All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
09:23
Acid Attacks, Extremists and Leftist Reactionaries
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So two days ago, rebel media put out UK Muslim gang in London attacks gay men with acid watch what happened next.
Now I don't really read rebel media because they're a partisan news source, deliberately so and openly so.
They're an activist news source.
And I tried to avoid that as much as possible, to be honest, even though frankly that's what I do too.
But I noticed that a lot of leftists on Twitter were ranting and raving about this and screeching, how, why, why would they even claim that this is something to do with the inherent beliefs of Muslims around the world?
Why are they even bringing this up?
This happened a year ago.
Well, because the Hackney Gazette published an article about this and that had brought it back into the news.
Dulston homophobic acid attack.
Gang of cowardly thugs jailed over truly shocking bank holiday assault.
Because of the conclusion of the case, the CCTV showing one of the thugs launching a homophobic acid attack on strangers, people who are leaving a gay nightclub, was jailed for 17 years, as he should.
Hackney man, Hussein O'Nell, 24, and his gang of eight wingmen, targeted their first victim in Shacklewell Lane on 5am on Monday the 5th of Bank Holiday.
They stamped and kicked him as he curled into a ball on the ground and covered his face.
After an argument, he had gone to speak to one of the men as the group sat in cars in Alban de Crescent, where he was quickly surrounded.
Then they beat up another man who started filming the attack on his phone after leaving a club, while the first victim ran off.
The second victim's friends intervened, a huge brawl erupted.
During this, Onell squirted a corrosive substance from a plastic bottle into the second victim's face and eyes while targeting others who tried to step in.
He suffered a fractured eye socket and was lucky to escape with his eyesight intact.
His recovery was described by doctors as miraculous.
Another person suffered burns on their tongue.
Pretty fucking disgusting.
What you'll notice is these are all Turkish men.
With this, we will assume that these people are also Muslims because Turkey is 99% Muslim.
The suspects then got into three cars and drove from the scene shouting homophobic comments at the members of the group claiming that they run hackney, which is not exactly the kind of people you want running hackney, is it?
A gang of Turkish Muslim immigrant men went and decided to attack people who were leaving a gay nightclub.
I think it's safe for us to assume that they were doing it because those people were gay.
I can't exactly remember who the radical leftists on Twitter I was talking to were, but they were complaining that this was pathologizing immigrants.
How is, oh, now immigrants are bad.
Brown people are bad.
Foreigners are bad.
Well, no, they just have different opinions to us.
And it's those type of people who were, they're not dismissive of the idea that Islam has a problem with homosexuality.
They just assume that anyone who is interested in talking about the difference in values between Islam and the West is naturally attacking foreigners.
But that's not the reason that people were talking about it.
The reason that people were talking about it were people like this woman.
Do you know what they're doing?
Visit Iran.
I don't know.
I know exactly what they do.
They throw.
You do not understand the Muslim religion, obviously.
If you did, then you...
Are they accepting of gay people?
Yes, as much as Christians are, as much as Christians are.
Now, this is obviously demonstrably not true.
Christians don't execute gays, at least not to my knowledge.
Maybe there are some Christian tribes in Africa who still do that sort of thing.
But it seems to be that the only countries in the world that actually execute gays are Muslim ones at this point, even if they do persecute them in other ways.
So I think we should probably accept that there is a value judgment to be made between these two things.
But the point is, she wants Islam to be accepting of homosexuality because she wants Islam to be part of progressivism, to be part of the intersectional ideology.
Islam would be the perfect set for the religious axis in intersectionality.
But unfortunately for them, it conflicts with many other axes of intersectionality, so they can't exactly do it.
But they have to pretend.
They have to say, well, I think it is, and you don't understand Islam, which means that most Muslims don't understand Islam.
The thing is, the Twitter leftists I was arguing with don't really believe that.
They understand that Islam is massively homophobic.
What they were doing is just arguing from tribe.
They saw Ezra Levant or the rebel media saying something and they thought, oh, enemy tribe, they're doing something.
We have to naturally oppose it.
And a couple of them did end up actually retracting what they had said afterwards, after I just pointed out that this wasn't about hyper-partisan news sources making anything up.
The rebel hadn't fictionalized anything they'd said.
This is just something that is coming to the fore that the left generally won't talk about.
But going back to the lady, people with extreme political views cannot tell they were wrong, apparently, a study finds.
I think that, um, I think she might have been a perfect example there, don't you?
So scientists at the University College London found that those on the political fringes tended to overestimate their certainty after getting questions wrong.
But the researchers were not testing their knowledge of politics, instead they were using a simple game in which participants had to gauge which picture they were presented with contained more dots.
The study was an attempt to measure their metacognition, a term for the person's ability to recognise when they are wrong.
They wanted to establish whether the dogmatic beliefs of political radicals were down to overconfidence in those specific opinions or more general differences in metacognition.
In their study, scientists asked two groups of Ramforger people to complete surveys measuring their political beliefs and attitudes towards alternative worldviews.
From these surveys, they identified those at the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum.
These individuals are characterized by radical views concerning authoritarianism and intolerance towards others.
Well imagine my shock.
We found that people who hold radical political beliefs have worse metacognition than those with more moderate views, said the lead author and neuroscientist, Dr. Stephen Fleming.
They often have a misplaced certainty when they're actually wrong about something and are resistant to changing their beliefs in the face of evidence that proves them wrong, which is a fantastic description of that woman.
For example, we know from Pew Research that Muslims around the world are remarkably homogeneous in their opinion towards homosexuality.
It's something they consider to be a moral wrong.
Homosexuality on average is considered a moral wrong by over 80% of the world's Muslims, probably coming on about 90%.
The lowest that they have is South Asia with 79% finding it to be a moral wrong.
The highest obviously is Southeast Asia with 95%.
This is the sort of range we're talking about.
So if you have a group of men who come from Turkey, or any people who come from Turkey, you can be fairly sure that they consider homosexuality to be a moral wrong.
And if they've formed a gang and decide that they own Hankney and they see a gay club in Hankney, well, maybe they'll want to do something about that.
And then the poor victims end up getting acid attacked in the face.
Now, the reason that I say all of this is not because this is some marvelous revelation or some proof that a regular, normal, centrist-minded person might have not already been aware of, but to point out that it's honestly something we have to talk to these communities about.
If they're going to live among us, then they have to change.
Their opinion on homosexuality has to change to fall broadly in line with the opinion of the rest of the country.
And if we, after we have had this dialogue, that they say, well, you know what, we've heard your points and we disagree with them.
We just don't think that we don't accept your reasoning, whatever it is, and we will not change our attitudes on homosexuality, they must, at the very bare minimum, be taught that they can't go around hurting homosexuals.
Even if you think being homosexual is immoral, the existence of homosexuals itself can't be.
And it is not up to you to go and enact violence towards them just because you believe it is.
In fact, that is in and of itself not only immoral, but a crime.
This is a dialogue that must happen with these people.
It would be far easier and better for all involved if we could prevent this kind of thing.
It would be much more sensible to educate these people on the country into which they have come before they end up going on some kind of acid attack, don't you think?
But the reactionary leftists who think that all tribalism is good tribalism as long as they're doing it will stand in the way of that.
And the wild identitarians who just can't identify when Islam is not what they think it to be just can't be reasoned with at all.
But the authorities have no other choice.
They can't sit there and worry about whether, oh my goodness, is someone who's politically correct going to be offended by the fact that we need to address anti-gay bigotry in Muslim communities?
Is it too offensive to explain to Muslim immigrants that they are not allowed to attack gay people in our country?
Is that something that we can't do?
Because this is one of those amazing conflicts within intersectionality.
Who do you support?
Are the poor Muslim men being oppressed by Western society, or are the gay people who are being acid attacked by the Muslims be it the ones themselves being oppressed?
I know where I stand on that issue.
▲
Export Selection