First-person monologue by a speaker (identifies as from the Maghreb) reflecting on merit and the defence of republican/universal values. The speaker argues that people who grow up inside stable, free, egalitarian societies have greater merit defending those values than outsiders, despite appearances. Uses examples (Sarkozy’s son; actors changing names) to contrast inherited advantage vs. earned success, and offers an analogy (transport planes/Everest) to claim that social rules determine predictable outcomes. The speaker warns that the social mechanics of some Arab Muslim societies (as described by the speaker) tend toward genocidal outcomes, while Western societies have found more stable social arrangements worth defending and improving.
Hello, everyone. I'm starting this difficult video and I hope to find the words to convey my message. Because very often language is what it is. We can think things, but being able to express them in words is another story. Human language is very, very weak, it seems. In fact, first of all, there are lots of people who write to me to encourage me, to thank me, and something that comes up repeatedly in all the messages. It's extraordinary that a. Be nice, let's be nice that a. A bland. A guy who comes from the Maghreb there to defend universal or republican values or whatever you want to call them. And in fact, I would like to tell you that, to return the compliment, that in this fight you deserve more credit than me. Of course, today's values, values that are completely reversed. Want me to deserve more credit. Why? Because I come from a society that doesn't recognize all the values that I'm defending. So when you look at it from the outside, at first glance it seems that I have more merit than you to defend these values. But in reality, I'm going to explain to you why you have more merit to defend them yourself. Let me give you an example. Let's take Sakozy's son, Sakozy's son, I think he was 22 or 23 years old. He found himself the boss of a huge office in Chelin. And of course it caused a lot of laughter. Of course, I don't know if he's still there or if he's been fired. But in fact, you have to understand that because his father was successful, because his father was the president of the French Republic, it was impossible for him. It was very difficult for him, in any case, to achieve real success. It's a bit reminiscent of those sons of actors or actresses who make movies. So every time we see their last name, we say to ourselves, ah, I understand why he's here. I mean, when you come from a background to stick with this example, when your father succeeded, okay, well, it's very difficult for you to achieve real success, to have real success, because most people are who they are and generally they'll try to appropriate their parents success and then follow easy paths, and then they'll achieve something that isn't a success at all. And it's obvious and everyone laughs behind their backs. On the other hand, if someone, for example, is Sakozy's son and manages to refuse to be Sakozy's son, like some actors who have changed their names so that people don't recognize that they are the son of someone in order to truly achieve true success. So they have refused the easy way out. Well then indeed their success is worth something. On the other hand, when you are in poverty, when you are struggling, and then one day you become someone, there is no one who doubts the reality of that success. It is obvious that the person has been successful because they worked, because they struggled, because no one thinks to question that. So in the same way, I think it is more meritorious to defend freedom in a society that is already free, that already has these values in itself. It is more difficult to defend equality in a society that is already very egalitarian, very difficult to recognize these values and to want to defend them. Whereas I don't really deserve much credit because I grew up in a society that rejects a certain number of values. And I unfortunately see that it carries the seeds of its genocide within itself. Not being genocidal by nature, only wishing the good for others, I can only reject these values. But note that my story is very, very linear. It's very simple. Okay, it's very simple. It's not very, very subtle. Let me explain something to you about the society I come from. You know, humans are all. I was going to say, are all humans. So it's still a truism, like Mr. Lapolles, who, 10 minutes before his death was still alive. Well, humans are humans in the sense that when we become aware of this humanity, they are all caught in a human shell. So they have the same constraints and very often they have the same problems. And let's say that very often these problems, there is only one way to solve them. In fact, when you look at an American transport plane, than a Chinese transport plane and a Russian transport plane, when you see the Russian transport plane, you're not going to say it's a ufo, it comes from Mars, No. Even if you've never seen it before, you understand that it's a transport plane. Why? Because apart from the details, the concept of the solution is the same. Because probably there aren't any others at this stage of our development. And what I'm trying to tell you is that the more complicated the problem becomes, the more there is a solution. That solution is unique. It is unique in its concept, even if in its application it may vary in certain details around that concept. But I claim that the concept is unique. If you want to reach, let's say, the north face of Everest, and you want to go to the summit of Everest as a group, lets imagine that there's a program that brings all the climbers on Earth and asks them to participate in creating an intelligent program so that they know everything. Well, what happens is, I claim that you can take a group of climbers, you create work rules, rules of behavior, rules of society, who does what, who takes what, and so on. And at that point, this program will be able to give you a definitive answer before you even try, whether you're going to reach the summit or if you're going to die in the middle. Why? Because I think I believe in rules. I believe that once you set the rules for something, the result comes almost by force. The result is contained in the rules themselves. So sometimes you see people who fall flat on their face doing something and you wonder, did you ever think for a second that it would work given the way you're undertaking this project? Do you see what I mean? Okay, I'm slowly getting to my initial problem. In Arab Muslim societies today, what you see happening is actually the mechanics of the social rules that these societies are imposed on from the outset. That means if you had a computer with a program that integrates thousands of social parameters, thousands of forces and interactions between them, you take an Arab Muslim society today, you. You enter the criteria and rules of this society into the computer. Do you know what it's going to tell you? It's going to tell you genocide. That's it. I look at Western societies that have been stable for a certain number of decades. I see that it is not genocidal. And I see that despite a lot of excesses, we still manage to live. I am not here by chance. It would be dishonest to deny that these societies have achieved a quality of life and a quality of life, even if I criticize them, of course. But I criticize them because I want to improve them. I am fully involved. I do not think I am here by mistake or by chance. Well, I think that these societies have arrived at a solution a bit like the airplane. It means that I put myself in a purely pragmatic context and I tell myself that these societies have designed, let's say, a social plan that allows them a certain stability. We can elaborate on this model or have, let's say, our own airplane. But in my opinion, it seems to me to be a very interesting model to begin with. That's all. That was the point I wanted to develop. I have several others, but I think I will run out of time. Thank you for listening to me. Anyway, I know that everyone is touched by a certain type of my videos. Well, if I were to watch my videos, this type of video that I just made today would touch me the most. But, hey, it's not necessarily the video that will end up on the stump, because it's clear that it's not the same. It's not the same repertoire. It's not the same repertoire that I'm covering. That's where I'm perhaps more introspective. Go have fun. Have fun. And I'll see you another time, mister.
