#SinkTheBoats: No, Sargon. No One Cares if Africans Drown.

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 11, 2015

Sink, sink, sink!
Sink, sink, sink!

As the longtime reader is aware, some months ago I had a bit of a back and forth with prominent #Gamergate YouTuber Sargon of Akkad. We might call it a border skirmish, given that there is a lot of overlap between our two worldviews. Sargon is opposed to feminism, in a weak sense, and claims to be opposed to mainstream SJWism, while also supporting mainstream social justice positions on race.

Here is the background material:

Briefly, I’ll give a recap.

Sargon had taken a position on the Rotherham Paki rape gangs which I took issue with. He claimed that it was exclusively the fault of political correctness that the Pakis trafficked all these little White girls, as it was political correctness that caused the police not to address the problem even after it had been repeatedly reported and the rape gangs had been caught red-handed.

My response was that though political correctness had resulted in the problem not being addressed, the cause of the rapes was the Pakis themselves. It was their tribal identity, their religion and their racial make-up which led them to commit the rapes in the first place. Though of course the police and council officials who didn’t stop them should be arrested, tried and executed, the root cause of Paki rape gangs is Pakis.

Sargon responded angrily and aggressively, mainly with name-calling and then some ridiculous citations of alleged logical fallacies. Now infamously, he said that the Nirvana Fallacy meant that if Pakis had not raped the girls, they would have been raped anyway by White British people. Sargon’s version of logic was that the universe had predestined these girls to be drugged, raped and trafficked; Pakis just happened to be the ones to do it.

Many of citizens of the internets were shocked to discover that Sargon of Akkad was a confirmed cuck-4-life.
Many of citizens of the internets were shocked to discover that Sargon of Akkad was a confirmed cuck-4-life.

The basis of his argument was that I was morally wrong for being against mass immigration. He called me “immoral” and a “horrible person” without citing what kind of moral system I was being judged upon. But obviously, the only moral system which says opposition to mass immigration is immoral is that of secular humanism, Marxism and social justice.

In the wake of the conflict, many of Sargon’s own readers questioned why he was mimicking the SJW line on race and arguing in defense of the Islamization of Europe. He was widely labeled a cuckold, with many assuming he got off sexually on the idea of Moslems stealing White women.

Things then settled down, as we were both busy with our own issues.

This week, having been following Sargon on Twitter (despite our disagreements, I do enjoy a lot of his material, and like to keep up on #Gamergate), I got the urge to question him further. In particular, I wanted his response to my #SinkTheBoats meme which I created in response to the maritime invasion of Europe.

Let’s look at how this went down.

It began when Watts quoted me to Sargon, and Sargon responded.

I then asked why it is Sargon doesn’t want to sink the boats.

When he did not respond, I asked a couple more times.

And then, one of Sargon’s Sargbots appeared to defend social justice for immigrants.

Suddenly, a Sargon appeared.

Cornered – as obviously, using “that’s immoral” as the basis of an argument is an appeal to emotion, he began with the gibbering word-games. It is a key stratagem he uses, trying to make the conversation so convoluted the core of it is lost.

Note: He only uses this stratagem against me and others trying to question his SJW positions on race and immigration – when addressing feminism his logic is generally sound (though he’s a bit soft and PC there too).

I didn’t actually say that the concept of logic is pseduointellectual. I said that wildly citing logical fallacies in the wrong context instead of addressing simple facts is a clear method of obfuscation, of purposefully confusing an argument to hide the fact that you are wrong.

In our discussion, Sargon twisted his logical fallacies to invoke absurd metaphysical concepts (little White girls being destined by the universe to be gang-raped and trafficked). He tries to play the same game here, as you will see.

He then begins to try to define morality, apparently expecting it to be self-evident how it is a logical argument to dismiss someone as “immoral” without addressing their logical arguments.

What is SJW morality if not feelings? He does not elaborate.

Note that on Twitter you are only allowed 140 characters to a post, and he repeatedly spends these characters on childlike name-calling instead of presenting facts to support his emotions. This does not imply confidence.

Sargon, we all know these tricks already.

Kinky Fish then reenters the fray to feebly attempt to defend his leader.

Walked right into that one, huh? Sargon returns then to mock me for thinking White people wouldn’t drug, gang-rape and traffic pre-teen girls (a cornerstone of his initial argument was that there are no biological differences between races and anyone will rape kids if the cops don’t stop them), and thereby to mock all of the (possibly millions) of girls who were victims of these Pakis.

With I having been victorious there, we all then returned to the thread dealing with morality, which would once again prove to be Sargon’s unmaking.

Using Kant’s concept of morality as self-interest seemed a step in the right direction. However, it was not, because he would quickly turn around and say that this wasn’t true.


And now, a mad scramble for the door.

But the exit is blocked!


“That wasn’t my entire argument – I just said it randomly, for no reason.”

It ended there, to be continued another day. He has much explaining to do.

If he is now saying morality is not the basis of his argument, then he is going to have to form a completely new argument to justify mass immigration. Or he could of course stop trying to justify mass immigration, but he seems to have removed that as one of the possible options.

Note that during the initial conflict, he presented a bunch of Jewish SJW material claiming that the reason Blacks fail is because White people have refused to give them an education system. This may be what he is referring to when he claims to have already dealt with this issue. However, even if you believe something so utterly nonsensical as that race doesn’t exist but it is the duty of Whites to educate Blacks so they don’t fail at everything, this still does not imply a necessity to destroy European civilization through mass immigration. The immigration argument was entire based on absurd appeals to dubious morality.

No One Actually Cares if Africans Die

This point Sargon makes – and then immediately flees from – about morality being self-interest is key. Morality is absolutely self-interest. Not simply for the individual self, but for our progeny, which are an extension of ourselves.

We help each other, care about each other, because this creates an environment which is safe for us and our children. It is beneficial to individual survival to take care of those around us. And as such, kindness to our neighbors is morally correct. And that is why if you are a psychologically healthy person, your brain releases endorphins when you are kind to others (particularly others with a similar genetic background). Your biology is telling you you have done something which is beneficial to your survival.

Morality is not a metaphysical concept, it is a biological reality which stems from the natural order. Sargon and other SJWs twist morality into an obscure metaphysical concept in order to defend indefensible positions – positions that are the opposite of natural morality.

Saving Africans is not moral and the actual fact is that no one cares if Africans die. This is both because saving them is not beneficial to us and because their lives don’t have any value to begin with.

Firstly, they are constantly killing each other. Second, they don’t do anything productive. Third, they are so alien that it is pretty much impossible to feel compassion for them. Forth, nothing about their existence improves our chances of survival.

I can prove this quite easily.  Emotion is not objective, but it is very easy to objectively test it.

Here is a picture of drowned African migrants:


And here is a picture of an abused dog:


I can pretty well guarantee that all of you reading this felt exponentially more emotion looking at the picture of the abused dog than you did looking at the picture of the dead Africans. Which means – positively – that you care more about dogs than you do about Africans.

Let that sink in for a second.

We care about dogs because their lives have meaning, and they help us. They are kind to us, they take care of us. I just read a story about a dog throwing itself in front of a car to save a blind woman.

That's a very good boy.
That’s a very good boy.

In is in our moral interest to take care of dogs because they benefit our society, and thus we have positive emotions towards them.

But would we destroy our entire civilization to save dogs? Of course not. In most European countries, we round-up stray dogs and euthanize them because they are a nuance and a potential public health hazard (Romania, God bless her, is an exception).

So why on earth would we destroy our civilization to save Africans we don’t even actually care about?

The reason is that Jews and women, who both have a vested interest in destroying Western civilization, have made it a standard social norm that you must agree with mass immigration or you are evil. And it is a part of natural morality to want to be accepted by the group – because if the group didn’t accept you in the old times, you would die alone in nature.


So, when someone says “I don’t want to see these Africans drown,” what they are actually saying is “I don’t want to be rejected by the group for holding an opinion different from the standard opinion accepted by general society.”

What we have here is a large scale psychological warfare program, turning our internal mechanisms against us.

But we can fight this by understanding it and calling people out on it. By spreading the meme.

The meme is: what type of a faggot cares if Africans die? Are you a woman? What are these emotions?

You formed your political ideology on a feel you felt? Have you had your T levels checked?
You formed your political ideology on a feel you felt? Have you had your T levels checked?

The conception of morality as a biological concept should also be spread, but that is a bit more complex. Simply pointing out that it is ridiculous to pretend you care if Africans die, when no one (except childless women) actually does care, is powerful.

It is a gigantic hoax, this idea that people care about these Africans, and it is very easy to point out.

So do it.

Making a Twitter account is a good start. It’s a fun place, and it does have a lot of free speech.

Do it.

Sargon Should Respond, Because the People Want to Know

I want Sargon to respond to this. I want him to explain why it is moral to put our children at risk for the benefit of foreigners who offer absolutely nothing to our society.

He obviously can’t explain it, or he would have in the above Twitter exchange. But go ahead and ask him to try. His people all see these articles I write – they make the rounds – so he is going to have to give some type of response, given how brutally I just exposed the faults in his ridiculous and childlike emotional-based arguments.

Just to make things crystal here, as Sargon loves to find little irrelevant points to try and focus on so he can avoid the core issues:

I am not necessarily saying we have to sink the boats, merely that this is the easiest and the most moral option. #SinkTheBoats is a good hashtag, but I am also comfortable with turning the boats around or, if they make it through to Lampedusa (they aren’t really even trying to do that anymore), they can immediately be put on a ship and dropped back off on the shores of Libya.

I don’t think that my audience or Sargon’s is interested in word games or deceitful strategies of avoidance. It really just demeans us both, so I hope he will agree to avoid that. Everyone knows now what he is doing since I’ve pointed it out, so it really looks bad.

The key thing I am interested in is why it is immoral to be against mass immigration, and I think that his supposed love of logic is going to come back and bite him here.

Round two might end up being more fun than round one.

I feel excitement.

We cannot help but win because we are right.