UKIP MEP candidate caught up in racial slur scandal

[Blumf]

I want to see Carl weeping, on camera

It'll be one of those sobs with puffy red eyes and a snotty nose running all over the place, all dripping through his beard.

[Autopsy Turvey]

If you honestly think it is just about someone saying something offensive and not a wider point about someone's ideology and how they see and treat women then you are fucking deluded.

If it was a wider point about ideology, why has none of his actual ideas been mentioned, let alone rebutted, in the race to shut him down over bad-taste quips and tentative sentences wrenched from the context of long-form discussions? If it was a wider point about ideology, his opponents should be falling over themselves to prove him wrong with rational argument, not deliberately misrepresenting his ideas and cackling at the thought of him doing prison time for jokes they disapprove of. How does he "see and treat women" anyway, and what sources are you using?

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Stop defending massive pricks.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Carl's YouTube channel has been demonitised, cutting off his main source of income: https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/youtube-says-sargon-of-akkad-has-been-suspended-from-being

[hedgehog90]

...remarks made in a YouTube video about Labour MP Jess Phillips, where the UKIP European election candidate questioned whether he'd rape her before concluding "nobody's got that much beer".

wat?

[idunnosomename]

Carl's YouTube channel has been demonitised, cutting off his main source of income: https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/youtube-says-sargon-of-akkad-has-been-suspended-from-being

good

[.exe]

wat?

He means no matter how much beer a person drinks they would ever get so drunk that they would want to fuck or rape her - there aren't enough beers in the world for that.

Which is particularly risible coming from the likes of him, disgusting twat.

[TrenterPercenter]

If it was a wider point about ideology, why has none of his actual ideas been mentioned, let alone rebutted...

I've said before my first anger at Carl isn't because of his ideology or "ideas" there is nothing new here, it is pompous pious self belief that he is some great rationalist.  He isn't.  His appeal is about talking to the angry voices in mainly men's heads which he does in order to make money without having to get off his fat arse and do any real graft.  The shit Jordan Peterson of Wiltshire.

That is it.  There isn't any meaningful Benjaminite ideology, he is a man-baby that has found a way to monetise male mental health problems (yes mental health problems, I don't mean this in a derogatory way I have done actual work in the area of male mental health.  Don't conflate Carl's money-spinning operation with the fact male mental health is poorly conceived and supported.  It is much more complicated).

So, if this chap appeals to you, i'm sure you don't want to hear all of that, rather you want "his" ideas and ideology challenged (#DESTROYED), funnily enough this is what Carl wants, of course he does, if you are engaging with him then you are giving him attention and attention is his currency.  Like all of these charlatans he will never be clear and will be contradictory on a his positions whilst simulating some kind of moral outrage at other people he'll accuse of doing the same.  This is all to keep the ball in the air, more clicks, it's entertainment, when it suits, and a never ending stream of questions and distractions when it suits, like a really shit stoner conversation without the weed.

That said i'll give it a go: so ideology......"classical liberal" I think i've heard him claim to be.  This isn't his ideology and it isn't new, it is a standard economic laissez-faire, you know like the one that caused the 2008 financial crash and the ones before it.  There has been countless criticisms and evidence which has shown how and why this system creates inequality, high level corruption, alienation and dysphoria and well eventual collapse.  It isn't very popular at the moment.  Carl, like a lot of his ilk gets around this by talking about "liberal values" which again is an old idea that there are inalienable and individual rights under the rule of law.  He criticises Labour and dun dun DURRR "The Left" for wanting group based rights.

Now just think. What are laws but group based rights.  It is impossible and paradoxical to legislate for individuals.  So in short it is bullshit.  What matters is that laws are sufficient to protect and are able to evolve to meet the  demand of populations.  There is no contradiction to have unalienable rights, no-one wants to take them away (well apart from UKIP), it is contradictory to say you cannot have group based rights as well or that they are always bad.  What is a group anyway?

That leads us to his other ideology of society "civic nationalism".  Again, not a new ideology, it isn't exciting or edgy, it is basically the belief that people need strong national identity in order to live meaningful socially beneficial lives.  Wait, but groups bad right? No, not when it comes to nationalism because it turns out your nation is actually more important than all those really important unalienable rights Carl thinks are...well unalienable.  Ah, bit of problem here, so the freedom of speech to denounce your nation? Carl gets very upset when people talk unkindly of Winston Churchill.  However, surely he wouldn't advocate laws against free speech (would he?), instead he would promote national identity through cultural means.  Interesting.  So cultural nationalism, states promoting a culture (free market?), and a culture on nationalism.  This is the intermediate step between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.

As you can see it is a big fuck off contradiction full of hypocrisy and bedroom empire building.  "Cool story brainfarts" for the class below those that got to go to Eton.   I mean this little shit is actual moaning at the moment for being misrepresented after clearly misrepresenting Jess Phillips, which he does all the time, with aplomb.  That last fact might not be about his ideology but it does show you the level of deceit he is willing to surround himself with.  This fact at least, even if there was an atom of ideological importance in his thoughts, makes him a bad messenger and just a modern day evangelist.

[Space ghost]

Carl went to Truro today and got pelted with sardines.

[hedgehog90]

Worst hadouken ever.

[Buelligan]

I like the facial expressions.  It's like the men in the background knew it was going to happen because it always happens when a stranger walks down that way and they tried to warn him.  And now it's happened again but at least, this time, it was justified, if a bit embarrassing to watch.

[idunnosomename]

Looks like Hat Trick forgot Heidi Allen was leader of CUKTIG

[jobotic]

They should have got Steve Bannon in last minute. Would fit in with their current editorial policies.

[idunnosomename]

Looks like i mixed up ukip with cucktig whoops

[jobotic]

Yeah you won't be booting anyone up and down anywhere though will you, you'll have some bigger boys to do that for you.

[Buelligan]

Heheheh, well done JayT (thanks for linking it jobotic).

I dunno, British politics, where the fuck's it going?  I wonder what his policy's like on sardine tossing.

[phantom_power]

You come at me with a milkshake bro I'll come at you with a carton of Sunny D

[jobotic]

I'll fucking yazoo you up the wazoo. You gonna step up? You'd best do it Nesquik.

[idunnosomename]

Count Dankula.

[Sony Walkman Prophecies]

I've said before my first anger at Carl isn't because of his ideology or "ideas" there is nothing new here, it is pompous pious self belief that he is some great rationalist.  He isn't.  His appeal is about talking to the angry voices in mainly men's heads which he does in order to make money without having to get off his fat arse and do any real graft.  The shit Jordan Peterson of Wiltshire.

That is it.  There isn't any meaningful Benjaminite ideology, he is a man-baby that has found a way to monetise male mental health problems (yes mental health problems, I don't mean this in a derogatory way I have done actual work in the area of male mental health.  Don't conflate Carl's money-spinning operation with the fact male mental health is poorly conceived and supported.  It is much more complicated).

So, if this chap appeals to you, i'm sure you don't want to hear all of that, rather you want "his" ideas and ideology challenged (#DESTROYED), funnily enough this is what Carl wants, of course he does, if you are engaging with him then you are giving him attention and attention is his currency.  Like all of these charlatans he will never be clear and will be contradictory on a his positions whilst simulating some kind of moral outrage at other people he'll accuse of doing the same.  This is all to keep the ball in the air, more clicks, it's entertainment, when it suits, and a never ending stream of questions and distractions when it suits, like a really shit stoner conversation without the weed.

That said i'll give it a go: so ideology......"classical liberal" I think i've heard him claim to be.  This isn't his ideology and it isn't new, it is a standard economic laissez-faire, you know like the one that caused the 2008 financial crash and the ones before it.  There has been countless criticisms and evidence which has shown how and why this system creates inequality, high level corruption, alienation and dysphoria and well eventual collapse.  It isn't very popular at the moment.  Carl, like a lot of his ilk gets around this by talking about "liberal values" which again is an old idea that there are inalienable and individual rights under the rule of law.  He criticises Labour and dun dun DURRR "The Left" for wanting group based rights.

Now just think. What are laws but group based rights.  It is impossible and paradoxical to legislate for individuals.  So in short it is bullshit.  What matters is that laws are sufficient to protect and are able to evolve to meet the  demand of populations.  There is no contradiction to have unalienable rights, no-one wants to take them away (well apart from UKIP), it is contradictory to say you cannot have group based rights as well or that they are always bad.  What is a group anyway?

That leads us to his other ideology of society "civic nationalism".  Again, not a new ideology, it isn't exciting or edgy, it is basically the belief that people need strong national identity in order to live meaningful socially beneficial lives.  Wait, but groups bad right? No, not when it comes to nationalism because it turns out your nation is actually more important than all those really important unalienable rights Carl thinks are...well unalienable.  Ah, bit of problem here, so the freedom of speech to denounce your nation? Carl gets very upset when people talk unkindly of Winston Churchill.  However, surely he wouldn't advocate laws against free speech (would he?), instead he would promote national identity through cultural means.  Interesting.  So cultural nationalism, states promoting a culture (free market?), and a culture on nationalism.  This is the intermediate step between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.

As you can see it is a big fuck off contradiction full of hypocrisy and bedroom empire building.  "Cool story brainfarts" for the class below those that got to go to Eton.   I mean this little shit is actual moaning at the moment for being misrepresented after clearly misrepresenting Jess Phillips, which he does all the time, with aplomb.  That last fact might not be about his ideology but it does show you the level of deceit he is willing to surround himself with.  This fact at least, even if there was an atom of ideological importance in his thoughts, makes him a bad messenger and just a modern day evangelist.

I've disagreed with a lot of what you've said on here in the past, but I think this is absolutely spot on - particularly about attention being his sole currency.

Funnily enough, I put this to a friend of mine (who's a massive fan of his) the other week. He ended up having a complete meltdown and actually saying the words: "You've no understanding about what it's like for the white working class in this country" - a hilarious statement since, I'm white myself and, although I'm by no stretch of the imagination working class, I have been 'low income' for a good 4-5 years, living pay cheque to pay cheque. I tried to explain that people like that don't give a fuck about the working class, and that most of his problems (never having a gf, working a dead-end job) are of his own making; the cumulative result of substituting girls for porn, books for memes, and computer games for social interaction. The epitome of generation Doomer. I also think his autism is largely the result of his own conscious disengagement from society, rather than anything fundamentally 'wrong' with him, but that's another matter. Unfortunately, there's very little getting through to him since, even putting things in the most delicate/tip-toing terms, he'll just assume you're rejecting him by extension.

It would be nice to think that when Carl eventually fades into obscurity that he'll grow out of it all and move on, but the more likely reality is that he'll move onto another, slightly more polished YT-friendly iteration.

[Autopsy Turvey]

His appeal is about talking to the angry voices in mainly men's heads which he does in order to make money without having to get off his fat arse and do any real graft.

Well standing for election involves getting up off of one's fat arse, and while I agree reading, writing and talking does not count as 'real graft', it's worth pointing out that there are many easier ways to make money on YouTube. 'Spooky Things Captured On Camera' videos and clips of people falling off skateboards get millions of hits - not the piddly 100,000 that Carl can scrape together - and the people behind those channels don't face daily death threats, media lies and demonetisation.

has found a way to monetise male mental health problems (yes mental health problems, I don't mean this in a derogatory way I have done actual work in the area of male mental health.  Don't conflate Carl's money-spinning operation with the fact male mental health is poorly conceived and supported.  It is much more complicated).

You must also be aware then that there are lots of people on the left who suffer from mental health problems. Perhaps it's different because more of them are women.

So, if this chap appeals to you, i'm sure you don't want to hear all of that, rather you want "his" ideas and ideology challenged

It's not that I "don't want" to hear it, but I don't think "all he's doing is making money off mentally ill losers" is a strong or fair rebuttal. He doesn't particularly appeal to me as a commentator, as he's not old or clever or experienced enough (Peter Hitchens appeals to me more, except that he is far more right-wing and socially illiberal). I'm following Carl's pronouncements because I've grown up around left-wing thought and still most of the people I like/know/work with and/or follow on social media are quite far to the left; I've heard those arguments to the exclusion of all others, through higher education to artistic, comedic and musical scenes to most of the media I consume, always with this smug assumption of correctness and the vague threat that anyone who diverges from the group-hug will be cast out, unengaged-with, unpersoned and/or forced to find work elsewhere. Eventually I got sick of hearing the same perspectives and started looking for voices on the other side of the argument.

funnily enough this is what Carl wants, of course he does, if you are engaging with him then you are giving him attention and attention is his currency.

To what end, though? I don't know if it's attention for himself or attention for a set of ideas that he thinks have been left undefended.

Like all of these charlatans he will never be clear and will be contradictory on a his positions

He seems to be very clear on his principles, which don't seem particularly controversial, while acknowledging that these are complex and compromise is needed and contradictions are inevitable in any belief system grounded in troublesome reality.

"classical liberal" I think i've heard him claim to be.  This isn't his ideology and it isn't new, it is a standard economic laissez-faire, you know like the one that caused the 2008 financial crash and the ones before it. There has been countless criticisms and evidence which has shown how and why this system creates inequality, high level corruption, alienation and dysphoria and well eventual collapse.

Surely the same could also be said of socialism. Incompetent handling of laissez-faire economics may be said to have caused the odd crash, but has a better handling of those economic systems also contributed to the building of a remarkably stable, peaceful and wealthy country?

It is impossible and paradoxical to legislate for individuals.  So in short it is bullshit.

There are massive debates to be had on individual and group rights, which can and have filled books for centuries. I can see the value of both arguments, and of a sensible centre ground attempt at compromise, but I wouldn't have the confidence or complacency to say "In short it is bullshit" about any subject so massive.

That leads us to his other ideology of society "civic nationalism".  Again, not a new ideology, it isn't exciting or edgy,

Nobody thinks it is new, exciting or edgy. New, exciting and edgy ideologies sound pretty dangerous to me, I'd steer clear of them.

it is basically the belief that people need strong national identity in order to live meaningful socially beneficial lives.  Wait, but groups bad right? No, not when it comes to nationalism because it turns out your nation is actually more important than all those really important unalienable rights Carl thinks are...well unalienable.

But ultimately the nation state is the source of these rights. I don't know that Carl thinks everyone on earth has the same inalienable rights, maybe he thinks that they should, but to do so many of them will either have to work to improve the lot of their own nation state, or apply to become part of, ie integrate into and work on behalf of, another nation state.

Ah, bit of problem here, so the freedom of speech to denounce your nation? Carl gets very upset when people talk unkindly of Winston Churchill.  However, surely he wouldn't advocate laws against free speech (would he?), instead he would promote national identity through cultural means.  Interesting.

I don't know that he gets *very* upset, he's aware that people were always free to talk unkindly of Churchill, and so they did, and that part of our national identity is the right to denounce our nation or anyone in it.

So cultural nationalism, states promoting a culture (free market?), and a culture on nationalism.  This is the intermediate step between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism.

You lose me here I confess.

this little shit is actual moaning at the moment for being misrepresented after clearly misrepresenting Jess Phillips,

How'd he do this? He said she laughed at the idea of a debate on men's issues, including the male suicide rate, which isn't a massive misrepresentation. Obviously she doesn't sit around cackling at pictures of men with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, but she did seem to give a hollow snigger at the idea that men have any problems.

makes him a bad messenger and just a modern day evangelist.

I never got any feelings of evangelism from him, but this 'bad messenger' thing. Is it that the message isn't necessarily bad, but he's conveying it badly? I can go along with this to some degree. Can anyone here name anyone espousing these arguments that you regard as a 'good messenger'?

[Ferris]

^just so we're clear, no one has bothered to read all that

[Buelligan]

I admit, I did skim a bit.

How'd he do this? He said she laughed at the idea of a debate on men's issues, including the male suicide rate, which isn't a massive misrepresentation. Obviously she doesn't sit around cackling at pictures of men with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, but she did seem to give a hollow snigger at the idea that men have any problems.

As you probably realise, I despise Jess Phillips but I loathe Carl Benjamin more.  I know, incredible really but possible. 

Anyway, I keep hearing his, rather puerile, excuse that she did a very nasty thing, laughing about men's suicides, which justified him behaving like the cunt he is towards her (not sure why he invokes this anyway, if he embraces free speech, why does he feel he needs to justify or excuse his hateful words?). 

Could you point me at the source of these assertions please, then at least I'll know what actually took place.  Thanks in advance.

[sponk]

I admit, I did skim a bit.

As you probably realise, I despise Jess Phillips but I loathe Carl Benjamin more.  I know, incredible really but possible. 

Anyway, I keep hearing his, rather puerile, excuse that she did a very nasty thing, laughing about men's suicides, which justified him behaving like the cunt he is towards her (not sure why he invokes this anyway, if he embraces free speech, why does he feel he needs to justify or excuse his hateful words?). 

Could you point me at the source of these assertions please, then at least I'll know what actually took place.  Thanks in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q

I hate Davies and Sargon, and obviously his rape tweet to her was disgusting, but her conduct there was appalling. Davies was talking about issues that effect vulnerable men - suicide, lack of access to their own children, violence etc - and Philips response was to use a motte and bailey deflection and start talking about how she's the only female member of that panel. Well yeah, the men on that panel are probably all very privileged, but what about the more vulnerable men who suffer horrifically in the ways Davies mentioned?

[phantom_power]

Imagine writing all that in defence of that rodney plonker

[Buelligan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XX6ATwQv7Q

I hate Davies and Sargon, and obviously his rape tweet to her was disgusting, but her conduct there was appalling. Davies was talking about issues that effect vulnerable men - suicide, lack of access to their own children, violence etc - and Philips response was to use a motte and bailey deflection and start talking about how she's the only female member of that panel. Well yeah, the men on that panel are probably all very privileged, but what about the more vulnerable men who suffer horrifically in the ways Davies mentioned?

Thanks for that.

She's a horrible person but, in fairness, in that instance she did make it clear that her laugh was because she found it laughable that men's issues cannot be discussed in the HoC or HoL, given the disproportionate ratio of men to women in both houses.  She said that. 

People can take offence at that but it's dishonest to imply that she was laughing at men's suicides.  That bit is not true. 

Much as I dislike the woman, I have a fondness for truth, which is acting as a counterweight in this matter.

[phantom_power]

And I am not sure what the point of finding some poor behaviour by her in a thread related to him and his shitty rape joke is

[Buelligan]

I don't think there is a point as I said before, I don't understand his need to use her behaviour as an excuse for his, given that he says it was all a joke and Free Speech anyway. 

I do think it's somewhat enlightening though, certainly for me, to see this thing that she did for what it is, a woman (albeit one I don't like) saying that men are over-represented in government in a blunt way.   

[phantom_power]

She may be shit but she is right on a fair few things. Well, a few things

[sponk]

I don't think there is a point as I said before, I don't understand his need to use her behaviour as an excuse for his, given that he says it was all a joke and Free Speech anyway. 

I do think it's somewhat enlightening though, certainly for me, to see this thing that she did for what it is, a woman (albeit one I don't like) saying that men are over-represented in government in a blunt way.   

It was a blunt and irrelevant way, though. The issue at hand wasn't male over-representation in parliament, but Jess was desperate to make it about that, using motte and bailey techniques, as I said earlier.