All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
19:17
Freedom From You

You are a disgusting and gross throwback. They are better than you.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A week ago, Donald Trump announced that he had made a decision to resolve the Israel-Gaza conflict, and that was that Israel was going to hand over the Gaza Strip to the United States for redevelopment.
He would somehow remove all of the Gazans and resettle them elsewhere, wherever that might be, and they would not have a right of return.
I'm not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, so I'm not going to litigate this issue, but I am concerned that Britain and other European countries would be forced to take the 1.6 million Gazans as refugees, and I don't want that to happen.
However, a British judge decided that they did want that to happen, and decided to use the Ukrainian Refugee Resettlement Scheme for a Palestinian family.
As LBC reported, Hugo Norton Taylor decided that the Palestinian family of six should be able to move to the UK under the Ukraine family scheme.
The initiative was set up in March 2022 to allow Ukrainians fleeing the war with Russia to move to the UK if they had a relative who was a British citizen or had settled status.
The scheme ended last year.
They were initially rebuffed because their case didn't fit the scheme, with the rationale that it is up to Parliament which countries can benefit from resettlement programmes, but Norton Taylor, an upper tribunal judge, overruled this decision and found the family had the right to come to the UK on the basis of their Article 8 Right to a Family Life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judge Norton Taylor ruled that their specific situation outweighed the public interest in keeping to British immigration rules.
Obviously it makes no sense to allow Palestinians to use the now-ended Ukrainian refugee scheme, let alone allow judges to set state policy in such a manner, and it is clearly a dramatic overextension of what Article 8 of the ECHR actually says, which is, quote, 1.
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right, except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country for the prevention of disorder or crime and for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 8 of the ECHR is designed to prevent the state from interfering in a person's domestic affairs when there is no legal requirement to do so.
Even by the ECHR's own design, there is no reasonable interpretation of this article which would allow it to justify this decision.
It stipulates that no affirmative action needs to be taken by the British state to uphold any rights by foreign people.
In fact, the entire framing of the article is one of non-interference where applicable.
If anything, we ought to leave the ECHR for no other reason that the articles themselves are being misused by our judges.
What this amounts to, though, is Judge Norton Taylor annexing to the judiciary the privilege of determining Britain's immigration laws and its ability to determine refugee status, a power which, of course, should lie with our elected government.
This is an abominable constitutional precedent set, and it ought to be undone.
And of course, we soon learned that Judge Norton Taylor is the son of a retired Guardian journalist and prolific anti-Israel activist.
It seems that this is in fact a politically motivated decision, as it flies in the face of good sense, our own best interests, and the actual rules governing immigration and refugees.
In a rare moment of common sense, Kirstama actually agreed that this was wrong and ought not to have been done and pledged to close the loophole which allowed this activist judge to take advantage of the situation, saying that it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration, which of course is correct.
However, the Liberal Commentariat of Britain has had a field day with this, because what it seems to demonstrate is a kind of ethnic preference.
The fact that it was Hamas that began the current war with Israel and Russia that began the war with Ukraine makes no difference to their interpretation of the issue.
As far as they're concerned, we are taking somewhere north of 200,000 Ukrainian refugees who are actually mostly women and children because we are racist.
The Liberal commentators were also unable to make qualitative distinctions between Ukrainians and Palestinians.
We might ask ourselves why countries closer and with more obvious cultural compatibility don't take Palestinian refugees, such as fellow Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan.
And the answer is because in 2007, Egypt had to forcibly put down a Palestinian insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula after Hamas had taken over it, which is why in 2009 they built the most ferocious looking border wall I've ever seen against Gaza.
Egypt won't accept any Palestinian refugees because as reported by the Associated Press, Egypt says that a mass exodus from Gaza would bring Hamas or other Palestinian militants onto its soil.
Jordan won't take them because they have already been down this road in a conflict which has come to be known as Black September, in which Jordan had annexed the West Bank and incorporated its Palestinian population into its political system.
By way of thanks for this, Yasser Arafat and his militants started a civil war in Jordan and made a failed attempt to overthrow the king.
We don't see this kind of power-seeking behaviour from Ukrainian women and children, nor do we expect them to be resentful against us for having such a different culture to our own.
Despite the differences, which are significant, both Britain and Ukraine are European countries with a Christian religious heritage, making them at least understandable to one another in basic moral terms.
We already know that Islam's presence in Britain has not been ideal, and that various politico-religious issues have caused community conflict and the occasional atrocity, not to mention any of the particular ethnic identitarian issues which the Palestinians would bring with them by virtue of them being Palestinian nationalists.
And it isn't like there is a utilitarian argument that can be made for their presence here either.
In 1992, Denmark gave refuge to 321 Palestinians.
By 2019, the government produced results for what had happened to them.
64% of those that have been given refuge had obtained criminal records.
34% of their children had obtained criminal records.
And bear in mind, many of the children hadn't yet grown up.
And the vast majority were living on welfare.
Put simply, Ukrainian refugees are not like Palestinian refugees.
And the Liberal seems to simply be blind to that fact because of their ideological commitments to liberal falsehoods about the nature of reality.
It's easy to assume that it is the well-known liberal ideological out-group preference that is the cause of this, but I think that this out-group preference might only be a symptom, and the underlying cause may go deeper.
You might be familiar with this mimetic graph that has been doing the rounds on social media recently, which shows that liberals have a much broader moral constituency than conservatives.
This comes from a study in Nature magazine called Ideological Differences in the Expanse of the Moral Circle.
What these heat maps show is self-reported moral consideration by ideological leaning over various categories.
And what it reveals is that liberals have a particularly absurd universal moral framework compared to the conservatives.
Each concentric circle represents a particular kind of constituency.
These are 1. All of your immediate family.
2. All of your extended family.
3. All of your closest friends.
4. All of your friends, including distant ones.
5. All of your acquaintances.
6. All the people you have ever met.
7. All the people in your country.
8. All the people on your continent.
9. All people on all continents.
10. All mammals.
11. All amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fish, and birds.
12. All animals on earth, including paramecia and amoebae.
13. All animals in the universe, including alien life forms.
14. All living things in the universe, including plants and trees.
15. All things in the universe, including inert entities such as rocks.
And 16. All things in existence.
To measure how valued the participant felt each category was in their own moral calculation, they assigned a certain number of moral units, which generated the heat maps you are seeing.
As you can see, the categories which designated the limits of moral concern for conservatives were mostly around three to four, which are your closest friends and all of your friends.
Beyond that, the conservatives' moral concern for more distant groups becomes weaker.
By contrast, the liberals' constituency of greatest moral concern were the preposterous categories of 12 to 15, which includes all animals on earth, including paramecia and amoebae, to all natural things in the universe, including rocks.
The authors of the study naturally then realized that liberals were more likely to weigh the moral value of out-groups and ingroups as equal with conservatives as the opposite.
But that isn't where this issue ends.
If the bourgeois liberal were simply to say, I value both British people and Palestinian people equally, then we would move on to other discussions, practical discussions, about having Palestinians here, as I have already covered.
But instead, the bourgeois liberal turns on the people closest to them and begins to derisively mock them for having a preference for their own, and then to engage in a moral inquisition in order to properly establish that their countrymen are in fact bad people for not sharing the liberals' out-group preference.
As this clip from a podcast by Politics Joe demonstrates.
Her line is at best inconsistent.
At worst, you can make up your minds, but her argument is that the Ukrainians absolutely fine to come and seek refuge here, but the Garzans categorically know, and she backs this up by saying there are a lot of people around the world who are in really terrible conditions.
Presumably the Garzans aren't white.
Look, I would never presume to think that our immigration policy would be based off of something like that.
I do want to talk about how bad she was on the whole, but on the substance, I said to you, just after she said it in the office, it was quite mad.
She's been like, you know, and rightfully, you know, hundreds of thousands of people from Ukraine have come here to seek refuge, but six people here have also got it.
The first thing to notice is the remoteness of the issue for the bourgeois liberal.
They don't expect to have to live cheek by jowl to Palestinian refugees, and they don't expect to have to deal with any of the cultural conflicts this might bring about.
To them, it becomes an abstract question of liberal interpretations of human rights and the universal nature of mankind.
They don't know anything about this particular Garzan family or any others, and so they assume that they are just blank slate universal humans who just want to support liberalism and human rights for all.
That's what the average Garzan believes, right?
Well, no, but it is what the average liberal believes.
And since they have no further information than these are people from somewhere, they default to their false blank slate assumptions about the nature of human beings as if they were true.
But they aren't true.
And the people that they're advocating to be let in are particular people, not universal people.
They have a history, an ethical system, group interests, and prejudices of their own.
They are not Western liberals.
The next thing to observe is the invitation to admit that you are making distinctions between one kind of group and another.
This will, of course, be rendered by the liberal on distinction of skin colour, as if that is the causal factor for one's decision and not a corollary.
It would be preferable to take European Christians as refugees because we have a shared history, religious heritage, cultural inheritance, common understanding, etc., etc., etc.
A corollary of this is that Europeans are white, but being white is not a necessary factor in their being European.
For example, if every Ukrainian had been rendered with glorious green glowing skin after Chernobyl, their heritage would remain the same.
We wouldn't refuse to take Ukrainian refugees on account of their skin being green and not white.
The liberal has put the cart before the horse, but none of this matters, as the term racism is not about establishing who is right, it is about establishing who is wrong.
Because what this all boils down to is that the bourgeois liberal wants to raise themselves above the common people of Britain.
And there are two ways to do this.
They can either accomplish great things, which naturally raises one's own social status, or they can emiserate the people below them to increase the distance between the bourgeois liberal and the common man.
Accomplishing great things is difficult, but browbeating the government with liberal stigma is easy.
And so they've chosen the latter.
Put simply, they want you to take the Palestinian refugees because they think it makes them seem virtuous to advocate for it, while at the same time, they know that it will hurt you.
And this will improve their relative social standing against you.
This is why they didn't raise a finger in defence of the Armenians after they were ethnically cleansed from Azerbaijan in 2023.
It was because the Christians were the victims, and as we've seen with Ukrainian refugees, bringing Christian refugees to a Christian country is unlikely to result in particularly negative effects for the native population, and so the bourgeois liberal stands to gain no increase in social status as a result.
It's also why they don't complain when Muslims persecute other Muslims.
Saudi Arabia may have bombed tens of thousands of Yemeni children, or Pakistan may have expelled over a million Afghan refugees, but what difference does it make to them?
They can't use it to gain status over you.
It is as true now as it was in Edmund Burke's day that the bourgeois liberal wishes to destroy the particular attachments of the common man out of a hatred for him.
As Burke put it in his reflections on the revolution in France, in the spoil and humiliation of their own order, these individuals would possess a sure fund for the pay of their new followers.
To squander away the objects which made the happiness of their fellows would be no sacrifice to them at all.
Turbulent, discontented men of quality, in proportion as they are puffed up with personal pride and arrogance, generally despise their own order.
One of the first symptoms they discover of a selfish and mischievous ambition is a profligate disregard of a dignity which they partake with others.
To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle, the germ as it were, of public affections.
It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love of our own country and mankind.
The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hand of all those who compose it, and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage.
To be attached to our closest first, and then in concentric circles out to the rest of mankind, is how we build our love of mankind.
Severing that does not increase our love of mankind, but it only inhibits our love for ourselves.
What they have done by weighting their own moral preferences towards an out-group is not to do anything in favour to the benefit of the out-group, but instead to deny their own countrymen the ability to be able to show empathy for the Palestinians in the first place by denying their ability to show empathy for their own.
By endangering us in this way, they render us weak, divided, and inferior, which is why they're doing it in the first place.
What they want is to inflict damage on the British people, which is why they despise your attachment to your home, your family, your neighbours, your community, your country, your religion.
And this is an attitude they would never have towards a foreign people like the Palestinians.
They are furious at these things because these close attachments deny the universalism that is promised by their liberal beliefs.
Not only are they fundamentally exclusionary, but they also tie you more closely to them, and they hate you more than anything.
You remind them that they aren't beautiful, perfect, free-floating, liberal, individual spirits, unconstrained by time and place and commitments.
You, in your cultural particularity, remind them that they are particular people too, bound by their own culture and practices, with all of the grubbiness of reality that they see on you, they can feel on themselves.
And only in attempting to hurt you can they cleanse themselves of the original sin of being British.
And so they do everything in their power to hurt you, your family, your children, your friends, your community and your country, because not only does it make them feel intellectually superior, morally better,
▲
Export Selection