All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
19:25
Debating a Leftist Activist in #Bournemouth
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So this is David Sharat.
It's someone I know from the internet.
How's transitioning?
Sorry, I'm sorry.
The transition from Xbox to PC was quite easy.
Well, it's nice to meet another member of the PC Master Race.
That's right.
He knows.
A good shirt, by the way, as well.
Yes.
So what would you like to talk about, David?
Well, I'm still trying to work out what exactly your plan is from what you're doing right here.
Because from what I can see is you've managed to chase Farage out of UKIP.
UKIP has lost 60 counselors.
You've managed to completely destroy UKIP's PR, even more than it already had.
And you're now simultaneously the worst PR disaster for UKIP and its only source of relevance nowadays.
Isn't that interesting?
Yes.
Isn't that interesting how it can be both things?
Yeah.
Do you not see a contradiction there?
Yeah, you're the only reason they're being talked about, but it's only negative.
Well.
Membership's up.
Membership's over 30,000 now.
I wouldn't even vote for you.
I didn't expect you to.
I take that as a threat that you're going to vote for UKIP.
I'm going to the press.
Well, maybe with enough pressure.
Not enough beer in the world.
That's really good.
So let's talk about some issues then, since we're here, rather than talking about me.
I mean, I was reading out the manifesto.
Is there anything you took exception to in that?
Yeah, you seem to contradict yourself on the response to big business.
So at the start, you said that stopping immigration would be bad for big business because there's now lower unemployment and it means they have to increase wages and stuff like that, right?
Then later you said, actually, no, it's going to be good for big businesses because we're going to lower taxes on them because we don't want them to leave.
Yeah, I think that's the only thing that's going to be.
And then you said straight after that, actually, who cares about capital flight because the demand for coffee isn't going to go down if Starbucks leaves.
which is it these are all true things That's the thing.
I mean, real life is messy and complicated and nothing is ever consistent.
And this is something that literally every German who comes to Britain finds very frustrating if you ask them about it.
Nothing is consistent here.
We're a land of contradictions and all of these things are in contradiction.
You just don't take them.
I just think that's an excuse for being a hypocrite.
No, not at all.
Well, who isn't a hypocrite?
Name someone that's not a hypocrite.
Allegations of hypocrisy are empty.
They are worthless.
They mean nothing, right?
Everyone at some point in their lives is a hypocrite.
So don't give me that, right?
Yeah, but you're trying to run for office here.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
Name a politician who isn't a hypocrite.
Yeah, the silence.
Exactly.
So don't give me that nonsense, right?
That's just an attack on the man, not untackle what I'm saying.
I thought you were trying to improve politics.
I am going to.
I'm going to tell you exactly how.
Right.
So the problem is the distribution of wealth, right?
Do you agree that that's the problem?
I would agree, yeah.
Right.
And so now, how can we distribute wealth?
Well, I don't think that we should just seize it.
I think it would be anti-democratic.
I think it would be against the property rights of the people who own that wealth.
But we can incentivize things to change using the market.
But the reason the market is as it is now, the reason that wages are being depressed, is because of artificial involvement from the state outside of it.
For example, mass immigration.
That is actually, at the same time, suppressing wages and yet growing the overall amount of money that these corporations earn.
You know, immigration rates have gone down to pre-2015 levels.
The micrant crisis is over.
We're not talking about the migrant crisis.
We're talking about the government's actual just open border policies.
300,000 net people into this country every year.
Well, it's not an open borders policy.
There are still rules around immigration.
Yes, but they're pretty relaxed rules.
It's inconsistent.
300,000 a year is just too many.
It's just too many.
Yeah, and then at the same time, Afghan refugees are being sent home and told to pretend to be gay.
Pretend not to be gay.
Okay, Afghanistan sucks, man.
What do you want from me?
Is it our job to fix Afghanistan?
That seems imperial.
I think we've been there twice already.
Didn't fix it then.
Do you think we'll do it a third time?
Oh, of course not.
But that doesn't mean that we should just start sending refugees back.
But the refugee crisis is over.
Well, yeah, this was a couple years ago, back when it was still happening.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
Refugees, people legitimately fleeing war, fine.
You know, like, you know, the Syrians, yeah, let the Syrians in.
They need help.
They're fleeing a war.
But this isn't about Syrian refugees.
This is about our open border immigration policy.
People who are going to live here.
Yeah.
They're not people who are here because they're afraid and want to go home.
They're staying.
Yeah, the people who want to live here.
But the thing is, is that the only reason they want to live here is because it's so good here.
Yeah, but the only reason it's so good here is because we have a border.
Well, then why is Poland so great?
Why is Poland falling apart?
Poland is a stronger Soviet country.
Yeah, and it's got extremely strong immigration policy.
Yes, but it's an ex-Soviet country.
If you look at their, Poland is one of the fastest growing economies in the European Union.
Yeah, because people are actually finally going back.
People are actually pouring into the country.
Exactly, they're finally going back because when we take all of them.
We're making it shittier here so people know.
They're not going to win here anymore.
We're making it better here for us and we're making Poland better for them.
Because when we poach their young, energetic, hard-working people, their country starts falling apart.
They need those people to build their country.
They need them.
It's wrong.
It's irresponsible on our part to take those people.
It's bad for our own people.
It's bad for their countries, but it's good for big business.
To hell with the big businesses.
Like I said, if they leave, that's fine.
Entrepreneurs will spring up and they'll fill the void.
It's not that simple, though, because actually, if anything, jobs are falling apart anyway.
I don't agree.
We're at the lowest rate of unemployment since the 70s.
Yeah, only because of a very recent loss of people.
Yes, but that's why Brexit was a good thing.
Because it encourages these people to measure.
It's a very temporary measure.
Not if we reduce immigration.
Not when things like automation are starting to lower jobs anyway.
I think the concept of unemployment, we need to actually move away from that.
This is the sort of argument that the levelers would have made back in the 1600s and the Luddites regarding the machines.
People will find other jobs to do.
It's not that simple, though, because we have been starting to see a lot of jobs just disappear, and they're being done by self-learning algorithms.
Yeah, I know, but people find other jobs.
Other things need to be done.
The economy is a constantly evolving beast.
Again, this is just the arguments the Luddites make.
We need to smash the machines because they're taking our jobs.
Well, that's not a concern now, is it?
Now it's other things, automation that you can set about, but other jobs will arise because of the industry that's being created.
It's a completely different system, though.
Machines still need to be operated by people.
Lots of people.
Yeah, but that's the thing.
I've actually got a friend who sells robots.
And he's saying, no, we train the people to manage the system.
We don't have them on the production line now.
But it'll just become a different economy.
Yeah, but there's less people actually working now.
Yeah, but we're going to have less people in the country.
But then we're not.
We're still going to have an increase in population over time.
Well, not as the birth rates carry on as they are.
Ooh, quite genocide, eh?
No, just lower birth rates.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
Well, it is going to be because we need young people, don't we?
Then maybe we should encourage family values.
Oh, I completely agree.
I think we should increase wages so that young people can actually have kids.
We don't get to set wages.
Yeah, we do.
No, the market sets wages.
We can set minimum wage.
Yeah, but that's not setting wages.
That's setting a minimum wage.
The market sets wages.
And that all revolves around supply and demand.
And the fact that there's more demand than supply at the moment is actually good for the worker because we turn it into a seller's market.
The people selling their labor should be the ones who have the advantage rather than buying it.
Yeah, that's why I think UBI is a good idea.
Okay, but I don't think you're really engaging with what I'm saying there.
Well, okay, so it's you want to have the market work for the people instead of for the businesses, right?
And for the rich people and stuff like that.
So when you're talking about housing, the reason that there's so much demand for housing and there isn't enough supply isn't actually to do with immigration.
It's actually to do with the fact that Russian oligarchs are buying up a lot of housing and there's loads of empty housing in this fucking country.
That's not true.
When Jeremy Corbyn said that, there was a study done that found only 1% of London's housing was owned.
And it was in that particular rich area as well.
Yeah, it may be in that particular rich area.
But if you look at sandbanks, they're all empty.
Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of them, but that doesn't explain the problems in the north.
The housing crisis is not just in London.
It's all over the country, and it's because of mass immigration.
If we didn't have 300,000 people, it's not hard to buy a house in the north.
It's just that there's not enough work up there for them to afford the housing.
So it is hard to buy it.
If they can't afford it, then it's hard for them to buy it.
Yeah.
So it is hard.
But again, this wouldn't be a problem in the world.
It's not that it's unavailable.
But listen.
It's just that it's hard to buy.
Why are you so in favour of mass immigration?
I'm not.
Well, then what's the problem?
I'm just saying that we haven't got to this unlimited mass immigration that you keep talking about.
Well, I think 30,000.
It has reduced in the past few years.
I think 300,000 is too many.
I just think that's too many.
Because it's putting a huge demand on the NHS, on housing, and various other social factors.
So what policy would you suggest to reduce it?
Just reduce it to about something like 30,000 a year, maybe?
How?
By just saying we're not going to let people in beyond this number?
Just demand people go the second that we get to 30,000 people in a year.
What do you mean, demand they go?
Just start denying them.
Refusing applications.
Just refusing applications.
Why not?
Because that means our economy won't grow.
Yes, it will grow.
We can survive without mass immigration.
We can survive.
We'll do very well.
And in fact, it'll even be better for the working people of this country.
Their wages are going up and they've got more employment than any other time since the 70s.
Everything will be fine.
So if there's more people, then we won't have as many jobs.
There won't be as many jobs to go around.
But if jobs start disappearing, people will just find jobs because the markets...
Jobs aren't going to start disappearing.
In fact, people are returning.
Jobs aren't going to start disappearing.
Yeah, but people are returning back to the countries of origin, which opens up jobs in the market.
It makes labor.
There's less people to sell to.
So then, therefore, there's less jobs to...
Yeah, but we still have millions of people in the country.
We're not talking about a town of 10 people and five people leave.
Okay.
I don't see why you would want to defend mass immigration when there are such obvious benefits of not having mass immigration.
What do we owe these people who want to come to our country?
What do we owe them?
We don't necessarily owe them anything.
So there's no moral problem with us saying we're just going to accept 30,000 and no more?
Well, there isn't necessarily a moral problem.
I just think that if the Tories are trying to reduce immigration, which they are.
I don't agree.
They have a plan.
It's just that they keep failing at their plan.
Okay, well, okay, I'm happy to agree they're incompetent.
Yeah, they are.
I could believe that, yeah.
And I think it's to do with the fact that immigration is a bit more complicated than that.
When they're planned to, it's sometimes something like four times as many people actually come in as the Tories plan to.
And I don't think that's necessarily because of any specific individual incompetence.
I think that's just because of the way that these immigration rules actually work.
It's not necessarily as much on a numbers basis.
They tend to work on these applications on an individual basis.
But we should set a numerical cap.
Because no one has a right to come to this country.
We don't owe them anything.
We're not obliged to let them in.
It's at our pleasure, at our grace, that they come in.
And if we've decided that for the last 20 years, we've had, what, is it 8 million people who have immigrated in the last 20 years?
Well, yeah, that's the idea of the number.
Yeah, well, that attitude there, where it's like no one has a right to come into this country, that's the attitude of like rights are given, right?
No.
That's the attitude of the people who maintain this country.
Normally it's the idea that rights are taken away.
So by default, normally people are okay to come into the country and then they are denied based on some actual reason.
So, yeah, okay, if you want to say a certain number of people coming in, but why 30,000?
Well, it could be less.
It could be more.
I don't know.
We've just got to choose a number.
Yeah, well, you don't have any reasons for that specific number then?
Well, it's a lower number than 300,000.
Is that it?
Yeah, it's 10% of what's coming in now.
What's coming in?
That seems a little bit arbitrary.
It is.
It's just a number.
I mean, we could have 15% if you like.
We can negotiate if that number we could haggle, but we both at least agree that the number of people coming into this country has to be reduced.
And there's no moral imperative that is demanding that we open the borders.
So there's no particular reason that we should stop, especially when we have a moral argument on the other side for the damage that it's doing to the social fabric, to the economy, etc., etc.
We can make these arguments, and they are moral ones from our side.
And all you can say is, well, the GDP won't be as high.
Sorry?
Yeah, yeah, well, that money actually matters.
Because the business class, yeah.
Only because the business class are taking it all.
Yeah, but why?
I mean, we can make an argument for neoliberalism.
Because we can instead tax them higher.
Yeah, but we could instead just not have loads of people competing with our working people in this country who've got no right to be here.
They come here at our grace.
Why don't we just say no?
So why don't we fuck over other poor people instead of fucking over the rich?
We're not fucking over anyone.
Yeah, we are.
I'm keeping them out of the country.
If they want to move, then they can't.
But they don't have a right.
They're not entitled to come into our country.
Just because their countries suck, that's not our fault.
Well, it kind of partially is in some cases.
It's not necessarily our personal fault, but it is.
It's not Britain's fault in any historical sense either.
In how?
What do you mean, how?
You're the one saying it is Britain's fault that these countries suck.
Well, explain your position.
Well, in a lot of countries, they are post-colonial nations.
So does Britain have absolutely no historical responsibility for them being shit?
No, we gave them independence.
We gave them liberal democracies, the rule of law, and capitalism.
A lot of these countries have overthrown that and become socialist states, and then they've become absolute nightmares.
Zimbabwe and Rhodesia are the best example here.
Rhodesia was a very prosperous country when we gave it independence.
Now it's an absolute whole, isn't it?
Well, a lot of the time, those are to do with American-funded dictatorships and stuff.
I think it's to do with socialism.
Socialism?
Yes.
Zimbabwe.
Yes, it's a communist country.
Do you know anything about Zimbabwe?
I know it's a massive dictatorship.
Yeah, but the dictator is a socialist.
They seize property because they don't like white people owning property.
Well, seizure of property isn't something that just is.
ZANU PF, I think it is.
They're an openly socialist party.
Okay.
This is the thing.
Africa's riddled with Marxism, man.
And it's ruining Africa.
When it was liberally run, it was very profitable.
I mean, Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa.
Now, after the socialists take over and start appropriating property, they've got starvation.
They've got mass inflation.
I'm not a socialist, so I'm not afraid of the people.
No, no, no, I know you're not.
But, like, there are genuine problems here, and it's not Britain's fault that these problems have occurred.
Well, then, why did we leave?
Because they wanted independence.
And instead of being aggressive, authoritarian, imperialist overlords, we said, okay, we'll leave then.
Okay.
So it is our fault then.
You mean we should go back in and take over again?
Well, no, not necessarily.
I think we should just help.
I think that a lot of the time they do need a lot more foreign aid because we have taken away a lot of their white man's burden.
Well, that's kind of what you're proposing here.
It's the ignorant Africans can't maintain their own societies.
Well, it's more to do with the fact that they don't have the infrastructure that we do.
And they don't have the education level.
But they don't have it because they ruined it by being socialists.
They didn't.
No, no, honestly.
Honestly, there is an active rejection of Europeans in these countries.
And not universally, obviously.
I mean, there are countries.
For example, Botswana is a capitalist country.
It's got the highest GD average earnings per year for each person.
It's $17,000 a year.
It's right next to Zimbabwe.
Racially, these are exactly the same people, but culturally, it's completely different.
Like, someone like 90% of Zimbabwe are unemployed.
Something like that.
It's a ridiculous thing.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure.
No, no, it's absurd.
But it's literally because they're a communist country and Botswana is a capitalist democracy.
And you can see the difference.
It really matters.
Yeah, I'm not in favour of any dictatorial society.
So of course Zimbabwe is going to be crap.
Well, yeah, but it's not just the dictatorial nature of it.
It becomes dictatorial because it's socialist.
It really is because it's a dictatorial society.
Yeah, but the dictatorship.
A lot of them do use socialist as a way to market that dictatorship.
And that's why I'm not some kind of revolutionary.
Yeah, yeah, but it's a core component of it.
But anyway, so I'm of the opinion that they don't have a right to come to our country.
We don't owe their countries anything, and it's actually good if we reduce mass immigration for the working people of this country.
I think you agree with that?
I think that immigration is a symptom of a larger problem.
And I think that actually it's when we don't have an immigration problem that then suddenly we have a prosperity problem.
I don't agree.
I don't think that immigration is necessary to our prosperity.
No, I think immigration is a natural result of prosperity.
Oh, yeah, the desire to come into a country that is prosperous from a country that's less prosperous, I completely agree.
But we don't have to let them in.
We are going to have to let some people in, right?
You just said that even like 30,000 or whatever.
Well, yeah, I'm not saying we should stop immigration entirely.
I mean, we can find whatever reason we want to let people in.
But I think just at the moment, the numbers are just too high.
And I think that that's true.
I don't see why we can't agree to just reduce the number of people who come in.
I'm okay with any way to slightly reduce the number of people coming in, but I think that that's, again, it's a symptom of a larger problem.
And there are ways to solve these issues that don't involve spending more money on immigration control.
Because immigration control does cost money.
I'm sure it does, but I think it's money well spent.
I think it's important we maintain the integrity of our borders.
I don't think you have a country without them.
Oh, yeah, of course not.
We do need borders and we do need some control over our country.
But at the end of the day, how are we going to work with the EU?
We'll just arrange treaties with them, as other countries outside the EU do.
But thanks coming down, man.
All right.
I'll be around all of them so we can talk after this.
Yeah, I'm going to go see John Wick.
Cool.
Thanks, Juan.
I wouldn't even vote for you.
▲
Export Selection