February 17, 2015
Editor’s Note: This article is mainly intended for the fans of Sargon of Akkad, who now perhaps view me in a negative light, maybe even as the type of evil monster, who is also stupid, which Sargon has portrayed me as in his video response to my critique of his analysis of the Rotherham scandal. I dare you all to read it all the way through, and to let me know what you think in the comments section.
So, Sargon of Akkad responded to my essay criticizing his video wherein he laid exclusive blame for the Rotherham Pakistani child-rape scandal on British political correctness. The response was much more hostile than I had expected, given that I didn’t really understand that he was as much of an liberal as he is.
He is not a reactionary. He is simply an SJW who hates women.
Assuming that he leaned further to the right than he actually does also led to several other mistakes on my part in my original critique, which I will briefly mention.
Firstly, I assumed that certain arguments were understood, which were in fact not understood by him or his audience. The title of my article, “Sargon of Akkad Needs to Address His Implicit Support for Pakistani Child-Rape,” was also inappropriate, given that it was made with the assumption that he would understand this was meant to be a provocation based on the end result of his logic.
Because we do have a bottom line here, that infinite squirming cannot make disappear: if there weren’t any Pakis in Britain, there would not have been a single little girl raped by Pakis. Period. There is no point at which that statement stops being true.
Still, it would probably have been prudent to leave him more of an opening than I did, rather than forcing him to push SJW positions that he clearly has not thought through. Now he is in a position where he will have to either admit he was wrong, or lie to himself for the rest of his life, pretending all of the used-up liberal talking points he presented in his video are true.
But you know, I’m American – we are not much for leaving openings.
One more thing before I get into the response to Sargon’s response: I want to say why I wrote a criticism of his video in the first place.
On the whole, I believe that people who are criticizing modern liberalism, and not talking about the invasion, are wasting time. Obviously, here on the Daily Stormer, we talk about all sorts of issues with the modern system, from historical revisionism to gay “marriage.” However, the main issue, the one which we nail ceaselessly, is the replacement of our population with hordes of non-Whites. Because we can pass a law banning homosexuality, we can remove the vote from women, we can redistribute wealth. One thing we can never do, however, is reclaim our homelands once the hordes reach a saturation point and declare themselves rulers. There is simply no going back from that. Once it is done, it is done.
I was fine with Sargon being a reactionary who focused exclusively on the feminist issue. I have watched many of his videos, and not really disagreed with any of it. However, if that is where he feels comfortable, even if it is simply because he wants to remain on YouTube, that’s fine. But seeing him blame the British people for Pakistani child rape gangs was something that needed addressed.
And address it I did.
Now, it is time to address his response, and this time I am not going to leave any room for confusion.
This is going to be long, because I have been portrayed as some sort of know-nothing fool (again, mainly to my own miscalculation, having assumed that certain basics of reactionary thinking were understood by our friend Sargon) and it is necessary that I make my arguments crystal.
One thing I will not be doing is accusing Sargon of logical fallacies and then linking to Wikipedia articles explaining them, as in my view, when people do this on the internet (a popular technique among “gotcha” pseudo-intellectuals) it is meant to purposefully distort the discussion by obfuscating much more basic issues of fact which are capable of standing on their own without being abstracted into philosophical principles which the average reader – or indeed the average arguer posting links to them – may or may not be capable of grasping.
Now Then, Let’s Begin Then
Sargon’s video relies heavily on the punchy dry-humor which makes Sargon a popular YouTube personality. He is not known for introducing new ideas, and that is fine, we like to watch his videos anyway because he recycles other people’s ideas in a way which is fun. Often very fun. Regrettably, with this video, the ideas he recycles are tired SWJ memes which could have been pulled directly from any random Tumblr blog.
Early on in the video, he declares that “not all Moslems are child-rapists.” This is, of course, an obvious and obviously irrelevant fact. He then claims I have missed the point of the video, saying “I was not addressing why the non-White Moslems were doing anything. I don’t give a fuck why they were raping children, I really don’t. Whatever their reason for that was a bad one. The failure for preventing to this was because of political correctness.”
It seems to me, the reason they did it is something we should all be concerned about, assuming we wish to prevent it from continuing. Unless of course your position is that the failure of Moslems to behave as civilized human beings while living as guests in civilized societies is entirely the responsibility of the authorities in the nation which they reside, which, bizarrely, appears to be Sargon’s position.
The sexual molestation and penetration of pre-pubescent children (generally considered rape in Western thought, although in Moslem culture in would usually be consensual on the part of the little girl) is an institution within the Islamic religion. Muhammed penetrated his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine, and used to masturbate with her in the bathtub when she was as young as six. As Muhammed is considered the ideal man by the god Allah and thus all Moslems, the rape of children is considered morally acceptable within the mainstream of the Islamic faith across the planet.
So when we say “not all Moslems are child-rapists,” we are not saying “not all Moslems condone child-rape,” because in fact, as the Koran is considered the uncontested word of Allah and Muhammed the ideal man, they do, or by their own definition they aren’t Moslems.
Regarding Moslems and rape, Sweden now has the highest rape rate in Europe, exclusively due to Moslem immigration.
And regarding non-Whites and rape, the statistics in America might also be of interest. Annually, Black Americans rape an average of about 20,000 White women, according to FBI statistics.
In my view, the culture of Islam is an expression of the races which adopt Islam. This would certainly go a long way towards explaining while after being occupied by Moslems for 400 years, Greeks did not convert to Islam, after 700 years that Spanish didn’t, while Afghanistan and large parts of old India converted without much resistance at all after being conquered.
“Serbian” Sex Trafficking
He then uses articles about sex trafficking as proof that “White people also do this.”
Firstly, I find Googling up a single situation where Whites allegedly engaged in systematic sexual abuse to be highly intellectually dishonest, and probably a violation of one of your Wikipedia links about logical fallacies, given that we know that Rotherham is not some Moslem fluke, but something non-Whites and Moslems in particular have been engaging in since our first historical contact with them. Moslems spent hundreds of years raiding Europe for White sex slaves, both for their brothels and for forced marriages. You’ll note that the closer to Europe a group of Arabs is, the lighter their skin tone. The entire 700 year long Moslem occupation of the Iberian Peninsula was basically a gigantic Rotherham affair. Moslem pirates continually raided every European coast – all the way up to Iceland, in fact – for more than a thousand years, mainly for the purpose of stealing White women. The Moslem obsession with White sex slaves is one of the defining aspects of Western history, and the main reason for the Crusades.
So, “Yeah, but, this one time in Serbia…” is just a completely ridiculous response, man.
But anyway, let’s talk about Serbia. Full disclosure: you hit a bit of a nerve with this one. The insults to the Serbs were much more offensive than the insults against me personally, which, as you can imagine, I’m very used to, given that I am probably the most hated man on the internet.
I’ve spent about a year of my life living in Serbia, so I know a thing or two about the place. Anything to do with sex-trafficking is run by Albanian Moslems. That is why, when you read about “Serbian sex trafficking,” you read about the women coming from different countries across the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Why do they go through Serbia? Because this is where the Albanian colony is, and Albanians are the only people in Europe who – as an ethnic group, we’re not talking about individuals here – are willing to involve themselves in large-scale human trafficking.
Again, the fact that you brought this up as your example, Sargon, shows that you had to do quite a bit of searching to find one example, and obviously you didn’t know anything about it previously, or you would have known that these are Albanians (which in itself shows serious general ignorance, given that this is common knowledge across Europe), and thus your example goes to prove my original assertion: sex trafficking, on any scale you can label “systematic” is done by either Moslems or Jews.
Sargon goes on to continue to attack the Serbs by bringing up atrocity lies from the NATO/Albanian/Muslim Bosniak war against the Serbs, citing the UN’s ICTY claims that mass rapes of Moslem women took place, and were ordered by high-ranking Serbian military officers. Though I’m sure rapes did take place during the Balkan wars – I’m sure of that because rapes have taken place in every war which has ever happened in history – I don’t really put too much on the Nuremberg-style tribunal’s claims and coerced confessions.
However, if you want to somehow equate wartime rape by Slavs to systematic grooming and trafficking of children by Pakistanis in Britain, you could just cite the Soviet use of rape as a weapon against the Germans during WWII, because that actually did happen, and we have physical proof in the form of all of these half-Russian babies that were born after the war. Interestingly, members Soviet army, being managed by Jews, were the only group who systematically used rape as a weapon of war during WWII, and the only American soldiers accused of rape (in any statistically significant numbers) were Negroes, who were actually raping French women. Negroes fighting for the French also committed mass-rape of German women during WWI.
Seriously though, comparing wartime rape by any group to Rotherham is ridiculous. Wartime and peacetime are very, very different things, and equating them demonstrates a high level of either intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity or both.
And obviously, there is no example of British people running grooming gangs, and as I was never arguing for mass Serbian immigration into Britain, even if your facts here were not all mixed-up, they would be irrelevant.
Race and Culture
Sargon then goes on to spew the same Marxist gibberish we have all heard from the SJWs and their Frankfurt School predecessors for our entire lives: race and culture are two different things. Race is something you are born with, while culture just appears randomly through a process of… whatever.
And if a race cannot be identified by a series of behavior patterns which produces a cultural identity, then race itself doesn’t actually exist beyond some rather striking physical differences, and so what we refer to as “race” is in fact a product of a culture, which is a product of some mysterious process no one really seems to be able to put their finger on (although Jared Diamond gave a backward explanation of it, saying that culture was a result of environment, which is technically true, though it is race which is a product of environment through the process of natural selection, and race which then goes on to create culture; the entire thing was a viciously bizarre dance around the obvious).
This “race is a social construct” business is a rejection of the existence of genetic science and evolutionary biology in favor of a theory of magical happenings. Honestly, it is surprising that even SJWs continue to spout this claptrap, given that even NYT Bestsellers are refuting it. Someone such as Sargon, who claims to be against political correctness, resorting to an argument which was invented to serve as the central pillar of political correctness is shocking.
A Convenient Fantasy
The Jew Franz Boas first invented the idea that race is a social construct in order to combat the concepts of racialist anti-Semitism which emerged following the rise of Darwinian theory. At the time, the universal view by the scientific establishment was that culture was a result of race, which was in turn a result of evolutionary development.
Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics.
Among Boas’s main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western-European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas, and that consequently there was no process towards continuously “higher” cultural forms.
Boas’ student Margaret Mead applied his logic in her studies of Samoan society (the data was later found to have been faked almost in its entirety, but that isn’t really the point here), coming up with the idea (rather, popularizing Boas’ idea) that because culture was a social rather than a biological construct, the sexual norms of primitive island people could be forced on developed western White nations and would liberate them from their oppressive puritanical Christian sexual mores (which, by the way, the Jew Sigmund Freud had recently blamed for anti-Semitism) and lead them into a new age of enlightenment.
Mead’s theory of sexual liberation through the adoption of primitive sexual promiscuousness then was heavily influential on the Jew Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and the mother of modern feminism. It was upon the works of Friedan that the Jew Gloria Steinem based her revolution. And the rest, as they say, is history.
You see, this is why it is very bizarre for me to see someone who is against feminism (and claims to oppose political correctness as a whole) is so emotionally attached to modern liberal concepts of racial equality. In an educated man, this disconnect would have to be the result of some form of schizophrenia. But in your case, I believe it relates to a lack of information.
Following a different “race is a social construct so culture is necessarily fluid because there is no objective basis for it” historical thread, Boas’ thinking was also heavily influential on the Jew Frankfurt School, which, as the fountainhead of critical theory, is pretty well universally credited as the source of modern political correctness. Sexual liberation, feminism, gay liberation, cultural relativism, racial equality and all other pillars of what is sometimes called “cultural Marxism” originated here, and the ideas were then disseminated through the American university system by a large group of Jews fleeing Hitler who were given positions in the education system, often based on faked credentials.
Then came the revolutions of the sixties.
Key Frankfurt School icon Theodor Adorno would have agreed with your analysis of me as an evil fascist because I identify with my race and my family of origin. In his book The Authoritarian Personality, which was funded by the American Jewish Committee, he describes a need to break down familial and national bonds for the purpose of preventing another Holocaust of the Jews. This is considered the seminal work which established the necessity of destroying masculinity in order to further social progress, which, as you are aware, is a key concept of the modern feminist movement as well as the anti-racist movement (which are really the same movement).
An Alternative View
My own view, as a Fascist and a “horrible person” as you called me, draws from the pre-war (that is, pre-Jewish domination of Western society) views of sociology based in Darwinian theory, which looked at race as a biological construct and culture as an expression of biology.
Note: In attempting to swallow the following red pill, you would do very, very well to remember that all dogs have a singular ancestor, probably going back less than 12,000 years (which is a significantly shorter time-frame than that of the evolutionary variance between the various human races). And yet the intelligence, size temperament and overall orientation of different breeds of dogs are very different.
This is obviously a huge topic, but the simplest aspect of it is IQ. The higher average IQ of a society, the more complex it is going to be both socially, technologically and morally.
Here is a map of global IQ averages:
The correlation between IQ and economic and material development is so obvious one would literally have to be brainwashed to deny that in this situation, correlation implies causation. Of course, SJWs are indeed brainwashed enough to claim this is just some astronomical coincidence which has no real explanation but is somehow White people’s fault, with the less-educated ones claiming that IQ isn’t biologically determined. Emotionally mature adults, however, can generally accept that Africa is poor because Black people are just incredibly stupid.
So then, if we accept that IQ has an effect on economic and material development, we would have to assume that the social orders of these variant groups are largely determined by the same genetic variances which determine their IQs. That is, culture, like intelligence, is a biological construct.
Another big thing, which I don’t have the space to go into in much detail in this already much too long piece, is the difference between collectivist and individualist societies. This is social phenomena that you would no doubt attribute to culture, and I suppose I would to, it is merely that we have vastly different understandings of the nature of culture. If Southeastern Asians – Thais, for example – are the most collectivist culture (technically Jews would be the most collectivist, but I’m trying to keep the Jew talk to a minimum here, as I don’t want to overwhelm you), Northern Europeans are the most individualistic culture. This is due, like everything about humans and all other living things, to evolutionary development – the way our Northern race developed in our particular environment necessitated the nuclear family as the core unit, while most non-Whites developed with the tribe as the core unit.
Within individualist societies based around the nuclear family, altruism is a necessary biological trait, required for the maintenance of the social order. You must show trust to people you are not emotionally close to, and you must be willing to share with people who are outside of your kin-group. Presumably the reasons for that are obvious if you think about it for a few seconds (or minutes or hours, depending on your IQ), assuming you have some general understanding of the lifestyle of prehistoric Northern European people.
All races which have adopted Islam are races with a collectivist social orientation. This is why when a riot breaks out in some Arab country, everyone goes out on the street and joins in, even if they don’t really understand what the riot is about. They do it because the group is doing it, and as people with a biological nature defined by collectivism, individual thought does not enter into group behavior. Of course you can pull up some news article and say “well, this one time White people rioted in some country somewhere, so that means we’re all exactly the same,” but if we are adults with at least a little bit of intellectual honesty, we can certainly note that Moslems (and Blacks, of course) are generally much more prone to going out and rioting for reasons that very often unclear.
Another aspect of collectivist racial groups is that they view everything in terms of in-group and out-group. This concept is in no way intuitive to those with a biological inclination toward individualism, and thus if it is not understood on the intellectual level – and because it is not allowed to be taught in schools due to political correctness, it is generally not understood on the intellectual level – a person with a biological inclination toward individualism will project their own psychological framework onto those with a collectivist psychological framework (this is a very important point – we as Whites are constantly projecting our modes of thought on non-Whites in the same way that we as men are constantly projecting our modes of thought on women).
For myself, I realized these things while living in Asia during my early twenties, and then went back and read a bunch of evil pre-war fascist writers (and Kevin MacDonald) to confirm what I had myself observed. However, most people don’t spend years living in Asia, nor do they read evil pre-war fascist literature, so they never grasp this fundamentally important concept: if you are dealing with a collectivist racial group, and you are not part of that collective, you do not have any value beyond what you are able to offer them. That doesn’t mean they won’t joke around and be friendly with you – which you will interpret as kinship behavior, due to your own orientation – but it does mean that they will rape your kids and feel nothing.
It is the biological inclination of Europeans to believe that if someone behaves abusively toward you, it must be due to something you have done wrong, because that is the way it worked in the old times. Everyone was individualistic in psychological orientation, so we all treated each other altruistically, and negative social responses were usually due to violations of social etiquette.
This is the origin of “White guilt.” We see that no matter what we do for the non-White races, they continue to fail, endlessly. Just fail and fail and fail. They then act aggressively toward us. Our natural, biological response is then to believe that we are somehow doing something wrong to them, or they wouldn’t act this way. We then decide to give them more and more and more. And as we give, they take, and they complain that we haven’t done enough. So we give more.
This can be shown to be obviously true by looking at the difference between Sweden and Italy. Both have adopted political correctness and White guilt, because both are European peoples, but Sweden, being home to the “Whitest” Europeans have adopted it to the point where they are literally destroying their own nation on purpose, importing millions of foreigners who will overwhelm and take control of the country within our lifetimes. In Italy, a more Southern people, they still have elements of collectivism, and so are internalizing White guilt on a lesser scale, demonstrating more resistance toward the invading aliens.
Following all of this, when we import people from different races and thereby different cultures (all races have different cultures, which is an accepted fact, even by race-deniers), we are not only bringing in lower-IQ persons, who will thereby lower the economic and material status of our nations, but also bringing in persons with hard-wired cultural norms and behavior patterns which will clash with our own, and who have no desire to behave altruistically toward people who are not members of their in-group.
And that is why we have Rotherham.
The reality of culture as a racial and thus biological construct is so painfully obvious, there is not even a single case in history which disproves the rule. Blacks in America have turned Detroit – formerly one of the most advanced cities in America – into an African ghetto. When the Blacks stole Rhodesia, they collapsed the whole place and turned it into one of the poorest countries in the world. They did the same thing to Haiti.
Arabs have turned the suburbs of Paris into violent drug-ghettos.
As I’ve mentioned, Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe.
Conversely, Whites went to the Americas and to Southern Africa, and turned them into Europe.
And if it’s all just skin color, as you claim in your video, why are yellow-skinned people doing so incredibly well?
To take the neo-Marxist position that this is all some kind of weird coincidence, maybe related to socio-economics or vague forms of invisible racism, or whatever, is simply pathetic.
Look at the IQ map again. If all low-IQ countries are only coincidentally low-IQ, and in reality are only poor because of totally nonsensical institutionalized hatred of skin colors, why did they never develop their own civilizations, ever? And before “Moslems did have a civilization,” it was actually Turks who turned Islam into a civilization, and Turks were yellow Asian Mongols who had fully mixed blood with the Whites who had inhabited Anatolia when they arrived, and the collapse of their civilization – which wasn’t really much anyway, but they did control a lot of land – was due to excessive mixing with the genetically lower Arab population.
Another angle here – why are even “edgy” MRAs such as yourself so quick to turn to insults and claims of stupidity as soon as these topics are broached? You may disagree with all of this, Sargon, but is it really fair to characterize me as a knuckle-dragging retard? Why did the Nobel Prize winner, discoverer of DNA James Watson, have his career destroyed for mentioning the obvious and scientifically confirmed fact that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites? Is he also a complete idiot, who must be shunned lest his idiocy spread to the enlightened mass of liberals?
If I am really as stupid and hateful as you claim, why are my ideas such a threat that it is in many countries now illegal for me to even voice them publicly?
Yes, Political Correctness is Responsible
I agree with the statement “political correctness is responsible for Rotherham,” I just don’t agree with your explanation of how that played out. Of course, I can agree with your statements that if it were not for fear of being called racist, the council and police would have addressed the problem, and fewer girls would have been raped. That is simply an obvious fact.
But, Sargon, it is your own political correctness which is at the root of this problem, and that is your cultural Marxist belief that different races are all the same and that we simply need to educate these savages in our wise Western ways of morality (you must also believe you could teach a Pomeranian to herd sheep).
And just think for a second here: what if you’re wrong?
If I’m wrong, we’ll be out a few kebab shops, lose the opportunity to see some colorful men with towels wrapped around their heads, colorful women in ghost costumes walking down our streets.
If you’re wrong, you will have been responsible for the destruction of Western civilization.
By far the saddest part of the video was when Sargon played a clip of a working-class British man at a rally against Moslem rape gangs for the purpose of mocking him and the working class in general.
Abuse and mockery of working people is yet another pillar of the SJW movement which Sargon embodies. Because of course, it is this idiot with the funny-sounding speech who is too stupid to understand the vast benefits of diversity – let’s just ignore the fact that he is the same idiot who has to live next to the council estate (for Americans, that’s the equivalent of Section 8) filled with the non-Whites, while Sargon with his middle class English is able to avoid confrontations with the colorfuls – at least he is able to avoid all confrontations where the chain of power isn’t clearly defined.
He mocked this young man in connection to my statement that the EDL was a “shill organization.” I was not calling the boy he mocked a shill, but the leadership of the organization, which refuses to acknowledge Islam as a racial phenomenon, and also has aligned itself with the Jews.
I Don’t Expect a Second Response
So, Sargon can produce a second response to this if he wants, and I will respond to that, but I’m thinking this is probably the end. The only way he could possibly respond at this point would be to go much, much deeper into Marxist concepts, at which point his entire operation and possibly his own psyche would collapse.
He believed he could occupy some mythical middle ground, and what I have just done is demonstrated that no such middle ground exists. Though he definitely had this coming, I don’t take joy in destroying people in the way I just destroyed him.
We have both said what we need to say, and my purpose is accomplished: I demonstrated that Sargon of Akkad is not a reactionary intellectual, he’s just a liberal who hates women. I have agreed with all of his anti-feminist videos I’ve seen, but the fact that he opposes feminism while toeing the mainstream line on much more important issues demonstrates that he has some personal issue with women which is not directly tied to a larger political agenda in the way anti-feminism is for myself and others on the reactionary right.
On the scale of things, feminism is not the least of our worries, but it certainly is far from the greatest.
Funnily enough, when the Moslems whom Sargon defends do eventually take over Europe, they will indeed get rid of the feminism he so opposes.
Thank you all for reading this, and Sargon and his followers are welcome to comment and criticize freely.
And Sargon: Even though you said some very nasty things about me, which as a gentleman I believe were completely uncalled for, there are no hard feelings on my end, and I truly hope that there will come a day when we can stand in opposition to the forces of darkness and death which seek to destroy everything we are as a people.