Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (28⧸06⧸2015)

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 28, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

25:11

This Week in Stupid (28⧸06⧸2015)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 28th of June 2015.
	Oh, wasn't last week just so fucking stupid?
	Look at this.
	Woman demands pro-life people raise a million dollars or she'll have an abortion.
	She's holding the pro-life conservatives to ransom with her unborn child for a million dollars.
	A 26 year old woman who wants to remain anonymous, you would want to remain anonymous if you were the one doing this, wouldn't you? has shared that she is seven weeks pregnant and plans to have an abortion on July the 10th.
	However, if pro-lifers can raise a million dollars in 72 hours, she says she will not have the abortion and place the baby up for adoption.
	Oh, that's probably way better than having her for a mother, in fact.
	I mean, at least if you're put for adoption, there is a chance that your parents will turn out to be decent human beings.
	She selected 72 hours intentionally because she wanted to draw attention to the laws that recently passed requiring women to wait 72 hours prior to an abortion.
	Because that is, uh, well, that's, that's an attack on women's rights.
	That's preventing women from having an abortion.
	Until three days have passed, then, you know, then they can, but that's not good enough.
	Feminists want their abortions now, and they're quite happy to use the unborn fetuses as hostages to make that happen.
	So the woman says that she hopes to give the American public a concrete example that the conservative right in America doesn't actually care about the life of a child, they care about controlling the lives and choices of women.
	You know, I would not recommend anyone give you any money.
	Even though you do say that the money will be put into a trust fund for the baby that you will have, that they will have access to on the 21st birthday, you know, or you're going to murder it.
	But the thing is, when conservatives fail to donate to a fetus that's living under the sword of Damocles, it's not going to be because the conservative right doesn't care about the life of the child.
	It's because you are a psycho and you are trying to extort money from them to prove a political point using the life of your unborn child.
	That's so fucking sick.
	Honestly, I just give, give me, give me money.
	Give this child money or I'm going to kill it.
	It's just sick.
	And it's like, yeah, well, if you don't give it money, then you don't care about the child.
	And it's like, well, I think the only person who doesn't care about the life of the child here is you.
	And the funny thing about this for me is that I'm not part of either group here, so I really don't care who wins or loses this.
	But I can tell you this, love.
	You're not going to make feminism look good.
	If this is just nothing that, you know, a feminist has done.
	And you're so concerned about women's rights, I can't believe you're not a feminist.
	I know you haven't explicitly said it, but let's be honest, you probably are.
	Well, all I'm saying is this doesn't make the Conservatives look bad.
	There's plenty later on that makes the Conservatives look bad.
	And on the subject of people looking bad, the Bradford sisters who left the UK to join ISIS were radicalised by British police relatives say.
	Well there is a claim that just has complete truth written all over it.
	So Mohamed Shawib and fuck em I don't know, whose wives both left their homes in Bradford to travel to Syria, suggested that police encouraged their radicalisation by urging the women to contact their brother who had already left for Syria.
	It is believed he is fighting with the ISIS terror group.
	Do our police just not arrest people who do this sort of thing anymore?
	Apparently they don't.
	In a letter to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and Home and Foreign Secretaries, lawyers for the two husbands said that plainly the North East Counter-Terrorism Unit has been complicit in the grooming and radicalizing of these women.
	Well, I'll give you credit, I mean it takes balls to say that you were radicalized by the counter-terrorism unit.
	But what's more amazing is that they say the letter claims that the actions and misjudgment of the counter-terrorism units have placed the lives of 12 British citizens at risk because they chose to go over to Syria to fight for ISIS.
	Unbelievable, frankly.
	I'm just like, Jesus Christ.
	The brass balls on these people.
	The accusations have been rejected by both MPs in Downing Street and presumably anyone who isn't crazy.
	And this comes in the aftermath of David Cameron's comments that you may remember from last week, I think, that some Muslim communities quietly condone extremism by not confronting it.
	And it turns out you were wrong, David.
	Well, that's not entirely that far from the truth, actually.
	The West Yorkshire Police Chief Constable, Assistant Constable, sorry, Russ Foster of Nectu said, we've not seen the letter, so we cannot comment in detail on its contents.
	However, we completely reject accusations that the police were complicit in the alleged grooming of the missing family or that we were oppressive to them.
	Yes, I have a hard time believing that as well.
	The Muslim community, frankly, can get away with anything they fucking want.
	Because we know the police are far too worried about being called racists than they are about preventing Muslim grooming gangs in England.
	We know this.
	So Britain's second largest police force were withheld a report about gangs of Muslim men grooming children in case it inflamed racial tensions ahead of a general election.
	It was revealed today.
	West Midlands police warned that more than 100 predominantly white children, some as young as 13, were at serious risk of child exploitation five years ago.
	Well, I'm glad that it only took five years for you guys to tell everyone about this.
	The report written for senior officers also reveals how white girls were used to recruit other vulnerable victims on behalf of Asian gangs.
	There were fears of a row ahead of the general election in 2010 and an English Defence League rally in April leading to a backlash against law-abiding citizens from Asian Pakistani communities.
	Well, there wouldn't be any kind of backlash if you did your fucking jobs and protected these kids from predatory gangs, no matter where they fucking come from.
	Despite the warnings, police did not warn the public or appeal for information about the men responsible and the report was only published this week under the Freedom of Information Act.
	Fuck you.
	And listen to this.
	The document states the predominant offender profile of Pakistani Muslim males combined with the predominant victim profile of white females has the potential to cause significant community tensions.
	There is a potential for backlashing against the vast majority of law-abiding citizens from Asian Pakistani Muslim communities from other members of the community believing their children to have been exploited.
	As if this is more important than preventing these girls from being molested by these guys.
	And as if preventing this wouldn't do the same thing anyway.
	Preventing this from happening would stop any kind of potential backlash against the Asian community.
	This is of course being compared to the case in Rotherham where police and social workers in South Yorktown are accused of being too concerned about being labelled racist to speak about the crimes involving 1,400 children.
	Why they would need to be afraid of this is beyond me.
	There is strong evidence in a vast majority of all cases that the victims are enticed, stupefied and controlled by alcohol and a mixture of controlled drugs.
	I'm pretty sure giving drugs and alcohol to kids is a crime.
	For fuck's sake, it's not like this isn't a perfectly good reason to arrest someone.
	Listen to this sniveling shit.
	West Midlands Police Assistant Chief Constable Carl Fawkes says, these reports spanning six years give a real insight into the journey we have undertaken along with our partners into investigating and tackling child sexual exploitation.
	Well, hang on.
	How exactly have you ever tackled it?
	Because that seems to be entirely the problem.
	There is no doubt that there has been a significant cultural change within the force in the respect of this issue.
	And now very clear that the responsibility of tackling CSE, child sexual exploitation, lies with every police officer, staff member, and PCSO and special constable.
	Oh, give those fucking men a round of applause.
	That's so brave of you to fucking say so.
	The job of protecting children from sexual predators actually lies with law enforcement.
	Who could have imagined?
	And the force has carried out extensive work to train officers across the force in how to identify and deal with CSE so we can gain as much intelligence as possible, thereby improving the outcomes for the victims.
	Why don't you try fucking arresting these guys?
	You already showed how you know exactly how they operate.
	I skipped out where they went over dozens and dozens of cases of how these Muslim guys came to the school gates and were giving kids drugs and fucking alcohol at the school gate.
	Seriously, fuck you.
	You know these things are wrong and you're just fucking cowards.
	I find this tail between the legs mealy mouthed bullshit entirely unconvincing.
	Speaking of racial tensions though, social justice warriors flipped their fucking shit this week over a bunch of things.
	But one of the things was obviously a white guy.
	A white guy who wasn't a black guy.
	Yeah, this is as inane as it sounds.
	Spider-Man is a white kid again and here is why you should be angry about it.
	This was done of course because of racism.
	They say the reaction to casting decisions of the Hunger Games and Fantastic Four reboots are sadly almost what we've come to expect.
	A noxious mixture of outraged culture, oh, the irony, and a type of verbose, wrongly unapologetic racism, really.
	Fans like these who bulk or protest at people of colour casting choices, even those that are hypothetical, live in a world of stark polarity.
	One that is easy for even the most basic anti-racist to trace.
	Listen to where this is going.
	There are immobile, monolithic rules.
	If whiteness equals Western purity and morality, it therefore equals supremacy.
	I'm sure that's cast iron.
	And if this is the case, which it surely is, blackness is the foil to whiteness.
	Blackness is impure.
	Blackness is immoral, inferior, then evil.
	This is all coming out of the mind of a social justice warrior, remember?
	No one else has said this, apart from maybe the storm fags and, you know, those people who are actual racists.
	Blackness must be caged.
	Blackness must be broken.
	Blackness must, more than anything, disappear.
	Who the fuck is that according to?
	Jesus Christ.
	You're the one saying this, you psychos.
	But the brilliant thing about this is the context of the Spider-Man reboots, it's more difficult to detect.
	See, it's not that they're being openly racist because they're opposing a black character.
	It's they happen to have chosen a white character, which is racist, but it's more subtle.
	It relies on laziness and a strange sense of comfort, the default of whiteness.
	It hankers on a parasitic symbiosis and a willful blindness that is inherent to the American racial hierarchy.
	That whiteness is intrinsically the norm.
	What do you think a fucking norm is, you numbnuts?
	It feeds off a lack of information and a reluctance to discuss race in any other context within the realm of a post-racial society, which has been proven time and time again is only a myth, because there are loads of social justice warriors out there making it a racial society.
	They can't stop fucking talking about it.
	This benign racism thrives when we refuse to even entertain the notion of racial injustice, inequality, and non-representation.
	Even in something as seemingly insipid as who is cast in a superhero movie.
	How ironic is it that the West in general would be so much closer to being a post-racial society if it wasn't for all these social justice warriors constantly bringing up race?
	I guess we should thank fucking God that Stan Lee isn't one of them and said that Spider-Man should stay white and straight.
	Why?
	Well, because he's a giant fucking racist, obviously.
	Why else would it be?
	I mean, he says it's because he wouldn't mind that if Peter had been originally black, Latino, Indian, or anything else, he would stay that way, but he was originally made white, so there's no reason to change that.
	Well, Stan, you don't seem to understand, buddy.
	Being white is a reason not to be white.
	Spider-Man's obviously straight as well, which is also unacceptable.
	But Stan says, I think the world is a place for gay superheroes, certainly, but again, I don't see any reason to change the sexual proclivities of a character once they've already been established.
	I have no problem with creating new homosexual superheroes.
	Well, that's the problem, Stan.
	You see?
	Because being straight is as much a reason as being white as to change it.
	And being the homophobic bigot that he is, Stan Lee has also obviously claimed that he's not a homophobic bigot.
	But we know better than that.
	He says, it's nothing to do with being anti-gay or anti-black or anti-Latino or anti-anything like that.
	Latino characters should stay Latino.
	Black Panthers should certainly not be Swiss.
	I see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters.
	I say create new characters the way you want to.
	Hell, I'll do it myself.
	Damn it, Stan Lee, you shitlord.
	Why are you against diversity?
	So since we can't not talk about the topic of race, let's talk about the stupid things that have happened in the wake of the Charleston shooting.
	I mean, I don't know what you guys are thinking about, but the first thing that springs to my mind is the chick on Facebook who was caught lying about being attacked by three black guys at Walmart.
	Just days after the racism-fueled Charleston massacre, in which a young white supremacist Dylan Roof took the lives of nine black churchgoers, a woman in Texarkana is being called out on social media for trying to incite racist attacks against the black community.
	So some idiot woman posted photos of herself on Facebook after reportedly being jumped by three African Americans outside Walmart.
	In the photos, she appears to be sporting two black eyes and a bloody nose and lip.
	Go on then, let's have a look.
	You look like a fucking clown.
	For anyone listening, not watching, this is the least convincing example of special effects makeup you will ever see.
	She, oh, just looks ridiculous.
	She looks like she's a fucking mime or something.
	Unsurprisingly, her local police have had no reports of this happening, and they find the injuries are highly questionable.
	But in response to the inevitable mocking that followed after claiming this, this idiot stuck to her fucking guns and posted another picture of herself wearing big glasses to hide her black eyes with tissue in her nose and giving the finger.
	That's right, genius.
	Double down on a lie that you have obviously been caught out in.
	Okay, so I know that you actually weren't thinking of her.
	You were probably thinking of the Confederate flag, of which I have been told this is an accurate representation.
	So yes, after the Charleston shooting, everyone started getting their knickers in a bunch over this flag and how it's supposed to symbolize a kind of homosexually satanic Nazi Zionist racism.
	And after reading through a lot of comments of people telling me exactly what it really meant, I came to the conclusion that it really meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
	And there are definitely going to be people who consider it a symbol against black people.
	It seems that that's the case.
	You know, I don't think it can be denied, but I don't think they represent the majority of people who fly the Confederate Nazi Jewish Satanist Zionist gay flag.
	There seem to be plenty of people using it who are genuinely concerned about, well, the culture and heritage that goes with it.
	But even if it was considered a racist symbol by everyone, I mean, that doesn't mean it's not a part of history, and it doesn't mean that it should be, for example, stopped being sold by Amazon and Walmart.
	What a fucking bizarre thing to do.
	Why would you think that was necessary?
	Amazon, you sell mine camp, you fucking idiots.
	And Walmart.
	Oh, really?
	No Confederate flags for you.
	This is the rejection letter from the Walmart or Natchez Draft, Slano, Louisiana.
	This was the image I wanted printed.
	This is the actual receipt.
	This is the actual receipt from the North Shore Boulevard store where I bought the ISIS battle cake.
	That's an ISIS battle flag cake.
	And anybody can go buy Walmart.
	But no, it totally makes sense for Amazon and Walmart to stop selling Confederate flag.
	Fuck it.
	I mean, it's not like this isn't a massively slippery slope to be going down.
	You know, why are we not banning a lot more stuff if this is the principle that we're going to operate under?
	Hilariously, though, this has caused sales of the Confederate flags to skyrocket more than 3,600% in 24 hours on Amazon because of Civil War enthusiasts worried that they won't be able to buy Confederate symbols in the future and obviously wanting to remain historically accurate and not having to bloody make them themselves.
	What a fucking ridiculous state of affairs.
	This even went as far as Apple banning civil war games from their app store because of the Confederate flag, the American Civil fucking war.
	And they say that they've pulled all games from the app store which contain the Confederate flag and because it includes images of the Confederate flag used in offensive and mean-spirited ways.
	Yes, historically representing a bunch of slave owners, I'm sure.
	But that's not necessarily bad in itself.
	It's not wrong to sell offensive things.
	Are you telling us that you're not going to have like you're going to go to the app store and pull all games that are set in modern day in the Middle East?
	No, this game's got the Taliban in, scratch that.
	You know, are you pulling World War II games?
	No, these have got Nazis in.
	Scratch those.
	Where does this fucking end, you maniacs?
	Thankfully, Apple did end up realizing what a bunch of tremendous bell ends they were being and reinstated the games that were taken off.
	But the thing is, this is kind of like a guy walking into your house and then taking a shit in your living room and then saying, hang on, I'll go and clean that up.
	Cleans it up really nice.
	You wouldn't know it happened.
	And then he sits down.
	It's like, well, did you have to take the shit in the first place?
	You know what I mean?
	Just, what was the impetus for all of this?
	This fucking moral hysteria on Twitter.
	People going, oh, I think the Confederate fans are about racism.
	Well, I think it's about states' rights and heritage.
	Okay, well, the racists win.
	By making them the preeminent thing about this issue, you are saying that they are the most important thing in any given situation that they are involved in.
	Why you would want to give these people prominence by saying, oh yeah, the Confederate flag is all about racism is beyond me.
	If you had any fucking sense, you'd be like, no, of course it's not.
	Of course it's about heritage.
	And the crazy racists would be further ostracized to the margins of society where everyone wants them.
	And the last big event this week that happened that a lot of stupid things came out of was the Supreme Court ruling that makes same-sex marriage a right across America.
	This is something I support, I suppose, just because I don't really think that anyone else should have the right to tell someone else that they can't get married or do whatever they want with another consenting adult.
	But again, I'm just kind of, yeah, well, sure, because I don't really care.
	But a lot of people do care, and they can kind of best be summed up in this guy.
	If we are going to remove symbols of oppression from our culture, if we come to the point where we say, hey, any flag that represents bigotry, any flag that represents hatred, any flag that represents slavery or oppression needs to be removed, then I want to suggest to you that the next flag to go ought to be the rainbow flag of the gay Reich.
	The rainbow flag represents the homosexual lobby.
	It represents big gay.
	It represents what I'm calling for the first time today.
	I'm introducing a new term, the gay Reich.
	They've got a flag, just like the Nazis had their flag.
	Again, I'm not saying that they're Nazis.
	I'm not saying that.
	I'm saying the Nazis had a flag.
	The Confederates have a flag.
	The United States has a flag.
	And the gay lobby, big gay, the gay Gestapo, they've got a flag, and it's the rainbow flag.
	And I'm suggesting to you that that flag is a symbol of slavery and oppression and bigotry and prejudice and bias.
	So if we're going to go after symbols of oppression, we ought to make the rainbow flag the next target for removal in our culture.
	You know, I'm just kidding.
	I'm just kidding.
	I'm sure that his views represent a very, very tiny minority of people who think that big gay, the gay Gestapo of the gay Reich are bringing about the gay apocalypse.
	Seriously, though, I do know that he doesn't represent anyone.
	But I know who does represent people and who also opposes gay marriage.
	Define marriage.
	I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
	Now, for me as a Christian, for me.
	For me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union.
	You know, God's in the mix.
	But would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
	No, I would not.
	Why not?
	Because historically, because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.
	It's been a matter of state law.
	That has been our tradition.
	Now, I mean, let's break it down.
	The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern about same-sex marriage.
	I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.
	Well, that seems fairly close and dry.
	Obama's against gay marriage.
	He doesn't promote that.
	I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.
	I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage.
	So I take Umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding,
	foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.
	Well, that incredibly painful reading from Hillary Clinton was pretty definitive as well.
	She's very much against gay marriage too, which is, of course, why they've completely flipped on their position and suddenly, now it's popular, they're completely pro-gay marriage.
	Now, these clips were both over 10 years old and i'm i'm, without a doubt, sure that they, if challenged, would say, well, you know what.
	I was wrong back then, i've changed my mind.
	And yet everyone is completely free to do that.
	I mean, I like with Ian Miles Chung, you know he said, you know, hold my hands up, I was in the wrong, I apologize.
	I personally advocated accepting this apology.
	So you know, I like to think that i'm the sort of person who can do that.
	But let's be honest with ourselves.
	Barak and Hillary, you're kind of looking like you're opportunists in all this.
	You look like you don't really care either way.
	You just want to do what is the most popular thing at the time and frankly, to be honest with you back in the day it looked like Hillary was getting fed her lines through a fucking earpiece look at this between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary,
	principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.
	Is anyone convinced by any of these people?
	And you know what, America, that's your next president right there.
	Just because she's got a vagina.
	Just best of luck.

▲