Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - On the Coming Civil War

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 25, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

14:27

On the Coming Civil War

What has been done to us is not fair.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Britain's institutions and their accompanying intelligentsia are in the grip of a profound moral confusion over the question as to which master they should actually be serving.
	A philosophical bifurcation has divorced the country's direction of travel from the interests of the British public, and liberal mysticism about individualism and human rights has concealed the rot which is eating into the deeper and intrinsic nature of human relations.
	Rather than serving the British people, the British elite have found themselves committed to an abstract international doctrine of universal rights, and it is well understood that rights create conflicting claims between people which must be mediated by the institutions, and our institutions and elite appear not to have the wit to understand where their loyalties are supposed to lie.
	There is much talk of civil war at the moment, but I think that this is a misnomer.
	We don't have a good word to describe what is actually happening, and people default to civil war as a general term for a period of social conflict.
	However, I don't think this will be a civil war in the classical sense in which two factions of elites divide a country between them and battle one another for supremacy.
	What is happening now is instead more like a betrayal by the elite class against the rest of society.
	The clients of this elite class have switched from being sections of the native public to what are essentially foreign enclaves that they have imported in against us.
	This has, therefore, created ethnic tensions in a country which is actually not used to such things.
	The groupishness of the newcomers has acted against the fair-mindedness of the natives, and this has allowed abominable depredations to be visited by the former on the latter.
	And there is no method for justice to properly be claimed by its victims.
	People can sense the tension this state of affairs has created, but don't know how it will properly express itself and clumsily describe this as the fertile ground for a civil war.
	I'm going to try and draw a line under this and summarise as best as I am able what the problems are and what the solutions must be.
	While attempting to find a rational grounding for the identification of just wars and the desirability of peace under a universal and therefore international law, Dutch theologian and diplomat Hugo Grotius noted that there was a kind of double occupancy of a people over a territory.
	In his 1625 work, De jur belli acpassis on the right of war and peace.
	Grotius explains that in any given territory there exists both ownership of property and the collective jurisdiction of the people as expressed by the state.
	An individual can own a certain area of land, the people as a collective noun control the territory.
	Group membership is important to the people then, as it ensures the personal and collective security of the life, property and liberty of each individual member.
	Moreover, the we in We the People is an important psychic stabilizer in public life.
	When the general will of the group appears to be the operant spirit of the state, then the majority can feel at ease, knowing that their rights and interests are being looked out for by the political expression of them as a people, the Leviathan.
	And people primarily access this feeling of nationhood through the non-rational, non-appetitive section of themselves.
	Plato's tripartite soul provides us with this rough conceptual model of how to understand the nature of the forces at play within us.
	The reason, logos, represents our rational mind, the appetite, ephthumia, represents our bodily desires, and the spirit, thymos, represents the passionate, willful aspect.
	Political theorist Francis Fukuyana leans heavily on this conceptual framework in his influential 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, and there is much merit in his thesis.
	What he terms the thymotic aspect of political life is serviced by the collective sense of politics as a felt activity rather than the rational calculation of individual interests, and national identity becomes a proxy for the outpouring of these feelings.
	There is no rational debate to be had when a people feels that they are losing the jurisdiction of their homeland because it is not reasonable to ask them to give it up.
	The protection of their lives, liberty, and property is contingent on their national state being receptive to their political concerns, and if it isn't, then the state itself becomes their primary enemy.
	It is not a coincidence that as Western states become more liberal, bureaucratized and rationalized, that there emerges the foreboding and mysterious presence of the far right.
	The thymos is the source of politics in which the far right actually consists.
	They are not employing the rational logos in order to make their political calculations, they are employing the spirited thymos, which is why there is no rational discourse to be held on the subject, because the forces which move such politics are in honour, respect, and dignity.
	The rational liberal searches in vain for an ideology behind the far right, but the use of the term belies an ignorance of the subject.
	Instead of a calculated logical framework of a priori ideas, one encounters instead a turbulent well of feeling.
	The prejudice of the logos-driven liberal drives them to reject this form of politics outright rather than interrogate the subject.
	A small amount of reflection will reveal that much of human life is indeed not rational and is instead driven by habitual and relational considerations which themselves become political.
	Modern liberals have become obsessed with representation for a reason.
	Whilst they can attempt to rationally construct a framework in which each person is logically recognized as themselves, they cannot escape Hume's dictum that reason is the servant of the passions.
	What the liberal politics of representation conceals through this calculated framework is that the beating heart of all true political expression is the thymos itself.
	The concern for representation and recognition is the form of politics that the thymos recognizes.
	Indeed, this is why Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America and Kamala Harris is not.
	He appealed to the thymotic desires of the American people, and they responded to him in kind.
	He is their champion in him they have a collective recognition of the American people as a people and they possess a leviathan that acts in their interests, a truly national state.
	By contrast, the liberals instead become the champions of all things foreign and minority and look where it got them.
	Moreover, it's why Trump's recent intervention between Iran and Israel was so successful.
	Trump positioned himself as the Eastern King of Kings and demanded recognition and respect for the prestige of the United States as the hegemon.
	Iran and Israel were overawed by the power of America and the potential consequences which might come of denying it.
	Fukuyama also seems to be correct in his Hegelian analysis of the situation.
	If people vie for recognition in a struggle against one another for individual power in the state of nature, it would be unsurprising that they would also do so when actual political power is on the line.
	Access to the grace of the state requires recognition from the state.
	If there are competing groups with divergent priorities making conflicting demands of the same state, then that state has to choose which group to serve, the minority or the majority.
	And in the case of the British state, it has made its choice.
	This is why the British public feel that they are living in a two-tier society.
	The British state has turned its face away from the native thymos of the far right and instead busies itself with preserving the dignity of the minority groups it cultivates, even when those minority groups commit atrocities against the majority.
	It should not come as a surprise then that this is treated as a betrayal of the worst kind.
	Immigration into Britain has never been a popular or desired policy position.
	The British public never asked for it.
	More than having migration forced upon them though, the British state has dedicated itself to the proposition that foreign populations have as much claim to the British Isles as the indigenous population does, because the modern liberal state interprets all interactions with individuals or groups through the lens of universal human rights.
	And so by this standard, the liberal state imbues itself with the obligation to uphold the dignity of each individual in opposition to anything that might infringe upon it.
	Which sounds nice in theory, but in practice has resulted in the state penalizing the native majority ethnic groups and privileging foreign and minority groups.
	Liberalism, rather than being a creed about the limits of the state in regards to its own citizens, is transmogrified into a biased referee who polices the oppressive interactions between members of the majority group against the minority group, always finding in favour of the minority.
	Indeed, the very act of negative characterization of the minority group is punishable to the maximal extent because it constitutes racism, the highest conceptual crime known to the liberal mind.
	The disorder is intolerable.
	It is incapable of justification.
	It's clearly racist, and it does not represent the modern, forward-looking Northern Ireland that I know that this place is.
	Empowered by this concern about racism, the Liberal State becomes inquisitorial and persecutes the far-right resistance to native displacement and political disempowerment.
	Despite reasonable nativist concerns, the state is forced to place itself against the very people of whom it is a product and repress them to maintain public tolerance.
	This was most exemplified in Keist Armer's reaction to the Southport riots.
	I utterly condemn the far-right thuggery we've seen this weekend.
	Be in no doubt, those that have participated in this violence will face the full force of the law.
	The police will be making arrests, individuals will be held on remand, charges will follow, and convictions will follow.
	I guarantee you will regret taking part in this disorder, whether directly or those whipping up this action online and then running away themselves.
	This is not protest, it is organised violent thuggery.
	Rather than express any sympathy with the rioters, he condemned them in the harshest terms and proceeded to use the full force of the Leviathan against them.
	And look where that has got him in the polls.
	It's also important to note that it is very rare to encounter a non-Western group that considers politics as purely a rational affair.
	Most engage in precisely the same kind of thymotic politics as the far right, and the natives can see it.
	The liberal state, therefore, seems to pick its favourites malevolently and appears to even permit outrages by the minority populations against the majority, and it does nothing to stop the minority populations from revelling in their newfound superior status.
	We can have a Muslim majority nation here in Canada, right in your face.
	If we have Canadian law here and you say that you want Sharia law to displace Canadian law, that doesn't sound very respectful.
	Go to your Queen and tell her to change the law.
	To Sharia law?
	No, change the laws to not allow any more Muslims to come to Canada.
	We owe our allegiance and our loyalty first and foremost to our religion, not to the Queen.
	This is not just unfair.
	It begins to amount to a foreign occupation without war being declared or a shot fired.
	There is a reason that Professor David Betts and others are warning that we have arrived at the sufficient threshold for civil war, because when an intransigent state empowers minority communities against the majority, it appears to be a situation that must be remedied one way or another.
	The only answer is for the Liberal State to concede that groups can make rights claims and that the British people have the primary claim to Britain.
	The loyalty of the elites must also be towards their own country and not to an abstract moral doctrine.
	And the decision-making institutions must be recalibrated to accept this new order.

▲