All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
27:48
This Week in Stupid (31⧸07⧸2016)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 31st of July 2016.
This week we are going to start by talking about racially segregated fairies of colour.
Believe it or not, this is actually a Guardian article from this week.
The, I assume this is supposed to be pronounced Chrysalis gathering in Northern California provides a rare chance for 50 attendees to commune with nature and escape the white heterosexual gaze.
Revel in your faggotry was the commandment given to us at the beginning of Chrysalis, gathering of queer people of colour, an event taking place last week in the redwoods of Medochino County, about 100 miles north of San Francisco, if you can believe it.
The weekend had some ground rules.
No white or straight people were allowed to watch us partying, dancing or doing drag.
We would be, if only briefly, entirely free from the white heterosexual gaze, a new experience for many of the 50 participants.
Instead, Chrysalis was reserved for radical fairies of colour.
I swear to God, I'm having real trouble making sure that this week's episode isn't just half an hour of me laughing.
The male gaze is something that feminists complain about when talking about men objectifying women.
As in the way cameras pan across women in films and things like this.
They're designed to simulate a male gaze.
This is what a straight white man, I don't know why whites in there, but a straight man would want to look at when looking at a woman, to sexually objectify her.
I find it very ironic that gay people might think that a white heterosexual gaze is something that even exists, because surely white heterosexual people, men, women, are not sexually objectifying people of the same sex.
But what I find most amusing about this is the radical fairies of colour, as if these radical fairies are going to be overthrowing any systems anytime soon, especially when you learn what exactly they've been getting up to.
But not only that, excuse me, fairies is European folklore.
You know, white people.
The very same white people you are discriminating against by preventing them from coming to retreat because of the white heterosexual gaze.
So not only will you stop using the term fairies, you will apologise for your appropriation of my culture.
According to William Stewart, a member of the Groundswell Institute, which hosted the event, the radical fairy tradition can be traced to the Gay Liberation Front.
The word fairy was a reclamation of being swishy, Stewart explained, and a form of rebellion against hyper-masculinity.
Well, that it is, but like I would explain, you're not allowed to use that word.
Fairy is our word, especially the way you've spelt it here, and it is reserved exclusively for insecure, fat, upper-middle-class women who want to write very, very bad Twilight fanfiction, okay?
As a movement, radical fairies are supportive of communal sex, communal living, and communing with nature, positioning themselves at odds with the consumerist, monogamous marriage equality movement.
Many people involved with Groundswell have been involved with gatherings of radical fairies at Wolf Creek, Oregon and Short Mountain, Tennessee.
Bacchanalian gatherings of hundreds of queers in nature.
God, what is this?
Others have lived in radical fairy houses in cities.
Located on 200 acres, the venue looks like a kid's campground, but there are telltale signs that something else is going on.
Condoms and lube are available in the dining hall, clothing is optional, and the bathrooms are gender neutral, and will soon have group showers and a sauna.
It's not unusual to see goats or alpacas being cared for by a farmhand wearing little more than nail polish and a jock strap.
It's a beautiful sight, and the fresh goat milk is delicious.
Holy shit.
Fucking.
Jeez, really?
Really, is this a beautiful sight?
A naked gay guy milking an alpaca who then hands you a nice warm glass of alpaca milk.
For a few days though, we queers of colour shared, talked, sang, and danced, and that's it, Mum I Swear, just as the co-organizers Grace Towers, Blue Buddha and Jimmy Hill dreamed we could.
And with the help of dressing up in drag, soaking up nature, slathering our bodies in clay and skinny dipping, we got to question what it's like to be a queer person of colour in a world that erases us.
How do we process fears of violence?
How do we- what can we do to find joy regardless?
Well, I mean, I don't know, you could always wander off into the wilderness, strip naked, live like a bunch of hippies, roll around in the mud, have a giant gay orgy, and then drink the freshly squeezed, still warm juice of a farm animal.
You know, if that's the sort of thing you're into.
So this is one of the radical fairies, and I'm not joking, his name is Snowflake, and he identifies as a her.
Snowflake believes that faggots are magical creatures, but in a drumming and chanting ceremony around the fire, Snowflake attempted to disabuse us of the idea that practicing faggotry in nature is anyway tied to whiteness or even maleness.
Well, that makes complete and perfect sense to anyone who speaks English.
Practicing faggotry, do you mean being gay?
And tied to whiteness.
Now, I know that they're talking about whiteness as a social construct.
So they're talking about something that is a performance.
It's something that people do.
It's not something that people are.
I don't think that they have a very broad-minded conception of what whiteness is.
What I think they're picturing is the nuclear family and, you know, wife, husband, two kids, car, suburban house, dog.
That's, I think, what they're picturing when they picture whiteness.
And so, yeah, I can imagine that it would be difficult to say that a bunch of brown-skinned gay men writhing around naked in the woods with a bunch of farm animals would in any way be connected to that.
I mean, I don't think anyone would even suggest that it was.
Gender didn't exist in the way we now see it in Western culture.
Most tribes didn't have a concept of one or the other.
You could change midway because gender is a spectrum.
Yes, prehistoric African and South American villages were essentially like real-world versions of Tumblr.
When people can find and start to decolonize and strip all of that bullshit off of themselves, they can find out who they really are and really revel in their faggotry.
Well, God forbid I would ever stop someone from reveling in their faggotry.
I might take the piss a bit, but you know what?
You guys be as faggoty as you want.
You can go off and be total faggots, all in the woods all together, as much as you want, as long as you're all consenting adults and nobody's getting hurt, that's fine.
You have a great time doing it.
Even if you want to segregate, that's your choice.
It's just simply, you know, it's a private event, it's for a select group of people.
If you want to make the selection of the group based on race, because that's always worked out so well historically, then that's your choice.
It's not you being regressive, it's everyone else that's the problem.
But the thing is, it's a bit different when you have a protest for, oh, I don't know, Black Lives Matter, and the leader is saying that the press at this public event in public space need to be racially segregated.
Black Lives Matter activists sorted white journalists and supporters to the back of their march outside the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
Several videos of the protest have been posted on social media which show the female leader of the protest standing on the back of the truck while ordering racial segregation.
The unnamed protester used the microphone and amplified to start a number of highly offensive chants aimed at the Philadelphia Police Department and Hillary Clinton.
I would normally play a clip from the video here, but to be honest with you, the audio quality is so bad on it that I could barely hear anything of it myself.
But it did seem like she was saying this, and it doesn't surprise me in the least.
I mean, these movements, these identitarian movements, are fostering segregation.
I mean, they're demanding it.
They are literally, they're creating spaces that are exclusively for not just for black people, they're just not for white people.
Imagine that.
Imagine creating a space where you say, okay, well, no, I mean, anyone can come, as long as they're not black.
And they'd be like, why?
Well, you know, we don't want the black gaze.
The black gaze generally focuses on our wallets.
And generally, you know, you can tell they're thinking about mugging us or murdering us, because that's what black people do.
And so we're creating a space just without blacks.
I mean, they can go somewhere else.
It's just this space doesn't have any blacks in it.
Just, it would be okay, wouldn't it?
Nobody would complain.
Everything would be fine, and you wouldn't get these people up in arms.
These very same people who actually want to segregate by race would be furious if they weren't the ones segregating people.
Since we're on the subject of control, segregation and religions of peace, let's talk about Islam.
And yes, Islam is pro-segregation.
And yes, we do see this in modern Britain at, for example, a labor conference in 2015.
Anyway, what's Haram this week?
Well, you might think it's something important, but you're wrong.
The answer is, of course, a kid's cartoon.
Fireman Sam episode pulled amid Quran row.
You might think that the progressive atheist community might get a hashtag trending, something like, Islam so fragile or something like that.
But of course they don't because it turns out that this episode of Fireman Sam was Islamophobic.
So an episode of Fireman Sam in which one character appears to tread on a page from the Quran has been withdrawn.
A scene in the children's program shows a fireman slipping on a pile of papers, and as they fly into the air, a page from the Quran is briefly depicted.
The episode was first broadcast in October 2014 on Channel 5, but the error, quote unquote, has only recently been spotted.
Mattel apologised and said they did not believe it was done maliciously.
Uh what wasn't done maliciously?
Including a Quran and a child's TV program?
Or the fact that it was part of a stack of papers that one of the characters tripped over or slipped on, which caused them to fly up in the air.
Is this, I mean, is no one allowed to have an accident with a Quran?
If someone walks by in a mosque and knocks the Quran, do you just behead them or what?
Mikdad Versey, Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, tweeted, I have no idea what went through the producer's mind when they thought this was a good idea.
Hashtag baffled.
I think maybe they were trying to be inclusive.
I think maybe they were trying to make it look normal that there'd be a Quran just sat around a fire station for some reason.
And then for some reason, they start the next heading with the quote, never again, as if this is a Holocaust to Islam and it must never happen again.
Remember the pages that were knocked over in a kid's cartoon.
Hashtag never again.
Of course Mattel said, we sincerely apologise for any distress or offense this may have caused.
Let's just take a moment to try and imagine what distress over a Fireman Sam cartoon episode might look like.
I mean I actually know because I have a son who's coming on two years old now, but don't imagine an adorable chubby-cheeked toddler being distressed about a cartoon.
Imagine a full-grown adult, a man, with a huge beard and a perpetual scowl, being angry that the Quran was featured in a children's cartoon, and that it was knocked over by a character in this episode.
Knocked over.
And that's the kind of retard we're talking about.
But the thing is, I think this goes one further, because this wasn't just any common or garden retardation.
Oh no, no, no, no.
I think that this is middle-class virtue signaling retardation, because these fucking morons didn't even complain to the right corporation.
Channel 5 are the ones who broadcast it, but the BBC received more than a thousand complaints about it.
You fucking idiots.
So let's once again change the subject.
Away from the religion of policing children's cartoons into something that has nothing to do with Islam at all, by definition, because Islam is a religion of peace.
So we are now going to talk about the recent terrorist attacks that have been happening in France and Germany, and how Angela Merkel's open-door immigration policy is actually protecting Germany from terrorism in the long run.
Well, I tell you what, thank fuck that in the long run it's going to protect Germany from terrorism because in the short run, it seems to have done the precise opposite.
So Merkel's open-door policy towards immigrants fleeing Middle East war zones will in the long run make Germany safer from terrorist attacks.
Citation needed.
By showing compassion to hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees, the German Chancellor has sent a message to the world that Germany is not at war with Islam.
More importantly, this means that the vast majority of Muslims resident in Germany have every reason to cooperate with the security services in the fight against terrorism.
Well, I have to say, I disagree with this thesis.
I don't think that bringing in millions of Middle Eastern migrants will make any country safer in the long run from terrorist attacks.
And I only say this because of the volume of terrorist attacks that occur in the Middle East.
And when our author says this is not something that could be said of the marginalized and radicalized Muslim communities of the rundown suburbs of Brussels or Paris, which breed and harbour terrorist networks, I have to ask you, where do you think these Muslim migrants are going to go?
Do you think they are just going to come from a radically different society into German society and fit right in?
You know, despite the fact they don't speak German, but I mean, do you not think they're going to end up in marginalized and radicalized Muslim communities in run-down suburbs in Germany?
just out of interest.
The key to beating terrorism...
wait wait...
You think you know how to stop terrorism?
Or how to beat it?
Sorry, beat terrorism, whatever that means.
But I presume you mean stop or avoid or contain.
But you think you actually have the solution to terrorism.
So, okay, I guess we'll clear our minds and we'll embrace this received wisdom, shall we?
So the key is winning the hearts and minds of Muslims living in the communities that are vulnerable to radicalization by hate breachers and terror groups.
That's amazing.
I mean, you would think that if anyone was going to capture the hearts and minds of Muslims, it would be other Muslims.
So you would think that the Islamic world wouldn't have a giant problem with terrorism.
But this year alone, in, what, seven, eight months, there have been over 12,000 deaths from Islamic terrorism, and 90% or so are in the Middle East.
In fact, the number of terrorist atrocities gets lower the further away you get from Islamic countries.
Now, I hate to sound like this terrible, terrible cynic, but I really think the problem is Islam.
I really think the problem Islamic countries are having is Islam itself.
Not Muslims, Islam.
For anyone out there with jerking knees, I'm not suggesting the people are the problem.
I'm suggesting the ideas are the problem.
And I don't think we have to tolerate bad ideas.
If someone says, I want to segregate people by race, I want to segregate people by gender.
I want people to do exactly as I say and to control what media they can produce in case I'm offended and at the very far end of it, I'm going to blow myself up for a reward in the afterlife.
These are things we don't need to tolerate.
In fact, I think these are things that we should not tolerate.
These are incredibly regressive and alternately dangerous ideas that we need to be getting rid of in our societies.
So bringing millions of people over who hold these ideas seems incredibly counterproductive and seems like it's going to regress civilization back, which honestly I think is what's happened in the Middle East.
I think they have been retarded by Islam.
Socially, culturally, intellectually, they have been held back by a totalitarian ideology.
And I think that the author thinks this as well.
Because listen to the tone with which they speak.
So while Merkel's critics have been quick to blame her for the recent attacks in Bavaria, it is possible that her actions have already saved the country from the kind of organized mass murder, bomb and gun attacks that have taken place.
These attacks have sprung from the suburbs of Paris and Brussels, which have become the incubators of terrorism.
The hatred and resentment which has taken hold there may take generations to overcome.
But the most important part to remember is that they are not responsible for the hatred and resentment that is taking hold in their Muslim ghettos.
For some reason, the author of this piece is talking as if these Muslims are animals.
They are talking as if Muslims can't do anything for themselves.
As if simply being a Muslim means that the siren song of Islamism is always around the corner, and we are going to have to consistently and forever try and hold it down.
If that's the case, then should we not ban Islam as an ideology?
Because you make it sound like Nazism.
You make it sound like they are just waiting for their own Adolf Hitler to come along before they will start engaging in Holocaust.
Honestly, you make it sound like the regular average Muslim needs to be protected from Islam.
But not only that, we didn't go and pluck these people out of their countries, lift them up by the scruff of their neck and dump them in a fucking ghetto somewhere in Europe.
They came of their own volition.
They chose where to live.
And if they've ended up creating these enclaves in Western countries that are becoming breeding grounds, as you say, for terrorist networks that are causing terrorist attacks all across Europe, at what point do we say, okay, maybe that's what some of them want?
And maybe that some of them isn't a very small number.
Certainly the Paris Van Lieus and the Molenbeek suburb of Brussels are populated by Muslims who no longer feel they have a stake in mainstream society.
Have you ever spoken to any of them?
No, I haven't.
I haven't spoken to a single one.
But I'm quite confident, just judging by the polling data we get from them, that we can establish that they are not part of mainstream society.
You would not believe the number of people in these communities who think gays are immoral and should be illegal.
They think apostates should be killed.
They think that women and men should be segregated.
They don't believe in women's rights.
They think women are the property of the husband.
And a good number of them want Islamic law in the place of the current state law.
Do you understand that these people don't want to be part of mainstream society?
You can't make them be part of mainstream society.
In fact, they don't like your mainstream society.
Many of the young Muslims brought up there have already headed out to Syria and Iraq to live and fight in the caliphate.
I mean, what do you think that means?
Do you think that means they were like, well, I mean, you know, I'm just being excluded from mainstream Belgian society.
I am just not being treated as if I'm Belgian enough.
So I'm going to become a terrorist and suicide bomber out in Syria and Iraq.
And you know what?
If this was a, oh, I don't know, right-wing person, would you say, oh, they're just not being integrated enough?
We just need to get them into the mainstream of society.
No, you would demand their complete and total exclusion.
You would demand the criminalization of what they think, what they believe, and the things that they do.
You don't do that for Muslims, despite the fact it is Muslims killing people, and not the far right.
Instead, we get apologetics like this.
Francois Hollande has frequently announced that he is at war with ISIS.
For many Muslims who feel like they may have become criminalized by their religion, the French president might as well be declaring war on them.
Well, that could only be true if you think ISIS are Islamic, which I'm guessing you do.
The truth is, and this person now thinks they have the truth, is that foreign policy does play a vital role in the radicalization and incentivization of terrorists.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
These are not terrorists until they commit an act of terror.
However, they are Muslims before they commit an act of terror.
You don't know who's going to become a terrorist.
And what you are saying here is that something that happens in another country might incentivize and radicalize the people in your country to murder your fellow citizens.
You're saying that this population is dangerous for whatever reason.
That's what you're saying with this sentence.
It is a lesson that France benefited from during the Iraq War, when its government vehemently opposed that conflict.
During this period, France was free from terrorist attacks, whereas Britain, who instigated and waged war against Saddam Hussein, suffered the London bomb attacks of 7-7.
Spain too, a high-profile supporter of the war, faced the Madrid train bombings in 2004.
Do you even listen to yourselves typing?
You're saying that we are going to be held hostage by a fifth column within our countries that will attack us if we go to war with another nation.
I mean, do you understand how insane that is?
to write down and then say, as a defense of Islam and bringing in more of these people to our countries.
I know I'm going to get all sorts of fucking shit for this video.
I already know.
I already know I'm going to get the regressive going, Islamophobia, racism.
And they'll be flapping their floppy wrists and squealing into the ether of the internet.
I know they will.
And I'm just staggered by the things.
And I can already hear the cries from over the hill.
Not all!
Not all!
But listen to what you're saying.
Just listen to what you're saying.
You are saying that these people are creating problems for our country.
People who didn't ask for these problems aren't responsible for these problems.
And we are seriously talking about hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people in Europe this year who have been killed by Islamic terrorism.
And you have identified the communities that are fostering people who go on to become terrorists.
And then you're saying what we need to do is take more of these people in and do what they say, or we will get more terrorism.
Are you insane?
Are you fucking insane?
What?
In what possible world do you think that is the solution to these communities creating terrorism?
Critics of Mrs. Merkel argue that by announcing an immigration free-for-all, she has endangered the lives of ordinary Germans.
But the recent flow of refugees from war zones into Europe has not increased the risk of terrorism.
Is the Independent honestly going to just publish these unsubstantiated assertions in the face of three deadly terrorist attacks in Germany last week, of which two at least were committed by refugees, one from Syria and one from Afghanistan.
I honestly feel like I'm living in some sort of insane dystopia, where the I mean reality just doesn't matter to these people.
The dead bodies of their fellow countrymen just don't matter to these people.
God forbid that someone who lives in a community that has been harbouring and producing terrorism not feel fully included in society when they hate that society and don't mind if there is terrorism.
And we know this because, as I said, they are in a community that harbors terrorism.
Do you think the people in these communities don't know what's going on?
Do you think they simply have no fucking idea?
Or do you think they simply do not care enough to intervene?
Do you want to hear something scary?
Back in April, Channel 4 did a survey that no one wants to talk about, because that survey reveals the chasm between Muslim values and the rest of the UK.
Only one in three British Muslims would tip off the police if they believed someone close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathizers.
One in three, two-thirds of Muslims in this country wouldn't tell the police if they knew someone who was in severe danger of radicalization.
If they knew someone who was involved with terrorist sympathizers, they wouldn't do anything.
They wouldn't tell the authorities.
And you know what?
More than 100,000 British Muslims sympathized with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
In December, it was revealed by the Times that fewer than a tenth of extremism, less than one in ten tip-offs, were coming from the Muslim community or faith leaders.
I am going to do a proper video about this to really lay everything out as clearly as possible.
But I'll leave you with this.
The survey exposed the unacknowledged creation of a nation within a nation, within its own geography, its own values, and its own very separate future.
They don't want to integrate.
They want to create Muslim societies within our countries.
I don't want them to create Muslim societies within our communities.
I want Muslim people to integrate into British society.
I want them to become secularized.
They can keep their religion, as long as they remember that we have a separation between religion and politics.
They can be religious Muslims in private, and they can be secular British people in public.
If they want Islamic values pushed into the British mainstream, the answer must be no.
Because these values are hideous.
Absolutely hideous.
▲
Export Selection