of abortions). Boys born to single mothers often lack proper male roles models and invariably become feminized, unable (and often unwilling) to continue a strong lineage of progenitors. The solution to this problem is simply to ensure that society adheres to the principles of DHARMA (see the Glossary definition of that term, as well as Chapter 12). Unsurprisingly, the majority of leftists find it difficult to accept the fact that their criminal mentality is largely inherited (and of course, they are unwilling to acknowledge the blatantly-obvious fact that their ideologies and practices are intrinsically sinful, wicked, evil and immoral in the first place!). It seems the consensus amongst leftist “intellectuals” is that every human mental trait is due entirely to one’s environmental conditioning and social milieu, rather than as a consequence of BOTH one’s genetic sequence and one’s life-long conditioning - a fundamentally-flawed assertion that cannot be scientifically supported. I would not be surprised if the typical leftist would believe that, if the parents of the twentieth century communist tyrant, Joseph Stalin, and the parents of the Divine Incarnation, Lord Jesus Christ, had somehow crossed the time barrier, and exchanged their baby boys shortly after their birth, that Stalin would have grown to become a Prophet for God, whilst Christ would have become a murderous, left-wing dictator! This term was very reluctantly used in the chapter on feminism. I say “reluctantly” because it is unlikely that the term will perdure for many decades longer. This is simple deductive logic, since, as clearly demonstrated in certain chapters in “F.I.S.H”, human civilization cannot survive with such leftist practices and ideologies in place. If you happen to be reading this Holy Scripture a century or more after its conception, you will probably be residing in a nation (as opposed to a country) ruled by a monarch, following the implosion of post-modern, decadent societies. So, either the term “leftism” will eventually become redundant and obsolete, or else, human civilization will devolve into a decadent, diseased state of existence similar to that of the prehistoric era, when the peoples of the world resided in caves or shacks, subsisting on whatever food can be sourced from the surrounding bushland. I trust that you who are reading these wise words will endeavour to influence your social circles to adhere to right-leaning ideologies and practices, such as (above all) monarchical governance, an entirely free-market economy, sexual purity, veganism, and all other virtuous principles. Fear not, for God is with you! P.S. As a general rule, it seems (at least anecdotally) that the farther left-leaning is a person, the more physically (and of course, psychologically) UGLY is that person. Unfortunately, that does not seem to prevent leftists from propagating their mutant genes.🤡 N.B. In order to clarify the notion of inheritability, it is not being claimed that an adharmic (far-left) couple will INVARIABLY produce leftist children, but that it is more PROBABLE that they will do so, considering their genetic sequence and the environmental conditioning they are bound to impart to their children, just as two parents with a certain physiological disorder are more likely to generate offspring with that specific disease. In this regards, it is recommended to study introductory texts on epigenetics. 🧬 In my particular case, I was raised by a staunch communist, and so was indoctrinated to believe that communism was the best course of action for a just society. Indeed, as a teenager, I even volunteered in the election campaign of a socialist politician, who eventually became the Premiere of the state of Western Australia. However, after studying dharma, I came to learn that I was misled by my father in this regard, and that the only system of governance that is dharmic (legitimate) is a divinely-sanctioned monarchy.

[@benjamink2398]

@@TheVeganVicar ..... Did you forget to take your meds, buddy?

[@paulfletcher3454]

@@TheVeganVicar kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmS0XqmXbbqGidU

[@hamizanyunos1502]

@@benjamink2398 This guy would be a fan of Joseph De Maistre

[@TimoNaaro]

Yet you give no examples.😅

[@hugereviews8111]

Really good, educational content. Thank you!

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

What are your thoughts on Process Philosophy btw (substance ontology vs process ontology)?

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

As a Hegelian, I think that they both fall into each other. Hegel takes the state of being as becoming but that becoming is a whole complete unity in the absolute. So I think both approaches have their merits.

[@classicalneoplatonictheist5766]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy I am interested to know how exactly do you think “both fall into each other?” They seem diametrically opposed to one another. One starts to with the assumption that the fundamental building blocks/constituents of reality are static and fixed (and any change is due to the properties attached to this non-changing substance) - this is the essence of “substance ontology” (being) - and the other starts with the assumption that the fundamental processes/events of reality are dynamic and in flux (change is fundamental and not either illusory or secondary) - this is the essence of “process ontology” (becoming). In fact, substance ontology and process ontology in metaphysics today is basically a modern-day battle between Parmenides and Heraclitus. I find it difficult to see how you can synthesise both positions into a new position

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Thank you for doing this video 😊

[@fuwu9904]

at least "liberals should be communists" is something I agree with

[@thomasdupont7186]

Well I agree, but his take is a little late (3 months ago ?). I mean that guy (Sargon) should not be taken seriously since a few years now...

[@RandomAussieGuy87]

The problem is many people in the so-called 'Dissident Right' take him seriously.

[@73elephants]

"Return to monkey" does not entail becoming a solitary animal. Monkeys in general are very gregarious animals that typically live in large groups.... and they engage in politics, in the sense of fighting for rank in the group hierarchy.

[@AK-np4rp]

PP, the label "woke" is a lazy label used by anyone who doesn't have the capacity to make a considered criticism of a behaviour they don't like. Do better.

[@TheVeganVicar]

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

[@mindlander]

It's a word and people understand what it means. You're implying people should use the definition of words instead of the word itself.

[@AK-np4rp]

@@mindlander There are a lot of words that a derogatory. Just saying 'it's a word" begs the question.

[@robertsnowdon1257]

Oooft the classic snarky millennial twitter sign of 'do better' after an ill attempted support of woke, classic. Woke is now understood as the modern lefts over zealous focus on identity disparities and inequities from a critical sociological POV, critical race theory, queery theory, postcolonial theory. Yes, not everyone will put it as succinctly as that, and yes the word was originally used by African american activists online tjust be aware of injustice but the word encompasses a lot more now with many examples of its application in the last decade.

[@crushinnihilism]

Tabula rasa is the universal man. Theres a universal metaphysical ground which we build on.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

Not a platonic form. Only capacities and even then it's particular nature not universal.

[@crushinnihilism]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy i think Carls postion is that it smuggles in a universal. That being something like "individuality" or "sameness" on which to build. What hes trying to do is reimagine a different universal. A universal group identify. A soul of a peoples. The problem he's having is that hes an atheist trying to remake a collective religious notion.

[@PerspectivePhilosophy]

@@crushinnihilism It's not though because it's just a group made from a similitude. These thinkers thought the nature was particular and every objective entity was made by God.

[@crushinnihilism]

@@PerspectivePhilosophy a group made from a similtitude is a universal...carl is correct. There is a presupposed universal

[@73elephants]

You keep saying "inaliable", when you mean "inalienable".