TRIGGERnometry - Sargon of Akkad on Liberalism, Intersectionality & Immigration

Episode Date: July 23, 2018

Sargon of Akkad, AKA Carl Benjamin discusses classical liberalism, intersectionality, the gender pay gap, free speech, Tommy Robison, Brexit, immigration, Islam and a lot more with the guys at TRIGGERnometry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello and welcome to Trigonometry. I'm Francis Foster. I'm Constantine Kissen. And this is a show for you. If you're bored of watching people argue on the internet about subjects they know nothing about. At Trigonometry, we don't pretend to be the experts. We ask the experts. Our amazing guest this week is a controversial YouTube star with nearly a million subscribers. Sargonovacad, Carl Benjamin.

Welcome to Trigonometry. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. We really appreciate you coming on the show. Thank you so much. Before we get started, for anyone who doesn't know who you are, which is not many people these days, you've been all over the shop in the media and elsewhere, who are you, what do you do, and how did you come to the place that you are at now?

Well, I'm certainly not an expert. I hate to break this. All right, that's the interview over. Basically, I kept seeing, I wasn't really politically engaged in my 20s, and I was just coasting through my life, just working in regular jobs, just as tech admins and things like this.

I would continually listen to audio, books in my ear while I was doing. And by the time I came to my early 30s, I realized that the world was not being run as I approved of. It was becoming remarkably illiberal in many different ways. And I just found it, it was getting to the point where I was like, why is no one pointing this out? You know, what surely everyone can see that we shouldn't be making, like, racial distinctions on hiring for the BBC or things like this, which is something they actually do. And so I just started making videos about things that were concerning me. And I was an absolute fool because I never really thought it was going to go anywhere.

I just, I just had to get it off my chest. And so I had a YouTube account that was just registered under my gamer tag, which is Sargon of an account, you know, when I was playing video games. And now I'm stuck with the name. I wish I'd use my own name. I didn't even think about it. You know, but, and so yeah, and basically I just got to work just researching into what, what the hell's going on five years later.

I'm like, wow, we've got real problems. and they start at the sort of most fundamental philosophical level. And we need to have a conversation about just the principles that we base our decisions on. Because if you think about what's happening, I mean, look at the Carrie Gracie decision at the moment with the BBC. I don't know whether you guys have been following it. But she's recently managed to get £280,000 out of the BBC license payer

because she didn't get paid the same as a man who worked twice as many hours as her in a more stressful job. And so she's there saying, well, it's about the principle of equality. It's like, okay, well, that's not a principle I agree to. I agree to the principle of you get what you earn. And if you work four hours a day on a relatively easy job in China, reading the news for four hours a day and you're on air for like two hours or something a week,

then a guy who's on air twice as much as you and works in a high-stressed job like in Washington, D.C., he deserves more money than you. There's just no getting around it. The jobs aren't the same. It's not comparable. And so, like, we need to get down to these sort of basic axioms of how we even form our political beliefs.

Because when we get there, you realize that liberal philosophy is essentially, been subverted by continental collectivism. And this is a problem, especially if you're an English liberal like myself, you're an individualist, you believe in the agency of the individual. You come to see, I mean, we've got a women and equality's branch of the government at this point. I mean, that sounds like something that I would expect to see in the Soviet Union. You know, it's not the government's job to make us equal. It's the government's job to protect our rights, and that's it. And so that's what I'm more important.

interested in return to sort of more traditional English, British, liberal sort of, like, governmental structure. I know it's a massive undertaking that I'm proposing, but I'm, I mean, it's really got to the point where there's just such a chasm between these two styles of belief that we have to address it. I was going to ask why, for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know who you are, why you're controversial, but I think we've addressed that already. Honestly, right, the controversy isn't from any of my beliefs. I mean, I know, I'm, you know, I'm anti-racist, I'm anti-fascist, I'm anti-communist. And I think the problem is that after World War II, right-wing socialism, fascism and

Nazism, was absolutely discredited. There was no future for it at all. They got completely wiped from the map. But that didn't happen with left-wing socialism, the Soviet Union. It took a long time for the Soviet Union to collapse. And so many actors, incredibly intellectual people on the left, were basically using this to fuel their desire to implement socialism. And obviously that's failed everywhere it's been tried.

And so now liberalism is the only ideology left standing. And so when I'm saying, look, I'm for what classical British liberalism and they're saying, well, you're a fascist. I'm just like, you don't know what liberalism or fascism is then. You know, you don't know about the terms I'm talking about. And I'm part of the intellectual tradition that was first into the field against fascism. And the fascist, if you read like Mussolini's doctrine of fascism, he rails against liberalism all day in the same way that Hitler did in mine camp.

they can't stand it. I mean, they think it's a Jewish invention and things like this. And it's just like, well, we can't have a conversation then, can we? You know, if you're going to call me a Nazi and I'm going to call you a commie, then I guess we have to go to war and nobody is representing each other's beliefs accurately. So you were talking as well about diversity and do you not think that actually, in terms of the BBC, we need diversity quotas to reflect the fact that our society more and more is becoming more multicultural? It shouldn't just be, for instance, white males, particularly white. males from Oxford. See, isn't that a white supremacist opinion? I'm not joking. Why in a meritocratic

system couldn't a non-white person apply for a job, be the best for the job, and get the job? Why could they not do this? I mean, do we think that the BBC is run by racists? I think the counter argument to that is ultimately we surround ourselves with people who we inadvertently who we know who we're most comfortable with. And if you are like a white bloke who grew up in a part of South London, like me, you end up socialising with white people mainly from South London, or you feel more comfortable dealing with people from your part of the world, essentially. I think people are more comfortable dealing with people who think like them.

And so I don't think that your race is very important when that conversation comes around. I mean, you get a lot of people who are young, the children of migrants who came in the 60s and 70s, and who are very left-wing, very progressive. I don't think that they're being held back because of their race or anything like that. I think that the fact that they believe the same sort of things as what the people at the BBC and running the BBC believe is a natural advantage to them. I mean, I don't think the BBC would ever hire me, not because I'm white, or maybe because of white, actually. They actually do have quotas against white people at the BBC, but primarily because I do. not subscribe to socialism and my entire worldview is informed by that and their entire worldview

is informed by their socialism and they would just find themselves on a fundamental disagreement with me so if we were to sit in an interview they would they would probably not necessarily know why they disagreed but they're probably like no he's he doesn't give me the right feeling because i'm not confirming what they want to hear whereas someone you know a south asian person who came in and said oh i think progressivism is great they they would be absolutely oh that was that was a great person I don't think this country is run by white supremacist and racist. I think this country is, in fact, pathologically anti-racist, to the point where we've got to the point where just the allegation is enough to ruin someone's career.

And it's like, but you can't really prove unless they're demonstrably doing something. You know, unless they're openly wandering around Zig Heiling, it's really difficult to prove someone's a racist. You know, and this is the problem. The allegation itself, it only has weight because you care whether you're a racist or not. If you were a racist, you wouldn't give a damn if someone calls you a racist. You'd be like, and? You know, you wouldn't take action, but suddenly we're like, oh God, we need diversity.

We better do everything we can to make sure we're not racist. If you're doing that, you're probably not a racist. A racist wouldn't give a damn. They'd probably be proud of it. If any of the viewers are wondering why I've been smiling through this whole exchange is, I'm just waiting for you to show up on Sargonne Destroy Snowflake. Snowflake. Liberal Snowflake get smashed.

I'm really looking forward to that. Yeah, I'm being about my face plastered all over the internet. But this is the thing, though, right? I mean, that question comes from a completely different set of presuppositions than my answer. And, I mean, what's your answer? You're like, well, that's true. We're not racist. You know, we don't need to, I mean, I find it, I find there's something deeply concerning about the focus on race.

I mean, there are so many other more, more salient characteristics when talking about a person. And these are, you know, these are usually within the agency. of the person. The person's choosing their own beliefs. And that's another question whether you actually choose your beliefs or not. But the root of your beliefs and the way you form your worldview and the way you interact with other people, I really think that race plays a much smaller role, at least in this country than it does in other countries. I mean, in America, it's a much more, like, prescient and to the fore issue, which it's

very annoying talking to Americans about, like, class. They can't differentiate class from race. But in this country, I think class is a much bigger barrier to success. If I came in here with a very low-class accent... What, mate, chill out, fucking... But you know what I need, no day. I'm teasing, I'm teasing, yeah. Francis agrees with you on this issue.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do, 100%. In absolutely, there's a huge amount of middle-class condescension to the working classes, and we see this in the term, gammon. I mean, it feels like a racist term, doesn't it? Well, it is a racist term. You're talking about a group of people based on their skin colour, and you're making a spursons, assertions about... And it's...

Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's used as a pejoration. It's... It's... I mean, they would sit there and do some mental gymnastics to tell you that it's not racist, but at least, at the very least, they can concede that it feels like a racist term. I mean, if you'd made up like a coffee bean or something for a brown person, you know, they would say, oh, that's racist.

So, you know, but they'd be playing special. Yeah, I mean, immigrants, I'm allowed to call things like that racist, because I get special privilege. Yes, you do, yeah. You absolutely do. This is the fascinating thing. I can tell you're not from this country, mate, because you're wearing a jacket in this. Yeah, it's crazy.

Yeah. It's just style, mate. You wouldn't know about it. Well, I'm with you there, man. Well, I didn't mean to insult you as well. I was just trying to insult Francis. Oh, no, no, I would be insulted if you said I had style. See, it's a funny thing. We don't have banter in Russia, so I'm always, I never quite understand where the line is between being actually rude and just playfully insulting someone. I know, because in Russia, once you go over a certain line, you get killed.

Yeah, you just have to shoot them. Or make them tea like that. Yeah, oh God, what you've done. That is a horrible colour of take. It is actually, I'll go to say. Yeah, is it nice or not? You can be honest. I'll be polite.

You're not the first guest who's complained. We had Liam Halligan on, who's a pro-Brexit economist and commentator, and he spent about three minutes ripping into me about the quality of the tea on the show. I mean, he's not wrong. All right, well, there we go. This is how British people,

it's particularly English people from the South say that that tea is shit. I'm going to be polite. We'll make your proper cup of tea out of it. Well, Francis will anyway. Yeah, I'll make a proper cup of tea. A Venezuelan cup of tea. Yeah, a Venezuelan cup of tea.

All right, well... With no milk, no water and no tea bag. Anyway, well, what I was going to ask you is you've been very successful with your YouTube channel. Like I said, you're approaching rapidly a million subscribers, and I think that tells you quite a lot about what's happening in society. I agree. And one of the things I find very interesting about your videos is you started out.

You didn't even show your face. It was just text and you would comment on things. And so you've essentially in this world now that's obsessive. with how things look, you've actually gone for the content. Yes. And that content has attracted people who are like-minded, who are interested in what you're talking about. What do you think that tells you, what do you think your success tells us about the society today and the problems that we face? I think that political correctness is a kind of weapon that's used to silence and marginalize people who are voting citizens, who have a legitimate cause that's used to silence and marginalize people who are voting citizens, who have a legitimate cause.

to a legitimate right to participate in democracy as the same as anyone else. But because it falls outside of the acceptable range of discussion, then these opinions are silenced. But it doesn't mean they go away. That just means they fester in the darkest corners of the internet. And so when I start talking about things that need to be spoken about but are politically incorrect, then I'm considered some sort of renegade or rebel, even though I actually am pretty down mainstream in my opinions,

really, I'm just prepared to deal with the tough issues that nobody else really wants to talk about because they're afraid of being called names. So what are the tough issues that you tackle for anyone who doesn't watch your channel? Yeah, I mean, I think feminism is a major one, but that's just an outgrowth of, I guess, what you would call intersectionality. It's a kind of postmodern philosophy that's essentially become hegemonic over the left. You'll notice that liberals now are just considered to be right-wing. I was considered myself centre-left, remember I do a political compass test, I'm always on the centre-left libertarian spectrum. And I get told relentlessly that I'm a right-wing.

And so essentially, I mean, intersectionality is essentially the combination of all the philosophies that play on identity politics, which is essentially the politics of victimhood. And so you've got socialism, you've got sort of black lives matter-style racial politics, you've got feminism. All of these suddenly, because they operate along the same lines, they can all be bundled. into the same package, which is intersectionality. And this is why they now have a racial and gendered hierarchy of oppression called the progressive stack. I mean, I'm slightly thinking, that's the most horrific thing I've ever seen, to categorize people's privilege based on their race and gender.

I mean, it's so unbelievable and dehumanizing, in my opinion. And you'll notice that in the way they use the term, like, female bodies, black bodies, white bodies. They'll use these terms. And I'm like, that's how I would describe corpses. I would never describe a living human being as just a body. That's the most dehumanizing thing I've ever heard. And yet this is standard academic language.

It's disgraceful, in my opinion. And so this has made me a complete renegade. And no one wanted to talk about it in this way, because I guess the liberals have just lost their spine. They've lost all their moral courage. And I don't know why, because liberalism is the only ideology with any repute left, which is why the left still hides behind the term liberal. But as soon as you start saying, well, I'm in favor of capitalism,

which is a core liberal principle, all of a sudden it's like, well, you're a right-wingist. Absolutely not. I'm in favor of people having food on the table. I'm having money in their pocket and a TV and, you know, spare time. I'm not in favor of them going hungry. You know, and so it's basically I think it was just because I was addressing things that the mainstream would not touch or didn't know how to touch.

I think there's a kind of group thing that traps them all. And there's definitely kind of cult-like behavior of demonizing the outsider and denouncing people who would be, dissidents. It's typical cult behaviours. And I think people fall into these patterns of behaviour without realising it. And I think it's really unhealthy. Do you not think, though, that with something like feminism, at its core, it's still needed, especially when you look at what's happening in the world, where in a lot of countries, women simply aren't equal, women don't have the right to vote. Issues like FGM are still happening. They still

happen in this city in London. I mean, when I was a teacher, I used to see, you know, girls you don't literally disappear for months on end and then come back. No questions asked. The Black Lives Matter movement, I mean, you would say it's incredibly relevant, especially in America. Well, unfortunately. In America, again, it's a class problem. In England, in Britain, it's actually the opposite happens in this country.

If you look at like black and minority ethnic deaths in police custody, they're actually underrepresented in this country. It's 13% of the population is non-white, and only 10% of the deaths in police custody. are non-white. And so if anything, by that logic, you would need a white lives matter movement in Britain because it's disproportionately the white working class that are dying in police custody in this country. And so you can't just import an American idea over to here because the context is different. And with regards to feminism, the problem that you have is what kind of feminism?

The intersectional feminists have, and it's only been in the last like three or four years, I've watched this happen. I mean, when I first started, people like Jermaine Greer were credible feminists. Germain Greer now is being de-platformed by feminists, because intersectionality is steamrolled of the feminist movement. And what it's done has been very clever. It's all about language games, about labelling. And so if you're not an intersectional feminist, then you are a white feminist. And if you are a race activist, being white is a negative thing because you're perceived

as the oppressor. I mean, the question you have to ask yourself in regard to that is, are you oppressing women because you're a man? Me? No, I'm very much second in the relationship. My girlfriend is a professor of psychology. Then you're not a feminist. So she's the one in charge. It's all predicated on the idea that men are oppressing women. And if you don't think men are oppressing women in Britain, then you can't really be a feminist, or at least an intersectional feminist. You could call yourself a liberal feminist. And I mean, if there was a strong liberal

feminist movement, I would call myself a liberal feminist because I'm totally in favor of women having the exact same rights as men. You know, I can't see any justification. for women not having the same rights. I mean, I would rather the laws be written without reference to man or woman and saying citizens have these rights. I mean, I might never need an abortion, but on the off chance that I do need an abortion one day,

somehow, I can't actually get one because abortions are only for women. And so, I mean, what if I was a man who did need an abortion? I couldn't get one. And I don't see why the law should distinguish in that way. But that's not what the feminist movement of today wants to do. But, I mean, I totally agree.

I mean, Saudi Arabia is the easy-go-to-exam. two country to say, look, then, you know, they've only just been given the permission to drive. They still can't leave the country without a male guardian. You know, I mean, obviously that's, I mean, but again, I mean, you don't necessarily need feminism for that. I mean, if you were to go over there with liberal principles, you would be able to make arguments from liberalism for women's rights. I mean, there's a reason that in this country, we gave women the vote in 1918, I think it was like nine years after the men got the vote, whereas in France and Germany, it was in the 50s, I think. You know, we've always

been ahead of the curve when it comes to human rights. And it's because of, it's because of the sort of British liberal principles that our society has spent a thousand years building up and crafting to this point. England, like, the English don't like to say this, but England is an unbelievably exceptional place when it comes to moral perfection. And there are so many other places that just, we listen to them because we hold ourselves to account and we don't have the sort of courage in our own traditions anymore. It really is disappointing and it's turning the country into something that it shouldn't be. We had a better country before we started adopting these in my opinion. And I mean a better country for people who aren't just white males. I mean, you know,

for women, for minorities, for all these people. You know, we don't need to have the kind of authoritarian top-down system that they are trying to implement. We can solve the problem from the bottom up. That's my thing. You think it's creating a culture of fear where people are afraid that if they disagree with somebody's point of view that they're going to be labeled as, you know, a racist, whatever else. And essentially, I mean, you see it sometimes in extreme cases where people end up losing their jobs, careers, getting publicly shamed. Yeah. You already know the answer.

You know that there's a culture of fear. Everyone knows of the culture of fear. I mean, this is what we found on the Rotherham report when it came to the grooming gangs. The police, the council members, they were all afraid of being labelled racist. And so in the pursuit of not being labeled as racists, they would ignore the 20-something Pakistani men

who were doing the grooming and treat the young, vulnerable white girls, the 12-year-old, 13-year-old girls, as if they were prostitutes. I mean, if that's not a miscarriage of justice, because of political correctness. I don't know what is. And I can't see how anyone can justify that. And then the MP

who tried to speak out about it for Rotherham, she got fired from her Labour job because she spoke up about it. And because Labour have bought into all of the social justice activism. You know, I mean, it's absolutely catastrophic. And I think that's one of the reasons for my rise, you know, my success,

is because I'm prepared to, in a principled way, address these things, you know, rather than rather than, I mean, on on the internet, there are loads of, like, neo-Nazi larpers and they're just sorry to interrupt what's a I don't know what's a larp it sounds like like some kind of exotic animal you'd see so someone who's basically pretending to be this to be to be to be edgy and counterculture but it's sort of a Milo unopolis almost kind of figure no well I mean yes but for

neo-Nazism Milo's not a Nazi Milo Milo's at a classical liberal as well but some but they like to do it for the shock value okay but really I don't think they hold any of these beliefs but they like to make it look like they do because then you're offended. But it requires someone principled to speak out about these things, I think. And I think that's one of the reasons for my success. Well, one of the things that you really talk about a lot is free speech, right? And we had Brendan O'Neill, who you know and you're a fan of on the show a few weeks ago.

And he was talking about free speech. And we were trying to get from him like examples, count d'ankula side, right, of people who are whose speech is being restricted in this country in Britain. Right? And he came, he told us about some woman who does Holocaust denial songs and all this kind of stuff. And as principled as a person as I try to be, I kind of look at those people and I go, well, I'm not sure I can get behind defending your right to do Holocaust denial songs. You know what I mean? And beyond that, is there really a free speech problem in Britain? Without doubt. I mean, why shouldn't she have the right to deny the Holocaust? Look, I spend a lot of time telling you what's wrong with the world. So let me tell you about something that's actually right.

sleep, specifically getting more of it, better quality, the kind where you wake up and feel like a human being, rather than someone who's been thrown down a staircase. Most mattresses are just layers of synthetic foam and crossed fingers. You're spending a third of your life on the thing, and most people have no idea what's actually in it. Avocado green mattress is different. Their mattresses are certified organic, built from natural materials, designed to actually support your body properly rather than just hold you in one position until morning. The craftsmanship is real.

These are mass-produced objects. Someone has put thought into them. I'll be honest. I'm not the person who thinks carefully about where he sleeps. My dating history will tell you that. I'm the person who's been on the same mattress for eight years and called it fine. But the older I get, the more I notice that fine isn't actually fine. Your body tells you, if you're going to invest in anything for your home,

your bed is the one that pays you back every single night. Avocado products are made, not manufactured, and thoughtfully crafted with real materials to deliver lasting comfort and support. Go to avocadogreenmatress.com slash trigger to check out their mattress and furniture sale. That's avocado greenmatress.com slash trigger. Avocado green mattress.com slash trigger. I mean, yeah, it doesn't matter. But this is where we get into the principle versus practicality, because practicality would say, well, she's conditional. contributing to a narrative that the Holocaust didn't happen.

And there's going to be people who then believe that. But it's demonstrable that the Holocaust did happen. We've got an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows. I mean, we've got, you know, preach of the camps, the bodies. You know, we've got the Nazi literature that shows us why they hated the Jews and what they were going to do to them. We can plot a direct course. People denying the Holocaust are just denying an aspect of reality.

So let them. I mean, it's not illegal to deny the Holocaust in this country. You know, and she should be right to say. I mean, you are then free to use your free speech to make her look silly, and you should. You know, you definitely have a moral duty to make these people look ridiculous. But I can't find any justification for the government to restrict your free speech. I think it's terrible. And the thing is it gets worse.

I mean, like, if you look at Article 127, we've criminalised offence. That's unbelievable. I mean, how can they suggest that I shouldn't be free to offend someone? That's, I mean, by what right are they claiming that I must be restricted in my ability to offend? offend people. How am I free? If I'm not free to offend you, then how am I free? And this is causing thousands of people a year to be arrested over social media posts. I am absolutely done with it. I want the absolute repeal of the article section 127 because I don't think people should be arrested over an offensive social media post. It's up to you,

the citizens to deal with that person to just show them why you think they're wrong, to argue with them, to mock them, to treat them however you want. But it's not up to the government sit there and arrest you for saying something on Twitter. It's ridiculous. But, I mean, the problem is, is then the lines start to get blurred. I mean, where do you, so do you see an incitement to violence? Is that your right of freedom of speech? I personally am a free speech absolutist, so I think that any action you take is on you. But I'm more than willing to compromise on incitement.

Things like incitement, libel, slander. I can accept those because your public character matters and you're not always in the same position to be able to defend yourself. So I can understand legal recourse being taken if someone's calling you a paedophile on the BBC or something, and, you know, you're obviously not, then, yes, you should be able to take public, you know, legal action against that person. Or if you're, if you're, I'm speaking as a person who stood in front of a crowd of 10,000 people and spoken, I can understand how in an environment like that,

incitement can be a thing, you know, and you do have a measure of power over a group of people that you wouldn't normally have in everyday life. And so, yes, you probably do have to be more responsible in circumstances like that. But just saying something racist or saying something inflammatory offensive, I don't agree. that they should be criminalised. But then, so you took the example of you delivering a speech to 10,000 people, but isn't it the same the fact that how many subscribers do you have to your YouTube channel? 815,000?

So every time you put a video out, you send it to 815,000. Do you not therefore have a responsibility to those 815,000 to not say something that could then be an incitement to violence for people to... Well, I think it depends on the context. I mean, if there were 800,000 people watching my video in an auditorium or a... stadium or something, then sure, because the environment matters, you know, when you're surrounded by like many people, when it's people in their bedrooms or in their office or something watching something, I don't think it's the same, because you get an atmosphere, an energy, you know,

that happens. And that's how I think the restriction of incitement of violence is justified. But, no, I mean, I think people should be free to say these things, but we then have a responsibility as citizens to address these things on a social level. But that's, and this is, this is a remarkably be like, I guess I would call it an English attitude, the idea that it's up to us, it's not up to the government, to hold one another accountable. And it's got to the point, though. I mean, and again, this is, I think, the way that political correctness has taken advantage of us, by denying us these basic rights. I mean, for example, the ability to offend is how different groups of people negotiate what is an acceptable way to deal with one another. And this is manifested

most quintessentially Britishly in banter. You were saying that you didn't understand British banter, right? Because in Russia, you didn't have it. But in this country, I don't think we could live without it. Especially, I mean, we've had these four constituent nations that have been side by side and warring with one another for a thousand years. I mean, that's got to manifest itself in a way that we can recognize and normalize the differences between us without hating one another.

And that's, I mean, I love the fact that in Scotland, when it comes to the World Cup, they put out shirts that say, anyone but England. That is so funny to me. You know, and that, I mean, you know, you could portray that as racist. It's actually more than that car, because I lived in Scotland for many years, and it's not anyone. You know, their favorite country in every World Cup is Argentina. Oh, that's because they beat us all the time. Not only because they beat it, but because they beat you by cheating. That's why the Scots love Argentina. But the thing is, like, but when it came to the independence vote, what country votes to remain in a union? You know, do you think the

Catalonians had vote to remain in Spain? Absolutely not. They were denied their vote to leave Spain, but the Scots chose to stay, and that tells you something about the tolerance and plurality of Britain. They don't feel that they're being unjustly held in here and have a referendum to leave. Actually, we'll stay, thank you very much. Okay, you know, it can't be that bad. So there have been times on the internet where people have linked you with the alt-right, in particular the Guardian, have posted an article up about it. They've also been other websites. Why is it that people say that you're all right?

And what is your response to them? Okay. I think, I mean, the most basic level, they do it because it's a strategy. They know that when I come to talk to them about these issues, I'm going to approach them in a way they can't reasonably deal with because I'm going to make them seem like authoritarianism. I'm going to make them seem tyrannical. Because frankly, that's my opinion.

I do think they are a tyrannical. And so what they're trying to do is put an idea in your mind that, oh, this guy's a Nazi. Because the alt-right, for anyone who doesn't know, the alt-right are essentially just white nationalists. They want a state with white-only people. And I'm a mixed race. My dad is half-white, half-West Indian. So I grew up on the feet of my grandfather who taught me to play chess, and he's a very dark-skinned man from the West Indies. I don't want a white people-only state, so I don't want my father to be kicked out of my country.

You know, my father is as English as it comes. He's a military man. He's very British. And I think it would be, I mean, I think the idea of like a racial discrimination that would be a catastrophe. And I mean, Britain's always had a very multi-ethnic. I mean, Britain itself is a multi-ethnic state. You know, the Cornish, the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, they don't all consider themselves one race. And then you've got the British Empire.

You've got the Sikhs, the Gherkers and the Pakistanis, you know, who have relations to the identity that is British that isn't based on race. It's based on other things. And so when the alt-right come along and say, right, we're essentially, I mean, I don't want to just call Nazis, because that's always used as an easy way of dismissing someone's ideas. But they very much agree with Adolf Hitler on the idea of a racial super state. You know, they think that white people should be in a unique state with themselves and have no interaction with non-white states. And I'm just like, that's the furthest thing from what I believe. And, I mean, being a liberal, I'm an individualist. I think that all individuals should be treated equally by the state without exception.

They're racial collectivists, and so they are naturally opposed to what I believe, just fundamentally. They can't agree with anything that I say on that basis. I mean, you'll get, there's clips of Richard Spencer, one of the most popular people in the alt-right, saying that he's just openly against free speech. I mean, I'm a free speech fundamentalist. I mean, I was described by the mirror as a free speech extremist. And I proudly wear that label, but I'm very much free-speech extremists.

It's the complete polar opposite of what the alt-right wants. But because the alt-right also operate in the kind of dissident online space, there are a much smaller presence. I mean, they're given a lot more weight than they deserve. If there are 50,000 of them worldwide, I'll be amazed. I don't think there are that many at all. But the reason they say I'm alt-right-linked is because I debate against them. I've debated against Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor,

millennial woes, a bunch of other American online online online. that people won't recognize, you know. But I've debated against all the major names, you know, and told them, look, I think you're wrong. I just think you're categorically wrong on the things you're saying. And I don't think that what you're saying has philosophical consistency, and I don't think there's moral consistency. And so when they say, I mean, Russia today outright called me all right.

And I think I might have a case to sue them. Because obviously a defamatory way of just essentially calling me a Nazi. And if you can somehow get fascism from what I'm saying, then you don't understand what I'm saying. That's my opinion on it. Do you not think, sorry Francis, do you don't think that a big part of the reason that people can get away with saying that you're all right linked or whatever is that free speech has become so associated with the right wing politics in this country and elsewhere? Yeah, it's crazy. I mean, the alt-right, like I said earlier, they're not in favor of free speech.

They don't want that because free speech means that Jewish people can say things and they can't have Jewish people saying things because they have really negative opinions about Jews and they think that Jewish people are. I mean, like, stereotypically, they think they're sneaky and evil. And it's like, I've got loads of Jewish friends who are clearly not sneaky and evil, so just stop saying it, but, you know, they're not in favour of that. So, I mean, the idea that the left has given up on free speech is an indication that intersectionality and essentially socialism has taken it over. You can't be on the left anymore if you're not a socialist. And socialist regimes aren't a favorite of free speech either because they're collectivist.

You know, they want curated speech, their own speech. You can say party propaganda that you can't say something, dissenting. The dissenters have to be silence. I'm a dissenter. So moving on a little bit then, in terms of socialism and party politics, you've recently joined you, Kip? I have. You have. And I initially read that it was more of a trolling move by you. You were just having fun, Kandankula put some stuff on his Twitter saying, if enough people retweet this and I'll join. Have you joined on that basis, or is there some kind of principal reason that you're... Actually, there's more of a principal reason. I mean, like, it's always funny

to get their panties in a bunch, because they... I don't know why they call UKIP far right. UKIP is a classical liberal party. It's a very British party. I mean, I've spoken to Jared Batten, I've spoken to many of the members of it now. And I mean, they have a section on the website and you go to sign up saying,

look, if you've ever been a member of the BMP, the EDL, you know, any of the sort of, like, fascist parties, you just can't join them. But the argument there would be, as a counter argument, would be that they need to do that because they have lots of people like that who would join the party

because it's a right-wing party. Well, I mean, maybe, you know, there are ex-BMP people in labour at the moment. So, you know, it's, I don't, I don't think you should define yourself by what the racists do. You should define yourself by your own principles. And if you, if, I mean, like, I'm, I wouldn't call myself a nationalist, but I'm pro the nation state. I think the nation state is a useful thing to exist. I think it's good for the people that live under it. And so if I'm in favor of the nation state, I'm not in favor of the European Union.

I'm not in favor of breaking down national borders. I think it causes more problems than it solves. And so a neo-Nazi would say, well, I'm obviously a nationalist as a neo-Nazi. Therefore, if he's a nationalist, I would rather join him than labor or the conservatives because they both seem to be for open borders. And so they're just doing it for political expediency, not because of consistency of opinion or ideological conformity. But it's, you know, you've just got to keep these people out because we don't agree.

And ultimately, they would be the enemy if they had any political power. The problem that we have at the moment is the left has absolute hegemony of the dialogue, which is why someone like me, a reasonable radical centrist, is someone controversial. I was going to say, so you've joined UKIP. Now, my question always with UKIP is, what's the point of UKIP? They're a one policy party. They achieved their aim. They got Brexit.

So what's the point? They were a one policy party. They're not anymore. I think that UKIP is basically going to become the home of people who are tired of political correctness. When it comes to the point, because I think one of the problems that most people have with political correctness is the unearned moral superiority that people who claim to be promoting it claim, and they treat you as such. They treat you as if they are your moral betters. And when you are finally sick and tired of being spoken to like an aunt, then just say, right, okay, I'm just going to join UKIP.

And you'll watch them recoil in horror about how could you do this? Well, because you're the way you speak to me. That's why. I'm not going to be spoken to you like that. I'm going to take political action against you and it's going to be through UKIP. Because UKIP actually do stand for traditional British values. They actually stand for anti-authoritarianism. It's like a more decentralisation of power, a free speech, you know, free thought.

They actually do stand for these things. Traditional British values that we used to project around the world and people would look up to. We're ashamed of now. It's tragic. And yeah, I'm damn where I am for UKIP. And I think that if you're sick of this crap, then it's time for us to stop it. One of the issues that tainted, I think, UKIP, was this link between Brexit, and xenophobia, this idea that anyone who votes for Brexit is racist.

And by the way, both of Francis and I voted Remain. Because we're good people. No, he's doing. Really good people. But as an immigrant in this country myself, I was incredibly frustrated. The argument against voting leave was essentially that anyone who votes leave is racist. Because as you said earlier, I think this is one of the most fundamentally progressive, open, welcoming, tolerant countries. the world, in the history of the world.

Absolutely. So the idea that half of the British public voted to leave the EU because they're racist, I think is insulting. Absolutely. But I do think there were other things that did happen during the campaign like Nigel Farage standing in front of that post or of migrants and whatever. You can became tainted, is what I'm driving out, right? In the left-wing imagination, certainly.

I mean, and then from the conservative point of view, they've got no reason to try and counter out that narrative because UKIP a direct threat to the conservatives. So why wouldn't they just go along with that? Oh yeah, they're racist, they're xenophers. But if you actually just look at the reason that people were voting for Brexit, it was never about xenophobia or race or anything on that. I mean, the north of England are suffering

under mass immigration. No one would deny this. Even the Guardian writes articles explain, oh yeah, well, you know, maybe there's a problem with, you know, maybe immigration has been handled badly in the North England. And if you look at Tommy Robinson's supporters, they're desperate. They are desperate.

I mean, there are two videos that went around social media, recently of a group of people chasing out what they perceived to be a grooming gang. I don't know whether this was a grooming gang or not, but they believed it was. And another group driving a van into the front of a kebab shop because they believe a grooming gang operated from that. It's like, okay, these people didn't start like this. They got like this because they think they're not being protected by the law and they're taking it into their own hands.

That's bad. You know, we should be talking to these people with a bit of compassion because it might well be, and I think that the Rotherham report on the various other than the 20 other cities this has happened in shows that the working class in the North really are suffering. And we need to take that seriously. And it's not to say that we need to suddenly persecute Muslims or something, but we just need to accept that these communities aren't perfect. And there is a definite cultural friction that's happening.

And the police are siding with one group over another, whether that's justified or not. And it's got to be talked about honestly. But if you look at Brexit, I mean, most of it, there was an article in the New European, and a European magazine where they were essentially condemning Brexit as English exceptionalism. In many ways that's true. In many ways that's true because if there's one way to describe English political life for the last 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta, it's the word accountability. That's the English demanded.

You cannot rule over this country without being accountable. And no one can hold the commission to account. You can't hold John called Younger to account at all. And it's ridiculous to put an extra layer between the voter and the lawmakers. And even then, the MEPs aren't even the lawmakers. They just vote on the laws that are proposed by the commission. So now you've got three layers between the voter, the MP, the MEP, the European Council, and it keeps going. I mean, that is anathema to English political life.

It's no wonder the English. We're like, no, we just want out. We want our sovereignty back. We want to be able to hold our politicians accountable. We want the laws made in this country. and there's no reason that the continent should have any say over it. And I can't say I disagree at all. I voted Brexit 100% on sovereignty and I would do so in a heartbeat.

I don't care what it costs me. I don't care. Really? So because I voted remain because, joking aside, I'm a pragmatist. I live in London. I have a lot of friends who are small business owners. To me, it's, and my dad would absolutely agree with you. My dad married a Latin American woman in the 1970s when it wasn't the cool thing to do,

when people were saying to him, do you want your baby to be born with curly hair, all that kind of thing. And my dad went ahead and did that, and they're still together and all the rest of it. Yeah, that's pretty straight. Well, yeah, it's because my mother's got Native American Indian, and they've got very straight hair

because they related to Chinese people. But, yeah, so they didn't know that. But anyway. So, but he would believe in that. I come from it as a point of view. If it's going to damage your economy and it's going to damage it irreparably, which is my fear,

then I'm, as well, bad as it sounds, I understand where you're coming from, but pragmatically, I don't want to be in a poorer society. I don't want the economy to suffer. I don't want to be poorer for my children, your children or anybody else's. Do you think they said that in Greece? Well, but we're not Greece, and here's the thing. And I realize that Greece is its own... What about Spain or Italy? But... What about Eastern Europe? You know, the European Union, I think, is a... I don't think it's... I don't think it's... I don't think it's what they were called, tell you. I think it is effectively

part of the European elites plan to create a supernational entity across Europe that will raise national sovereignty and create a European superstate, a United States of Europe. I don't agree. I especially don't agree that it will be effectively ruled by Germany. And the idea of the Germans ruling over Britain is just

horrendous to me. The Germans are they think in a different way to the English. The English don't trust their institutions. They don't think that they're going to get things right. I mean, do you trust the institutions? No. Exactly. Exactly, but a German has faith in the Bundesbank. They have faith in the Reich, in the Reichstag. They have faith in their politicians. And they act differently. They act in a way that is in concordance with this. And that's okay. To be fair, from what I know of Germany, it seems far better run and far more equal a society. Sure, but it's a lot less free. Yeah. And that's the problem I have as an Englishman. I want my freedom. For example, I don't have an ID card. You don't have an ID card. They do in Germany. You want an ID card? Not particularly not. Why not?

Why not? Because I would see it as controlling, but control from the state. So you don't want to be run by Germany then? See? When it comes down to it, you know that a pragmatic argument is an excuse not to stand on principle.

You're saying, well, that's going to cost us money. We may as well just do this, not the worst thing in the world. Well, I think that the way that the European Union has gone, I don't see it getting, I don't see it being reformed. I think that's being deliberately sent in this trajectory. And I think that they probably knew

it was inevitable the British would want to leave. because at the end of the day, it really does come down to accountability. And I think it's the right thing to do, even if we lose money. But even then, the economic predictions didn't come to pass. You know, I don't think that they've... I think that everyone's too invested in the trade agreements to be able to say, well, we're not going to trade with you then. I think they're going to do it.

They're going to do it because they need to do it, because otherwise their industry is going to collapse. Our industries will collapse. It's in everyone's interest to form an agreement. The problem the European Union has is, I guess you would describe it as just power politics. They are on a very unstable base of them. I mean, you see what's happening in Italy at the moment, the sort of central European coalition that's coming about.

The fact that it's essentially Germany and France trying to prop themselves up and then the British and even with the second biggest contributor to the European unit, where are they getting that money from? Theresa May should be using this as a stick to beat them with. But once she's got them in control and saying, right, we're not going to give you any money and you're on your own, we'll take the pain. They'll be like, okay, okay, well, can we come to an agreement? And we'll say, yes, we can come to an agreement. We can be reasonable, but we can't let them dictate because they will just take us for all we were. We have to be in a position to be able to get a fair deal, but we're not at the moment because Theresa May is weak. And that's my worry, is that principally what you're saying is could be correct.

My worry is that I look at a lot of these conservatives and I'm like, I don't think any of you are competent. I agree. And that's my worry. And what are we actually going to leave with? They're going to mess it up and it's going to be painful. But in 20 years time, it will be, I bet the content doesn't get any better. I bet it doesn't get, I bet it doesn't improve one iota. And in 20 years' time, your kids are going to be like, Dad, I'm so glad we're not living in Germany or France right now, or Spain or Italy or Portugal.

I'm so glad that we got out while we could. I bet they do. All right, man, you've got to have some kids. So they can be happy about Brexit. Having taught for 10 years, and I doubt my children would ever look at me and go, I bet you'll thank you, you were right. That's not the way children behave sadly. But, yeah, it's a salient point. And it's also very interesting.

You touched on immigration, you said open borders doesn't work. Yes. What would you propose? That is, what do we need to do as a country in there? Because we need immigration. The reality is we are an aging population. We have a deficit of skills that we need for our NHS, engineering, all the rest of it. So what is your proposal, essentially?

Okay, so the immigration issue is an interesting one. And there are many different factors that are playing into this. So there's like an iron law. of wealth. When a country becomes wealthy, the middle class stops producing as many children. And this is a problem because then you've got a larger number of older people in the economy who are taking, you know, like taking pensions and taking benefits and whatnot and Social Security out of the economy and there are less people paying into it. This does create a problem. And it's honestly a miscarriage from the more selfish younger middle classes. I mean, I was the

same in my 20s. You know, I only had a son when I was 35, you know. And so it's definitely a problem that's happening. But the flip side of this is if we keep poaching the intelligent, educated people from the third world, which we do, we say, you come over here, you make lots of money, and they will, especially compared to someone in Romania or something, Bulgaria. You know, a doctor there is going to make something like $1,000 a month, whereas over here they're going to make something like $30,000 or $40,000 a year. It's an obvious choice for them. But they were educated by their country. I mean, their country nurtured them, raised them, educated them, you know, and it was, you know, public money that provided this. And we're stealing that.

So in a way, it's kind of like a reverse form of colonialism. We're still exploiting these countries by taking their talent. They need these people to improve their countries, to build their countries up into First World countries. So at what point do we say, right? I mean, we have a moral responsibility not to take advantage of our position of privilege over them. And so I personally would suggest that we need to look to educating the working classes in this country. I think especially in the North, after Thatcher decimated the coal industry and steel industry, obviously, these people need some kind of retraining.

Obviously it has to be voluntary on their part, but I think there could be government initiatives for the deprived white communities in the North that they need to have a leg up. They need to be said, look, you can be doctors, technicians, all the skills we need. we've got to start, you know, building that up. Because otherwise we're not, otherwise we're continually preying on the third world countries that we're taking people in from. And with an open border's policy,

like taking in the working poor of other countries, that's bad for our own working poor. You know, that's just creating competition. It depresses wages. They know that their NHS, the NHS is continually under stress because 250,000 new people a year are coming here. I mean, they didn't pay into the system

and yet they're taking out of the system. It's not sustainable. And the working classes in the north are getting furious about it. This is why you see the support, the raw support for Tommy Robinson is scary to me. And anyone in the middle class should be looking at that and going, wow, we have a problem. I mean, I've met Tommy Robinson, I think,

four, five different occasions, right? And, like, you know, we have to place like this to do an interview or something like that. And on the way there, right? I mean, I was in, in Sussex, I think I was, to do an interview for a piece for the day for freedom for him. And we arrived at this hotel and I saw it. And every time, it's always the same kind of guy.

He's like a shortish, rough-looking tattoos, you know, sort of balding, sort of, you know, middle-aged sort of guy. And he spliced Tommy, he looks around, he walks up and goes, nice for that thing you do a mate. It just walks off like nothing to happen. They happened twice in this one elevator. And I was just like, holy shit. You know, when people recognize me in the street, they're using like fans might, and they're very loud and open about it. They're like, oh, sorry, I love you. You know, thanks very much.

But these people are completely different. This was grim and serious, and there is something dangerous brewing in the North. And we need to deal with it. And we can't just sit and go, oh, it's racist. It's not going to make it go away. And it's not going to get any better. And as we saw the vigilante attacks that were going around on social media, the chasing out of the grooming gang, the smashing in of the command shop.

Yeah. These people aren't going to sit there quietly. They're not just going to allow this to continue to happen to them. So we have to be very serious about immigration. And we've got to take into account the reality of different social value systems. There's no getting around the fact that conservative Islam is not really compatible as a value system with Western English values. They're just different. And when they hit each other, they cause real tension in these communities.

And they cause fights. They call gang wars, victimizations, bullying. We see this all the time on social media because people show it. And it's, I mean, there was a video the other day of this guy from, you sound like, you know, somewhere in the north. And he was just recording from his van. of this Muslim guy who was basically bullying this other little skinny white guy and he was getting to take off his shoes because he had some nice shoes on. And this guy walked up and said, look, what are you doing? What are you doing?

And he was like, you know, fuck off kufar or something like that. And it's just like, okay, that is a conflict of identity and values. He's just otherized him. He's called him kufar, barbarian effectively, you know. And this guy is squaring up to him and the guy was just like, I'm going to put you on your ass, mate, if you don't back down. It's like, right, these communities have to learn how to interface. But hold on. Hold on. Most of the immigration to this country in recent years, particularly the immigration that caused people to vote to leave, if there is an element of that.

It's not been from Muslim countries. It's not been Muslim people. There's been Romanians, Bulgarians, et cetera. And there are problems with that. I mean, in Carlisle, there were Polish gangs. Like, causing trouble and smashing places up and all this sort of thing. Well, I don't disagree with you, by the way. No, no, I know. I'm just using Islam as an easy example because the identity of Muslim is very strong. You know, it's a very, very strong. And it's easy for a Muslim. to embrace, you know, and I'm not, I'm not criticizing it, and denigrating it, it's just, it is.

You know, I'm not saying it ought to be anything. It just is. And it's, I mean, this is, I watched, um, I watched a video that was recorded on the Speaker's Corner a while ago, and you had two groups, a group of Muslims who were chanting something Arabic, and a group of English chaps who are chanting rural Britannia. And it was like, this, you couldn't ask for a better demonstration that it's a question of

identity, you know? I mean, there's, it, it all comes down to a system of values, and we have to be able to talk about this and we have to come to a conclusion and it's the same with like you know eastern europeans in the north as well that the you know there are cultural problems i mean it's a lot less of a problem usually with eastern europeans because normally they have a lot more in common you know but it's we have to accept that some cultures have values that are so fundamentally different to our own that they can't just be allowed to form large what effectively parallel societies this is something the danes are coming to realize and the swedes are coming to

realize themselves. They've got huge areas in their cities that are just no-go areas if you're not, if you're white. And it's like, we can't have that. Well, that's why I always say that, I think if you have immigration and you're open to immigration, what you have to be able to do is to have a limit on immigration such that you can integrate people. Absolutely. That you can bring. So with immigration, it's a fascinating thing. I'm doing some research for an article I'm writing on it. I came to this country in 1995, right? Around that time in 1997, 3% of the British public thought immigration was a major issue. 3%. Now it's more like 50 or 60%.

And if you look at the chart for concern about immigration on the one hand and then immigration, they're literally the same line. Basically people get more concerned about immigration as there's more immigration because people feel like those people can't be integrated. It's not an irrational concern. It's something that's really

affecting their lives. But if you say what you've just said, I know people in my own life who, if they watch that bit that you just talked about, Muslim identity or whatever, they're going to Oh, he's an Islamophone. But, I mean, what have I said that's offensive? I mean, what have I said that's not true?

I know, but that's the thing. That's the question. But that's my point is that like we live in the world now where it's almost like you're the wrong skin color and the wrong gender and the wrong whatever to be talking about these issues. Like if you're a woman being critical of feminism, it's much more palatable.

If you're a Muslim, I mean, Madjad Nawa still gets a ton of shit from what he says. I love magic, by the right? Yeah, of course you do. Of course you do because he's a liberal. Exactly. But someone like he's a Muslim. him, it's more palatable.

Like a middle class person watching this interview with Majid would be like, okay, well fine, he's entitled to say that. He might be completely wrong and whatever, but he's entitled to say that. But you're not. But doesn't that just go to show the hegemony of far-left beliefs? The fact that I'm the wrong race means I can't

talk about this. I reject that completely. I think anyone of any race can talk about any subject. As long as they're talking from a position of principle and they're actually talking about factual things that are happening, I don't see why anyone of any race can't talk about any issue. I think it's ridiculous, you know, and I don't think that accusing people of prejudice when they're actually bringing up real things, giving real examples and concrete reasons, a logical progression

for their argument. I don't see why the accusation of prejudice is even necessary. I mean, I went to university in Coventry. I used to live with Muslim people. I think this was before I even knew what the, I didn't even know the word Muslim, because when I was, you know, 20 years old, I was pretty uneducated, you know, and I don't care. I take people as individuals, you know, I take people as they come. So if you're nice to me, I'm going to be nice to you back, regardless of what you believe, because I think, you know, I think, you're I think right action is through, I think moral action and morality is through your action and intention. You know, I mean, if you intend to do something good and you mess it up, then I don't think you're an immoral person.

I think you might be an incompetent person. But if you're doing something that's right, but you're doing it for malevolent reasons, you are still being malevolent. So even, you know, even if you're doing it, you know what you're doing and you're doing it deliberately. And so I think that we should be judged on those sorts of categories, rather than just the political beliefs of something. or the fact that they would dare speak out of turn because of their race or gender. I mean, that to me is horrifically oppressive. Well, there is an element to that argument, which I think partly is true, which is that as a person of a certain background, right, you haven't had the lived experience of someone else.

There are certain things that you've not experienced in a kind of visceral way that someone else might. And when they speak from that position, it gives their argument a little bit more, like if we were talking about Russia, say, right? You probably would listen a little bit more carefully to me than to Francis because he's not Russian than I am. I would think you would have direct experience. But I mean, that just presupposes that I can't be empathetic towards you. I mean, you know, there's a Muslim chap who often picks me up from my house to take me to the train station. We always talk about Islam. And I floated with him the idea today of using the term conservative Islam versus liberal Islam.

Because we need to be able to distinguish between the mobs of people who are marching through the streets wearing the thobe, I think it's called, and the burkers chanting death to the West, you know, freedom go to hell, and the liberal Muslims who go on the BBC and talk about how they're progressives, you know. They're not the same. They don't think the same. You know, we can't just categorize these people in the same way.

And, I mean, he's a very liberal Muslim, you know, and so I think it's important that we make these distinctions. And I can empathize with him when he's saying, well, I don't like the fact that I'm being demonized as a Muslim. Of course you don't. You know, I don't like the idea that if I went to Moscow, I'd be demonised for being an English hooligan, even though I'm obviously, I'm not a football fan, you know.

And so I completely understand the problem. And you are right. You have direct knowledge of what it's like to be in Russia. So it probably would be worth more than your opinion. But if you had an informed opinion on something going on, that doesn't make your opinion invalid. You know, and you might have a more subjective and less actually factually based opinion,

based on your own personal lived experiences. Depending, you know, it depends on the data, depends on studies, depend on what's actually happening. It's about modeling reality. accurately, you know, as long as you can model reality accurately, it doesn't really matter what you are, what matters is what you're saying is true or false. I think that's what it fundamentally comes down to, is the ability to have an actual conversation. And if people can be heard, then it doesn't matter.

If Francis says something about Russia that's wrong, if I don't take offence to that and we actually have a discussion, it doesn't matter because we can educate. Yeah, exactly, we can educate each other. And the issue, the fear that I feel, and this is talking from my own personal experience, so when you were, for instance, talking about Islam or what's going in the north. Number one, I don't know enough about it. So I started getting anxious. Number two, I grew up in a pretty racist right-wing part of South London. And for instance, the pub down my road,

I used to have an England flag flying at all times. Asian people would get beaten up in and around that part of area. I used to work in a working men's class predominantly with white working class people. Some of whom were lovely. Some of them were vile, to be honest with you. and their opinions were vile. And when someone talks about that, talks and discusses ideas,

as you've just done, I feel the sense of anxiety thinking, are we just seeing a regression? That is my fear. Are we seeing a regression back to that sort of time? Well, it's interesting to say that, because, I mean, my dad was in the 70s, he was a teenager,

and being a mixed-race teenager, he was very obviously not white British. And so he was one of the eldest of his five, I think six brothers, I think it was six of them they had. And so my dad was often called upon to go and fight in the defense of one of my younger uncles who was being bullied on racial grounds. I'm well aware. I mean, I grew up listening to stories of this from my nan.

I mean, my dad was genuinely ashamed when my nan told me about a time that he took a plank of wood and broke some kid's arm for being racist to my uncle, my uncle Colin. And I was just proud of punch. I was like, Dad, that's amazing. He was like, no, no, you shouldn't do that. And it's like, no, dad, you have to sometimes. Sometimes you have to stand up for these things. And I do understand the fear of that, but I don't think we can allow that to be pathological, because then when it gets to that point, we can't even have the conversation,

and the conversations need to be had. We have to have this out. I mean, like, do you ever deconvert a racist by silencing a racist? USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day, like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at usa.com slash bundle. restrictions apply. I would say not. No, but the argument, I would say counter argument to that is you never, you're not dealing with the racist. What you're dealing with is the people listening to the racist. Absolutely. So if you shut him up, they then don't hear the racist stuff. They then don't become racist. Sure, but they do hear you being tyrannical. They didn't hear him being racist. They heard you accusing him of being racist and then being tyrannical against him. And if he says, well, I'm not a racist, mate, then you just look unjustified. You know, if he hasn't even had the chance to air these terrible beliefs, then we can't address them, we can't talk him down from it, we can't talk other people watching down from it,

and you look bad by doing it. You look like you're being authoritarian. And I think that that's the complete opposite way of dera-making someone not a racist. You know, I think the only way to do it is literally talk them through their beliefs calmly, you know, without attacking them and say, look, you know, let me hear why you think this. And then I can address the actual reasons you have. And you can only ever change someone's mind by actually addressing what they're saying on its own merits. You know, you can't make someone different. All you can do is make them resentful and hostile. And I think that's honestly what the left has been doing is a kind of political tactic.

We're just going to shut you down. And now it's got to the point where 20,000 people are out on the street because Tommy Robinson got jailed for good reason. I mean, he shouldn't have been interrupting the court that were doing what he wanted to do, prosecuting a grooming gang. Tommy, what are you doing? But I'm a supporter of Tommy. I think that normalizing this conversation is important because it has to happen.

It has to. You know, the support he's got, you can't just sweep this. under the rug. And so now we have to start getting the representatives of these groups and saying, look, talk us through your problem. You know, are they actually racist? They might not be racist. I mean, I think a lot of them aren't. I mean, a lot of the members of the EDL weren't white. You know, they had a little Sikh and black people because the Muslim identity doesn't care about racism. You know, it's actually very atracial. And so if you're not a Muslim and you're black, that doesn't mean that a gang of Muslims won't beat you up. You know, they don't give a shit.

You know, and I'm not saying, obviously, that's not all Muslims, but there are Muslim gangs who do that. that you know, energetic young men who take an identity and it's just like the football hooligans. You know, if you're not an Arsenal fan, you'll beat up a Millwall fan or something like that. It's exactly the same kind of psychology and process. Absolutely, but is that the, my problem is, that isn't the fault of the religion,

like it isn't the fault of football or the football club? I'm not saying it is. Or the football club, the fact that some people take an ideology to his extreme. I didn't say that it was. I notice I'm not making a theological argument or anything like that. There's no point. I don't want to, I'm an atheist, but I've got no interest in trying to persuade someone

that God doesn't exist. There's not something I can't down about. But there's no denying that there's a conflict of, like, identities are effectively representations of value systems. You know, you value something. I mean, like, what was the chap who punched a terrorist and, you know, fucking Millwall? Oh, right, yes.

What's he saying when he says, I'm Millwall? What's he saying? He's saying, I have a value system. I believe something, you know, and that matters. And it was in contrast to the terrorist value system, obviously when he's yelling Allah Wehapar or whatever, he's making a statement of values too. And it's summed up in the identities.

And so it's important that we talk about these things without throwing allegations, because that's the only way we can find a way to synthesize these so they can actually live in harmony. Because otherwise, you're effectively creating armed camps against one another. They're always going to be watching, don't you dare say something about my group,

or I'm going to get you. They're always going to be doing that. And we can't have that. And that's what banters for. That's what banners for. You know, that's why we don't do it with the Scottish. in the Welsh, you know, and they don't do it to us. It's because after so many years of this, you know, being in contact,

we've realized that if we just talk to one another, we have a bit of a laugh at each other's expense and relax about things, it's not so bad, is it, you know? And so you touched on Tommy Robinson. Would you say that because there's a lot of people that would say... He's not a racist. Okay. He's not a racist.

Why would you say he's not a racist? Because he's not a racist. He doesn't... Because he doesn't... He's not concerned about the race of the person. He would be as opposed to a ginger Muslim as a brown Muslim. How's that? It's not the race.

Tommy, you could legitimately call Tommy an Islamophoek. I think Tommy, and the thing is right, people, people who've got to remember the bigots aren't born, they're made, they're made by circumstance. You know, I mean, like Tommy grew up, I did an interview with him about three years ago because it was kind of edgy and I thought, oh, this would be interesting, edgy, you know, see if I can have a, you know, debate Tommy Robinson, this would be interesting. I think you just start telling me about things that happened to him. But how, like, I mean, the one of the one.

One that stuck out to me is how, I think it was just one of his friends' moms, his parents, they were being bullied by a Muslim gang on their street, and they're getting bricks thrown at their house and stuff. And they were armed of bats and stuff like that. So all the young lads, local lads, ran down to defend them. And then the cops came and arrested the local lads. And didn't, I mean, the Muslim gang was standing there with weapons and they did nothing. And it's like, right, okay, I can see where you're annoyed.

I mean, his cousin was groomed by a grooming gang, and there's so much social pressure and bullying and intimidation against these people that they're desperate and they feel the need to fight back. That's what's made Tommy what he is. It's not that he gives a shit about the race. It's that he feels that the way of life is under threat. And I don't think it's fair that we can just say, well, screw your way of life. It's tough life.

You know, you don't get the protection of the law, unfortunately. That's utterly unjust. And do you think the British way of life is under threat? I think in the north of England it is, yeah. I mean, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing if it wasn't. In what particular areas? Somewhere like Manchester, is it in provincial towns? Birmingham's about to become a minority white English town.

Do you think the English way of life is going to continue there or do you think that a more Islamic way of life is going to continue that? And is it predominantly Islamic? Because there's also a large Black Caribbean community and they're predominantly Christians? Well, yeah, now that's really interesting, is it? Because this is one of the things that The Guardian, this is something they picked up on.

So I did a video called Was Enoch Powell Wright? And I knew that I was going to be provocative on it. Oh, did you? Oh, yeah, but my answer was no. You know, I can't remember what's the law when an article's, you know, it ends in a question mark, the answer is always no. But my answer was that.

And this was a speech I gave outside of 10 Down Street because he wasn't right, you know. Black Caribbean people and black African people integrate wonderfully into it. I mean, I used to work with a bunch of Nigerians, and honestly, I couldn't believe just how normal they were. You know, they'd like, you know, they fit in completely, because it wasn't ideological, and that's the thing, with Islam, there is an ideological component that means they have a set of axioms that they have to build on to build their beliefs. And so, I mean, one of them, for the grooming gangs, if, if a woman is not

dressing and behaving to Islamic standards, then they're considered, effectively a prostitute. and so that morally legitimizes doing something to any of these people because they're not Muslims, they're whores, they're disgusting. It's okay to do that. It doesn't make you a bad person if you do that. But it's not an attitude that Black Europeans hold. You know, they're very, very easy. I mean, I always find my wife watches these standards and it's very easy to see how like you can see British values being espoused by people of all races on there. But it's all the same value system. You know, they all agree on what right and wrong is, you know.

And that's very much the same case with like Sikhs, Hindus, black Caribbeans, black Africans. It's something because it's not ideological. But with Islam, it does have an ideology built within it. And there are certain, like, ideological aspects that come from the theology of Islam. But honestly, I don't think that we can really address. I think that would have to, the addressing of that has to come within the Muslim community. But I think that's the reason why Enoch Powell's wrong. It's not about their race.

It's about what they believe, that culture. and most cultures can be pluralistic. Most of them we don't have a problem with. In fact, most of them, the British are remarkably protective over. I mean, growing up a military family, we lionise the Gurkhas. My God, you know, you could never say a bad thing about Gurkha, you know, but I think that we've got to be realistic, and we've got to look at what's happening with these,

and they are becoming parallel societies, with their own legal systems, their own cultural norms, and ones are often in violation of our own moral standards. And I don't think we can pretend that's not happening. But it's also, as well, everybody's own interpretation of a religion. Like you said before, there are sort of liberals. I know a lot of Muslim people. And they don't hold those value systems.

I agree with you. I think that the problem is half of our mosques, 46% of the mosques in this country are Diyabandi mosques. This is a fundamentalist Pakistani ideology. And it was created as a response to the British Empire. It's the same ideology that the Taliban followed. It's created in response. to the British Empire because they felt that liberal values were actually corrupting Islam,

and they wanted to return to a more sort of fundamentalist version. And this is something that's come with the Pakistani migration to Britain. I think we need to regulate this a lot more. I don't think we should allow fundamentalist mosques and fundamentalist imams to preach hatred of gays and Jews and the kaffar in these things. And they do. Not all of them. Doesn't that counteract what you said earlier about free speech, though? Should they not have the freedom of speech?

Well, that's in Simon, isn't? It's not necessarily to violence, it's just an expression of opinion. Well, Brendan O'Neill, who we had on, he's defended imams who've preached this stuff, but you wouldn't. Well, honestly, I wouldn't. I think, I mean, in an ideal world, then sure, but unfortunately, I think you've got to agree with kind of Karl Popper on this one. If you tolerate something that is intolerable, and then the intolerable thing will eventually consume what it was being, what was being tolerant of it. Like, for example, I wouldn't, I don't think people should be arrested of being neo-Nazis, but I think, that if they're holding neo-Nazi rallies, then these things should probably be prescribed.

You know, we can't just allow these sort of things to grow like a cancer and take over our society. We can't allow that. We're going to lose the pluralistic tolerant values that our society's built on. You know, we do have to be protective of that. And there's nothing wrong with saying, look, if you're preaching death to Jews, death to gays, death to, you know, death to everyone, and you're gaining a significant following because of your religious authority, because you have moral authority in these communities, then maybe something should be done. And I don't like it. As a free speech absolutist, I don't like. But unfortunately, sometimes we do have to accept the pragmatic reality. As we're saying about the European Union, sometimes you've got to pick your battles.

And I realize there's an inconsistency there, but what can we do? Do we just allow this to continue? Do we allow the, do we allow the profligation of fundamentalist Islam in the north of England? What can we do? We've got no choice. And also we've got no time. Yes. So it's been a great interview. And one of the things we tried to do to trigonometry is just bring in interesting controversial people and just have a conversation.

I think that's great. And I think that's fundamentally where you are, irrespective of what we agree or disagree on. And I think that's the great thing about, like someone coming from the Soviet Union, that's a great thing that most people in the world actually don't have is the freedom to discuss these difficult, controversial, challenging ideas. Thank you for coming on. The question that we always like to ask at the end is, is the one thing that you think we're not talking about that we ought to be talking about. Oh, God.

I think I've probably covered it in the interview. I'll just finish on the gender pay gap. Keep a lie, then. It just won't die. It's like the deadest horse that keeps getting up somehow. It's unfair to say it's not being talked about. Yeah, I know, but it's not being talked about in the right way. Okay, let me...

Women should be paid less than men. Oh, look, your faces. All right. Cut, cut, cut. And I'll tell you why. Do you know why? Because they work less hours than men. They work less hours than men.

That's it. No, not every woman. on average. Yeah, but the gender pay gap is controversial, you know what you're saying. But I'm absolutely right. Because the way the gender pay gap is calculated, it just averages up all of the total earnings

of each men and women. And obviously men are going to learn more because men spend more time in the office. It's crazy to think that women can work something like 15% fewer hours than men and end up with the same paycheck as men. That's ridiculous. That can't happen.

That would have to be done by a system of privilege for women by paying them more just because they're women. We can't have a society like that. You know, men and women should be paid per hour the same, and then when men end up working more hours, that means they're going to earn more money. That means the idea of the gender pay gap, it's a just thing to exist.

And you'll notice that now younger women are out earning younger men. Are we going to flip this? Are we going to say, well, now I as a man need to start getting paid more because women are earning more money than me? Yeah, good luck with that. Exactly. It's never going to happen, and it's ridiculous. So, yeah, the gender pay gap is a conversation that actually needs to end.

Well, we've had a lot of people on. We had Joanna Williams on, who's the author of Women versus Feminism talking about the gender pay gap. We've had actually the pre, I think one of the episodes that will come out before this one is we had an evolutionary psychologist talking about the fact that if you poll

men and women and ask them how much you want to work, women tend to want to work less and so on. Most people try to put it slightly more nuanced the way than you have. But you're used to, maybe the reason for your success is that you're keen to put things in that kind of edgy way. But the thing is there's no denying what I've said is true. You know, there's...

If you put it on average. Exactly. But it is always calculated on average. You know, that's the thing. If they would say, if they were calculated by individuals, that the pay gap shrinks to something like 2%. It's very, very minimal. And it's, you know, we don't even know why that is.

There is an element of discrimination. We've spoken to women on the show who've experienced it. Their undoubtedly is. And usually it's about assertiveness when it comes to pay negotiations and things like that. But it's not outright sexism. You know, that would be illegal and they would be able to sue their employers. And if that was the case, why would be able to sue their employers? And if that was the case, why wouldn't employers just hire women constantly?

It would just be cheaper for them. But yeah, on average, obviously, women should not be paid the same as men. Because they just don't work as many hours as men. So, yeah. Okay, we're going to reframe it like this. What Carl is really saying is that all people of all genders, races and backgrounds should be paid the same per hour. Yes. Okay, and we'll leave it there.

That's exactly what I'm saying. But that is exactly what you're saying. You just know how to make a YouTube audience sit up and get. annoyed well look it's been great having you on thank you so much for coming on it's been an absolute pleasure um before we let you go if people want to see some of your stuff if they want to read some of your stuff where do they go for that uh you can you can just google sargon and i'll be the first thing that comes up that's a pretty balsy claim to be able to make i look forward to i look forward to it's true yeah yeah i know i know i know it's true but i'm just thinking like

that's a really nice way to be able to go just yeah if you want to find me just put constant in in google i'm right at the top That's true. It's a measure of your success is what I'm saying. See, I'm getting banter wrong all over again. You'll learn, you'll learn. You'll learn. No, I won't.

It's been too long. I've been in this country for way too long. I need to be deported. Finally, someone spoke in the truth. Right, okay. So, thank you very much for listening and watching the Trigonometry. If you like it, please give it a rating on iTunes or SoundCloud or follow us on YouTube. Tell a friend and leave us a nice review as well.

That would be awesome. And if someone want to follow you, Constantine? I'm at Constantine Kissin on Twitter. I'm at Failing Human, so follow me there or on Instagram to see a picture of me looking sad in my pants. And we'll see you next week. Thank you very much.

Thanks very much.