All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
08:08
Normalising Troublesome Dialogue
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Mr. Benjamin.
Right, well it's good to see you again.
I've got to speak to you this time.
I've been in trouble.
On the appalling way that you are normalising troublesome dialogue.
That's true.
It is.
I am normalising troublesome dialogue.
And it is spreading.
Really?
It is spreading the evil rhetorical techniques you use of logic, reason, and evidence are spreading.
I'm sorry.
I'll try and stop that if that's me.
If that's hurting some feelings.
It is grossly irresponsible of you.
I saw yesterday a grown woman brought to a state of emotional trauma as Victoria Derbyshire attempted to use logic against you.
And it was like watching a child playing with a loaded gun.
I wasn't mad.
I felt really sorry for them.
A lot of people did get hurt.
I looked on the Twitter feed afterwards and it was 99% appalled, traumatized.
And there were questions of why is this man not locked up already?
Well, if they get their way, I will be.
So there is that.
But yeah, I think that what I wanted to say in the interview with Victoria that I didn't get to do because it was a bit hardball, I suppose I'd describe it as.
I wouldn't say hardball.
It was as sympathetic as any Maoist show trial.
That's such a great way of describing it.
But no, I actually quite enjoyed the interview.
But I found it very interesting when she said, you know, you're normalizing these horrible things.
And it's like, well, they are normal.
They happen to regular people every day.
They're tragedies that will happen to every single person.
There's no getting away from it.
And there's no point trying to pretend that it won't.
And the easiest way to deal with it is to make it not scary.
And one of the quickest ways to make something not scary is to mock it.
That's the purpose of humour.
And that's the reason that totalitarian regimes go after comedians first.
They go after free speech first.
Because if you can take the power away from them and make something not sacred by laughing at it, then it suddenly loses its grip over you.
You lose the mental hold that it has over you.
And I really do believe this, with a sincere conviction, that we have to be able to talk about uncomfortable things.
And of course, that makes some people protest because they don't like that.
I think what you're misunderstanding is the depth and breadth of the feeling opposed to your way of view.
And there's an excellent example from history for how you should take it.
Are you familiar with Alan Turing?
I am, yes.
So Alan Turing was of a disposition that was felt to be incompatible with the morality of his times.
And he took an action which removed that cause of stress from society.
And I brought you an apple with me today.
Did he not commit suicide?
That's right.
Yes, I am.
remove the problem that's that's and given that you are such a tiny minority as judged by twitter should i should i also follow his example well Well, wouldn't it be the fair and decent thing to do to spare the world suffering?
But this is the thing.
Well, no, no, but this.
I like the way you've framed this.
It's very genteel.
This is exactly what they want to have us do, is just say, look, we'll pretend the problems don't exist.
We don't have to pretend.
They know the problem exists.
And the problem is gobby bastards like you, who I think I should say are suffering from moral chuettes, you cannot resist speaking the truth.
And that's bloody offensive.
Where do I go with that?
Honestly, it's a very simple way you go with that.
Branch Davidian trust, and there have been plenty of examples of mass cult suicides.
All you have to do is arrange for your followers to get together and remove the distress of our existence from the life of normies.
Well, I agree, but the problem is that the problems themselves are going to keep creating people like us because we are all an example of.
Modern genetic counseling can fix that.
Well, I imagine eventually they will make it so we're effectively in Fahrenheit 451, was it?
Wait, Brave New World.
Sorry, yeah, Brave New World.
Bokanovsky is on this way.
So we won't have that problem.
But at the moment, we are all a consequence of the failures of the system to fail to actually address through dialogue and reasonable compromise the problems that we actually do face.
And instead of talking to us, because I'm sure that you're all fine people, I'm sure that you're not hateful people.
I'm sure that you are not people who want to do damage to the world.
But things are being done that have to be discussed.
And calling people racists or fascists is not the answer.
It just isn't.
And I'm sorry that I'm not giving you a more eloquent response to your wonderful framing here because it really was.
I mean, you must have worked on this.
But I do believe that it is a moral wrong to try and shut down these debates and shut down these conversations.
I think we have an obligation, a duty to have the tough conversations.
And it's really to the embarrassment of the media that I can turn up and, like, I don't know, what, like 30 people, 40 people turn up on a Friday afternoon, a cold Friday afternoon in Weymouth to talk about literally the problems we can't discuss in public on the media.
You know, and I realize that a lot of this is offensive or something like that.
Even then, I don't actually find anything that we're talking about particularly offensive.
But it is their failing that we have to come together like this to do this.
They have a responsibility to represent your issues in the public dialogue.
And they can't just refuse on the grounds that they find you to be morally impure.
You know, not everyone had meat and education.
Not everyone is ready for the dinner party atmosphere of Westminster.
Politics is grimy and grubby and should be done in the streets like this.
They're sat in their ivory towers where they're not the constant.
They never have to suffer the consequences of their own policies.
They are very well insulated.
They've got guards, they've got money, they've got very, very lavish surroundings.
It's not their problem.
And you can see that the absolute...
To be fair, they do have to suffer the problem as well.
But Anna Subi can get people who call her a Nazi locked up.
I was about to go on to James Goddard.
Yeah, how long did he spend in jail?
I think it was only a month.
It was only a month, right?
Okay, well, there we go.
But to be fair, they weren't as sympathetic as the leftists really want to be.
They want you to take...
I read a travel book that was written just for you.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
By old Alexander Solchenitsyn.
It's an archipelago where you would really fit in.
I can't believe I'm not already there.
Their trust pilot reviews are exemplary.
Very, very few people ever came back and spoke out against it.
Yeah, no complaints.
But James Goddard is a great example of this, actually.
As soon as the sort of working class decided, right, they were going to get involved because people like Anna Subry were actively trying to undermine the result of the referendum.
And still, they're trying to just reverse this.
When he goes down and starts calling her a Nazi and saying, well, I have a problem with what you're doing.
Oh, my God.
The plebs are revolting.
This has got to be stopped.
So a month in jail and he was banned from going inside the M25.
He can't even go to parliament now.
He can't go and protest.
He has been denied his democratic rights because a politician didn't like the way he was protesting her.
Well, I'm sorry.
He didn't do anything illegal.
He just yelled that she was a Nazi.
I mean, my goodness, I bet everyone here got a penny for every time they've been called a Nazi because they want to have a conversation that the establishment don't particularly want to have.
We'd all be very wealthy people, but it happens one time to one Remain MP, and that's it.
Jail and banned.
It's unacceptable.
It's totally unacceptable.
He'll have to go to Kekistan.
He absolutely will.
Hopefully, we don't get sent to the gulags instead.
Thank you, man.
▲
Export Selection