Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - This Week in Stupid (04⧸03⧸2018)

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 4, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

29:09

This Week in Stupid (04⧸03⧸2018)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone, welcome to this week in Stupid for the 4th of March 2018.
	Before I start, I'd just let you know about the live events that I'm doing.
	So tomorrow on the 5th of March, I'll be having a discussion with Jarin Brooke of the Ayn Rand Institute about objectivism, and I'll be asking some probing questions and I'm sure getting some interesting answers.
	And then on March the 10th, I'll be in London again for the first liberalists UK meetup.
	This is going to be a fairly informal affair, so it'll just be me and other people just hanging out, having beers, talking, discussing politics and anything else interesting.
	And another YouTuber I know called V will be heading over as well.
	So that should be a lot of fun.
	I also have a new date for a live event as well on the 6th of April in the Paintworks event space in Bristol.
	I'll be doing a small talk and as with the other ones, I will have guests.
	And of course, I'll be doing my event in Scarborough Spa on the 16th of June.
	Each of these live shows will be different, so I won't just be repeating material as I understand some people do.
	So if you'd like to come and see me in person, all of the links will be in the description.
	So this week was very interesting.
	Let's begin with a bold move by the Labour Party, who have appointed a transgender model called Monroe Bergdorf to be their Labour advisor on LGBT issues.
	If you follow my channel, you might recognise Monroe Bergdoff because I did a video on her a few months ago because she had determined that all white people are racist.
	And of course, that meant that Britain itself was racist.
	And because it was said by a person of colour, the Labour Party just snapped to attention and decided to fling money at her for her to tell them how not to be racist because good grief, they must already know that they're guilty.
	Bergdoff's comments about white people got her fired from her modelling contract at L'Oréal last year.
	The model from East London was recently appointed to Labour's LGBT Plus Advisory Group and posted the news on Twitter illustrated with a picture of her meeting Jeremy Corbyn.
	She wrote, thrilled to announce that I've been asked to be a part of the LGBT Advisory Board for the Labour Party to advise Shadow Secretary of State for Women Inequality's Dawn Butler MP on issues affecting the LGBT plus community to help form and push through fairer and more effective policy change.
	On the plus side, Labour remain as the opposition party, so I don't think they're going to be pushing any kind of policy changes.
	But who knows how long that will last?
	The Telegraph quote her as previously saying, Because most of you all don't even realize or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.
	Your entire existence is drenched in racism.
	From microaggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this shit.
	You know, I find that statement really weird because if I genuinely thought that, I would move out of countries that were mostly full of white people.
	I'd move to a country where white people were either non-existent or the overwhelming minority.
	I mean, possibly even a country where this kind of rhetoric might go down very well politically, say South Africa.
	But honestly, this is the reason that I know that Monroe Bergdoff does not believe what she is saying.
	You wouldn't be cozying up to a white man.
	You wouldn't be getting involved in British politics, which I have to say are still mostly full of white people for a mostly white country.
	You would be leaving as soon as possible to find people who you didn't think were inherently racially racist.
	She says, come see me when you realize that racism isn't learned, it's inherited, and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege.
	Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth, then we can talk.
	Until then, stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay fucked at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with your hands over your ears.
	The problem with what you've said here, Monroe, is that you don't actually give white people an out, do you?
	The only option they have is to stay in their countries and become exceptionally protectionist, to make sure that they self-segregate from the non-white people because they just can't help oppressing them.
	If that's the case, then you are a racial nationalist.
	You can't possibly just ask white people to abandon their racist ways and their white privilege because it's an integral part of who they are.
	That is, of course, in your conception of this.
	That's the complete opposite of my conception of this.
	I actually think white people are so pathologically anti-racist as to allow people like you to be treated as a public figure to the point where you will be, I don't know, hired by the Labour Party and be given money to tell them how racist they are.
	But she has since clarified.
	She said, her comments were taken the wrong way.
	Well, I wonder why that was, Monroe.
	She said at the time, when I stated that all white people are racist, I was addressing the fact that Western society as a whole is a system rooted in white supremacy, designed to benefit, prioritise, and protect white people before anyone of any other race.
	Well, I've got to say, I disagree.
	I don't think that Western societies are actually designed to prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race.
	They're actually designed to benefit, prioritise, and protect citizens of these countries before any other race.
	And that, I think, is the problem that you're having when it comes to attempting to racialize your politics in an individualist system.
	But again, there are alternatives.
	You could always go somewhere like South Africa, where it's not an individualist system, where they will actually start victimizing white people because they are white for the benefit of black people.
	I guess you could call it, by your definition, a black supremacy system that's operating in South Africa.
	But I mean, I don't hear you complaining about that, but I suppose that's because hundreds of years ago, someone did something bad to someone else, and now their descendants have to pay the price.
	She continues with, unknowingly, white people are socialized to be racist from birth onwards.
	It's not something genetic.
	No one is born racist.
	That seems to be a bit of a backtrack from what you've previously said, but okay, let's assume that's the case.
	Why would they care to change?
	Why would a bunch of racists, who are all racists, without exception, socialize that way, because that's the way their system works, ever take the advice of a black person on not being racist?
	Why would they even want to not be racist to fit a black person's sensibilities, unless what you're saying here is total fiction?
	And in fact, white people are the people who invented anti-racism, and you are actually culturally appropriating this from us.
	Bergdorf apparently also attracted criticism from prominent feminists for claiming the suffragettes were racist.
	Well, they were white, of course they were racist.
	And to be fair, it was like 100 years ago.
	So yeah, they probably were racist as well.
	A spokesperson for Dawn Butler said, Dawn is proud to stand with those challenging discrimination.
	Dawn will consult with the LGBT plus advisory group on a wide range of LGBT plus issues.
	A Conservative MP has written to Dawn Butler asking her to reconsider the appointment.
	Helen Grant wrote in a letter, I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding your appointment of Monroe Bergdorf as an advisor on equality issues, and I urge you to reconsider.
	You may well be aware of Monroe's controversial comments in the past which saw her sacked from L'Oréal stating that the entire existence of white people is drenched in racism.
	Honestly, Helen, I don't think they should reconsider at all.
	I think that this is just one more nail in the coffin of the Labour Party as it skews even further and further to the left.
	Because as Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
	If anything, I think the Conservatives should ironically applaud the Labour Party from across the room, saying, bravo, what you need now is even more intersectional advisors to tell you how to run your party.
	But of course, it doesn't seem like they will, because apparently, some Tory voters will accept Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister if Brexit can be stopped, at least according to Lord Heseltine.
	Apparently, voters under 40 in particular are ready to risk the short-term damage of a Corbyn government, which is an amazing statement.
	I'm sure that there were people in Venezuela thinking we can risk the short-term damage of a Chavez government or a Maduro government, then go ahead with the calamitous mistake of leaving the EU.
	Hesseltine, who, like John Major, has called for a further referendum to stop Brexit, which I don't think we should agree to at all, said, I hate the idea of Jeremy Corbyn in power, but there are increasing numbers of people, particularly young people under 40, who think today that Corbyn is an alternative they can live with.
	Well, I have to say, that's really, really disturbing from the Conservative Party, and you would think that Theresa May would start flexing her muscles as not only the leader of the Conservative Party but the Prime Minister and whip them into shape.
	These are people I think the Conservatives can reasonably call traitors.
	It was a Conservative government that offered the referendum, and it is a Conservative government that will be overseeing the referendum, and there are very strong Eurosceptic voices within the Conservative Party.
	But the thing is, it really is a genuinely strange position for some conservatives to hold because the Labour Party has insisted that it will not stop Brexit.
	So, I don't know what they think supporting Corbyn will do other than usher in a socialist government to the United Kingdom.
	Why the Conservatives are giving any moral credence to Marxists is beyond me.
	And we can look at just any Marxist government to see the problem with it.
	For example, the Communist Party of China, that one-party state, has banned George Orwell's Animal Farm, a commentary on socialism in the USSR, and banned the letter N for some reason, as Xi Jinping's plan to keep power indefinitely appears to be coming to light.
	The President of China and leader of China's Communist Party is further centralizing his own power and removing term limits so he may keep power indefinitely, which is why experts believe increased levels of suppression are a sign Xi Jinping hopes to become dictator for life, making him the most powerful man in China since Mao Zedong.
	And the Independent's commentary on this is actually hilarious.
	It was not immediately obvious what the letter N had done to get itself banned.
	From a totalitarian point of view, I can understand the purpose of banning words.
	What I can't understand is the purpose of banning individual letters.
	So yes, the Chinese government have banned Orwell's Dystopia Novella Animal Farm, the letter N and the book 1984, as well as the phrase Zi Zedong, which is obviously a combination of President Zi and former chairman Mao Zedong's names.
	Why is he doing this?
	To suppress dissent.
	So people cannot raise awareness of what he is doing within China.
	Because China is an oppressive, one-party, totalitarian state that has complete control over the internet and information that their citizens are allowed to receive.
	Search terms blocked on Sino-Waibu, a micro-blogging site which is China's equivalent of Twitter, include disagree, personality cult, lifelong, immortality, emigrate, and shameless.
	It was not immediately obvious why the ostensibly harmless letter N had been banned, but some speculated it may be either being used or interpreted as a sign of dissent.
	And if there's one thing that the Chinese Communist Party have to crack down on, it's dissent.
	The move to lift limits on the length of time leaders can stay in posts has been met with global condemnation and widespread backlash in China since it was announced on Sunday on the eve of an annual political congress in Beijing.
	The proposed amendments to Chinese constitution are expected to be rubber-stamped by the country's parliament, the National People's Congress, which begins its annual meeting on Sunday.
	China has a stringent policy of internet censorship because authorities view foreign websites and social media as a threat to national security.
	Imagine that other people's opinions were a threat to your national security.
	Aside from being deeply immoral to oppress your nation for an ideological goal or your own personal power, it's weak.
	It's fragile.
	Which is why they have the great firewall of China, a term which refers to the combined force of the technological and legislative measures which tightly control the internet on the mainland.
	Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have long been blocked in the country, and even Winnie the Pooh found himself subject to China's latest internet crackdown.
	Why?
	Well, of course, because people thought that President Z looked like Winnie the Pooh.
	And because my internet usage is still relatively uncensored, I can actually refer to this as a personality cult.
	Before I go on, I just want to apologise to my American audience, who I understand are not receiving any American news from me this time, but I tell you all of this as a warning to you.
	Please do your best to protect your republic, especially the ideological foundations on which it rests, because these are the things that will happen to your country if you follow the example of Europe.
	Another example of this would be the illegal schools in Britain which are teaching children hatred.
	Extremist books preach homophobia.
	Experts demand change to home education laws.
	And for some reason, a particular religion of peace is being left out of this headline.
	But as you can see in the picture here, in the top right-hand corner of this book called Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell, there's a little bit of Arabic writing.
	Religious extremists, just miscellaneous religious extremists, just no one particular group or anything, are exploiting lax home education laws to expose children to hate-filled material at scores of unregistered schools and secret teaching groups.
	Extremist texts seized from illegal schools allege that homosexuality is an abomination, that sodomy is punishable by death, and that a wife cannot refuse sexual intercourse without sound reason.
	I guess that one's open to interpretation because I would have thought, I don't feel like it, is sound reason.
	But what do I know?
	I'm not an Islamic scholar.
	Boys and girls could marry once they reach puberty, one document seen by the Times states, which also blames rapes on the way women dress, saying if a sweet thing is left uncovered, swarms of dirty creatures are liable to prey upon it and corrupt it.
	That's a damning indictment of Muslim men right there from their own texts.
	I'm quite amazed.
	I mean, personally, I would think that men should be able to have the self-restraint to not just rape women who dress in a particular way, but then, I guess I've always been a feminist.
	At least 350 unregistered schools have been set up across Britain, according to Ofsted, the Education Regulator.
	Experts say they've been fueled by a surge in home-educated children whose number has risen by almost 50% in five years to at least 33,000.
	So the head of the Commons Education Committee told the Times, I have huge concerns about unregistered schools and the lack of regulation and inspection.
	Any school of any kind shouldn't be unregistered.
	There shouldn't be room for grey areas.
	Even if they have less than five pupils that are open less than 18 hours, they should be inspected and regulated.
	And I know what you're thinking, my American friends.
	I don't like the government getting involved in this sort of thing.
	Well, when you allow millions of people from a foreign but heavily ideological culture to come into your country, and they happen to have a dogma that is remarkably supremacist in its nature, this becomes necessary because otherwise they just indoctrinate children into this ideology, despite the fact that it might go completely against the norms, values, and even laws of your country.
	They will do it anyway.
	You have to keep a close eye on these things.
	And this has been seen across many Islamic institutions in Britain anyway.
	And not just unregistered schools, but we have had the same thing in public schools, in, for example, Birmingham with the Trojan horse scandal, which incidentally saw none of the people involved suffering any kind of punitive punishment from the government, even though they were brainwashing children to be Islamic radicals.
	You have to get about halfway through this article before you actually get to the religion of peace to which they are referring.
	The Times obtained five extremist books relating to Islam, including Do's and Do Nots of Islam and The Islam Way of Life.
	One was by Abu Amina Bilal Phillips, a Jamaican-born extremist Muslim preacher who has been banned from Britain.
	Concerns have also been raised about illegal Christian and Jewish schools.
	Yes, I'm sure that they're exactly the same in kind, but to be honest with you, I'm okay with them getting rid of faith schools entirely.
	I think that education should be secular.
	Because as Izzy Posen, 23, who went to an ultra-Orthodox illegal Jewish school in Stanford Hill, North London, said, they were not taught English until 13.
	I find that unacceptable as well.
	Izzy says, they have a suspicious view of secular subjects, and beside the lack of education, hygiene levels were atrocious.
	There was corporal punishment, no methods were off the table, but it was usually a big wooden ladle.
	Last week, a teacher was filmed appearing to strike a boy at an unregistered, ultra-Orthodox Jewish school in Westcliff-on-Sea in Essex.
	Well, this is really making the case for secular schools for me, isn't it?
	And I just want to stress that this is not something that I think reflects on secular Jewish people in Western society at all, in the same way that I don't think that the extremist Muslim schools reflect on secular Muslims.
	Chief Inspector of Ovsted has warned that religious hardliners were exploiting homeschooling rules.
	If people choose to educate their children at home, once upon a time it would have been the Brighton and Totnes Brigades doing their homespun thing.
	But we are seeing the emergence of things that nobody ever contemplated.
	Yes, and maybe Tony Blair should have contemplated it, when he was opening the borders and letting millions of people from, well, vastly different countries with vastly different world views and ideological goals to allow to settle in this country and actually take advantage of the freedoms that we have here.
	Did we honestly think that they weren't going to use these freedoms to push their personal agendas?
	Do we think that the Islamic agenda is compatible with Western British democracies?
	There are problems that we have to address and we can't be cowardly about it.
	Quick message to the left.
	Calling people names will not solve this problem.
	But the worst part about this is that it's swinging the pendulum entirely the other way.
	For example, the chief of Scotland Yard has said that extremists should lose access to their children.
	That is a tyrannical method.
	And what worries me most is who is defined as an extremist?
	Because given the current state of society, the current far-left inclination that our institutions have, I as a centrist would be considered an extremist by many of those on the very far left.
	Rowley claimed that exposing children to extremism was equally wicked as exposing them to sexual abuse, but said parents were being allowed to continue caring for their sons and daughters after being convicted of terrorist offences.
	That's a terrifying precedent to set.
	I don't think that people should lose their children for political reasons.
	I think the only good reason that they should lose their children, even if they are a terrorist, is if they are actually abusing those children.
	We can't just give the state the power to take away people's children just because it disagrees with their political ideology.
	That is a terrifying thing to suggest.
	This is the chief of Scotland Yard.
	But this is the problem.
	As soon as you start agreeing to some things, you find yourself on the slippery slope, where now you have to find ways of solving the problems that you have introduced by bringing in people who don't actually want to live in your civilization and would rather live in their own civilization in your country.
	I want to stress, I have never been a multiculturalist.
	I'm fine with multi-racialism, but I think that culture should be something that should be proudly promoted by the country that it is created by.
	This is your culture and these people will change your culture if you let them.
	And you must resist that.
	And if they don't like it, the borders are open.
	They are not prisoners in our countries.
	If they don't like the way we run our countries, they should leave.
	But I find it deeply disturbing that instead of being proud and trying to integrate these people into our culture, we instead have people at the top of our institutions who advise taking punitive actions like this.
	In a wide-ranging speech from Mr. Rowley, who retires next month after nearly four years in his post, he also said that far-right extremism was flourishing.
	Well, I wonder why.
	I wonder why far-right extremism is flourishing in an environment where we have Islamic radicals teaching children how to be Islamic radicals.
	And the Labour Party have hired an advisor who will literally turn around and say this entire country is fucking racist.
	I wonder why there are people who are like, you know what?
	We need to start reasserting Britishness firmly.
	And if the only people who are saying this are the far-right neo-Nazi type radicals, then we have a problem.
	Because that is a position that literally should be espoused by every British citizen.
	There are a unifying set of values across this entire country that everyone instinctively adheres to, whether they even know they do or not.
	But for some reason, we have allowed post-modernists to turn around and say, yeah, but what is Britishness?
	What is it really?
	Do we really have a national culture?
	Should we really have these things?
	Yes.
	Yes, by God, we really should have these things.
	Because otherwise, the people who want these things will be the ones who the public is going to respond to.
	There is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with being proud of your nation's culture and heritage.
	Absolutely nothing.
	And anyone who tells you that there is, is trying to take something away from you.
	Apparently, four far-right terrorist plots were thwarted in the last year, and the public should be gravely concerned about national action, the homegrown prescribed neo-Nazi group.
	The plots included one by a white supremacist who planned to attack a gay pride event in an alleged plan to murder the MP Rosie Cooper.
	Mr. Rowley, who oversaw the response to the far-right attack in Finsbury Park and the three Islamist attacks in London and Manchester last year, said that the two sides were creating a toxic combination that helped fuel terrorism.
	Okay, I agree.
	I completely agree with you.
	Unfortunately, the native British people come from this country.
	Islam does not.
	So what are our options here?
	He said it required a response across society, adding that there had been times where Britain was tolerant of intolerance.
	Times?
	We are wildly tolerant of intolerance, as long as it's not being done by a native white British person.
	Are these things I relish talking about?
	Is this something that I enjoy pointing out?
	No.
	I feel compelled to point out that we have done this to ourselves.
	And no, I'm not suggesting we just randomly victimise people.
	I'm not suggesting we just look at all Muslims in Britain as fifth columnists who are here to overthrow the country.
	But unfortunately for them, we are going to have to stop pandering to them.
	Because I think that is what is emboldening the radicals among them.
	And there are radicals among them.
	And unfortunately, we can't just separate the radicals from these communities.
	We don't have any method of doing that.
	It's just not possible.
	And so we need to be cultural imperialists.
	If you want to promote Islam, I'm sorry.
	We should be proudly British because we have a lot to offer the world.
	And we have a lot to offer the people who immigrate here.
	But allowing them to do this is beyond the pale.
	It has to be stopped.
	And our weakness is emboldening them.
	And my dear Irish friends, do not let your government promote a plan to grow the population of Ireland with mass immigration.
	So it was unveiled by the Irish government last week that they were committed to spend 116 billion euros in a document that plans to boost the Irish nation's 4.7 million population by another million using mass migration.
	My dear Irish friends, you must resist this.
	This is dangerous globalist nonsense that will undermine your country.
	You must resist this at all costs.
	They want to use your money to fill your country full of people who do not respect your country.
	The government's strategic communications unit paid for sponsored news pieces to appear in national and regional newspapers promoting Ireland 2040, which could not include negative or critical comments.
	Speaking in the Irish Parliament, the opposition leader branded the government's use of media to promote its scheme ethically dubious, which is far more generous than I would have termed it because I would term it as demented.
	We have looked at what the migrant crisis has done to Germany.
	We have seen what mass immigration has done to the north of England and the thousands of people who have been raped because of it, because of the different cultural standards of the migrants themselves, not all of them, but some of them, and the phenomenal weakness of our government and police forces in trying to tackle the problems.
	Do not let them open your borders.
	You will regret it.
	You have to call it by name.
	Merkel publicly admits no-go areas in Germany because of the migrant crisis.
	It isn't migration, it is colonization, a form of cultural colonization that is opposed to the Western liberal democracy to which they have come.
	You cannot let these people in en masse.
	You can't absorb them, you can't integrate them, you cannot change their culture quick enough if they come in large enough numbers.
	We have learned this the hard way.
	No-go areas do exist in Germany, Angela Merkel admitted in an interview, adding that the arrival of so many refugees in the country has raised multiple questions.
	Speaking with RTL, Merkel acknowledged that there were areas in Germany where people cannot feel safe, which is, I presume, why the 120 decibel movement even exists.
	She also made it clear that it's time for authorities to do something in order to ensure public safety.
	It's always a point to me that ensuring domestic security is the state's obligation, the state has the monopoly of power.
	The state has to make sure that the people have the right to it whenever they meet and move in the public space.
	Okay, well, I agree with you.
	I completely agree with you.
	So maybe allowing in people who are going to cause trouble was a mistake that you made, Angler.
	She then took aim at no-go areas.
	Merkel bluntly dismissed the claim that no-go areas are non-existent in Germany, stressing that there are such spaces and you have to call that by name and you have to do something about it.
	Yes, you really do.
	Preventing it from occurring is the best way to do something about it.
	That is the single best thing you can do, because anything else is going to be giving extra power to your government to be authoritarian in order to manage the problem that the government themselves have created.
	In this case, not even the entire bloody government, Merkel herself.
	She is going to require extra powers in order to deal with the problems that she herself created.
	The worst part about all of this is that there probably is an argument to say that these people were acting in good faith.
	They were just trying to help some people that they thought they could help.
	But unfortunately, they can't.
	They cannot play the white saviour to the entire world by merely opening the borders of the West and allowing the entire world to come here.
	It doesn't solve their problems.
	It just creates problems for the people already living in these countries.
	And I don't just mean white people.
	It also creates problems for immigrants who had come here willingly to be like us because of an admiration of our countries.
	People who actually had to go through a strict and rigorous immigration process.
	Here's an interesting little anecdote for you.
	I used to live above an Indian restaurant in my town.
	And whenever I spoke to the owner of the restaurant, an Indian man who had emigrated to Britain in the 70s, he would constantly deride the mass immigration that the Labour government had allowed to occur.
	Not only were they undermining his achievement to become an immigrant to this country and to be successful and a productive member of society because of his embrace of British culture, he felt that he was being betrayed by them.
	Opening the borders to what he described as the riffraff of other countries meant that the people who came did not have respect for the country into which they were moving.

▲