Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[mrgou]

wew

 

[YW 525]

Carl's going to have to fork over a lot of cash to wash this out of the search results.

 

[Secret Asshole]

He is so fucking cringe and a huge cunt on top of it. He can't debate and had his shit pushed in by Richard Spencer of all people. He doesn't do debates unless he has a ridiculous set of rules and if you push him, his only defense is 'wrong'.

And he thinks he's going to make major waves. Advice: Stick to your shit YouTube vids. Not going to bat for Tommy Robinson was a fucking bitch move. 'I HAVE A FAMILY' So did Tommy. You have to fight for change, get deep into the blood, but Carl is too much of a fucking pussy to do it.

We fought a war, had riots and bled and died for our first amendment and you won't even risk civil disobedience. And you think you can get one? Don't make me laugh faggot.

 

[Pikimon]

wew
View attachment 477717

sargon is totes left-leaning btw guys

 

[Regular Goy]

sargon is totes left-leaning btw guys

Not according to Vee:

https://youtu.be/gQk49j03nhw?t=52m45s

 

[Erich Raeder]

He is so fucking cringe and a huge cunt on top of it. He can't debate and had his shit pushed in by Richard Spencer of all people. He doesn't do debates unless he has a ridiculous set of rules and if you push him, his only defense is 'wrong'.

I’m probably going to reiterate a lot of points which were already made, but here is my take on why Sargon is so shit at debates. I don’t think it’s necessarily because Sargon is just so bad at debating, that obviously amplifies it but it’s not the most important reason. I think the Liberalistist ideology is just inherently stupid.

What happens when Sargon debates a leftist/SJW?He’ll probably make some elaborate point about how leftists are the true racists, the true authoritarians, you’d never hear the end of it with the horseshoe theory. And his fans think that this is enough to get people on your side, enough to win any debate with this “gotcha” moment where the opponent suddenly realizes he was the bad guy all along. And this is where he is wrong.

Sargon is always moving within the overton window, always playing the rebel but then pussying out when it’s time to make a stand (like with Tommy Robinson), and most importantly: He is always arguing and reasoning within the established moral construct. When he says “leftists are the real racists” he is already conceding ground by effectively telling leftists that he agrees with the basic premise of their argument. Now you may rightfully say that it’s a well-established debate tactic to agree with your opponent in certain situations, but not if it means forfeiting on the most important point from the very start by saying “i don’t want to be (declared to be) a racist”.

What Sargon fails to understand is that the leftists he likes to throw the horseshoe at are the people who define what it means to be racist. They don’t just agree with this mainstream moral construct, they MAKE it. They have the power to simply redefine what it means to be racist, as seen by the inane “prejudice + power” definition which is now being forced. Sargon simply hasn’t got the power to make leftists accept his definition of “racist”, not by a long shot - even if it is obviously the sane definition. Just like he wastes his time trying to change the UKIP from within. His opponents have the media and most of the government staunchly on their side, what does he have? Nothing.

Now I’ve only talked about leftists, but some of the same problems occur when he’s trying to debate alt-righters: he makes himself look like a fool by proposing large-scale political changes while trying to stay within mainstream moral definitions of right and wrong. When they ask him how he plans to prevent hardcore collectivist nonwhites from ruining his individualist paradise, he simply has no answer.

Liberalistists are the punching bag of both the right and left, the true political lolcow movement.

 

[soy_king]

I’m probably going to reiterate a lot of points which were already made, but here is my take on why Sargon is so shit at debates. I don’t think it’s necessarily because Sargon is just so bad at debating, that obviously amplifies it but it’s not the most important reason. I think the Liberalistist ideology is just inherently stupid.

What happens when Sargon debates a leftist/SJW?He’ll probably make some elaborate point about how leftists are the true racists, the true authoritarians, you’d never hear the end of it with the horseshoe theory. And his fans think that this is enough to get people on your side, enough to win any debate with this “gotcha” moment where the opponent suddenly realizes he was the bad guy all along. And this is where he is wrong.

Sargon is always moving within the overton window, always playing the rebel but then pussying out when it’s time to make a stand (like with Tommy Robinson), and most importantly: He is always arguing and reasoning within the established moral construct. When he says “leftists are the real racists” he is already conceding ground by effectively telling leftists that he agrees with the basic premise of their argument. Now you may rightfully say that it’s a well-established debate tactic to agree with your opponent in certain situations, but not if it means forfeiting on the most important point from the very start by saying “i don’t want to be (declared to be) a racist”.

What Sargon fails to understand is that the leftists he likes to throw the horseshoe at are the people who define what it means to be racist. They don’t just agree with this mainstream moral construct, they MAKE it. They have the power to simply redefine what it means to be racist, as seen by the inane “prejudice + power” definition which is now being forced. Sargon simply hasn’t got the power to make leftists accept his definition of “racist”, not by a long shot - even if it is obviously the sane definition. Just like he wastes his time trying to change the UKIP from within. His opponents have the media and most of the government staunchly on their side, what does he have? Nothing.

Now I’ve only talked about leftists, but some of the same problems occur when he’s trying to debate alt-righters: he makes himself look like a fool by proposing large-scale political changes while trying to stay within mainstream moral definitions of right and wrong. When they ask him how he plans to prevent hardcore collectivist nonwhites from ruining his individualist paradise, he simply has no answer.

Liberalistists are the punching bag of both the right and left, the true political lolcow movement.

I don't really think that being a Liberalist is inherently the problem with Sargon's debating: if it was you would have included specific examples of what within the ideology is inconsistent. As for the argument on the definition, Sargon's use of "leftists are the real racists" isn't really conceding ground, since he's actively refusing to cater to the left's own definition of racism.

No, I believe Sargon's a terrible debater for the reasons already established: he's not very quick on his feet AND he's exceptionally arrogant and thinks his ideas are SO common sense that he doesn't really need to convince people of that.

 

[John Carmack]

He is so fucking cringe and a huge cunt on top of it. He can't debate and had his shit pushed in by Richard Spencer of all people. He doesn't do debates unless he has a ridiculous set of rules and if you push him, his only defense is 'wrong'.

And he thinks he's going to make major waves. Advice: Stick to your shit YouTube vids. Not going to bat for Tommy Robinson was a fucking bitch move. 'I HAVE A FAMILY' So did Tommy. You have to fight for change, get deep into the blood, but Carl is too much of a fucking pussy to do it.

We fought a war, had riots and bled and died for our first amendment and you won't even risk civil disobedience. And you think you can get one? Don't make me laugh faggot.

He's shitty at debating because he spent years doing response videos and training himself to talk at people instead of to them. Also, his ego has inflated to such levels that he refuses to admit that he is wrong. He will also argue on subjects that he only has a vague understanding of to give the impression that he's smarter than he actually is.

That's why he gets BTFO in realtime debates with an opponent who won't tolerate his bullshit.

 

[Erich Raeder]

I don't really think that being a Liberalist is inherently the problem with Sargon's debating: if it was you would have included specific examples of what within the ideology is inconsistent. As for the argument on the definition, Sargon's use of "leftists are the real racists" isn't really conceding ground, since he's actively refusing to cater to the left's own definition of racism.

No, I believe Sargon's a terrible debater for the reasons already established: he's not very quick on his feet AND he's exceptionally arrogant and thinks his ideas are SO common sense that he doesn't really need to convince people of that.

His ideology itself prohibits him from taking necessary action to implement his ideas. By refusing discrimination against nonwhites in white nations even in the most non-racist, purely pragmatic way (from a standpoint that empirically, no, most nonwhites won’t fit into the individualist utopia) he has shut the doors for every realistic scenario of his ideology actually working.

As for “he’a actively refusing to cater to the left’s own definition of leftism”, that may very well be true, and my initial post didn’t deny that, but I’m just saying that he still clings onto dogmatic principles like “racism is bad” - for better or worse - and he has no control over what this word means. The alt-right has an advantage in debating leftists simply because they even refuse those principles and try to attack the ideas from the outside, offering a completely different moral perspective on these topics.

Don’t mistake this post in particular as an endorsement of the alt-right, however I do think that their ideology is much more consistent and realistic than anything Sargon has to offer.

 

[soy_king]

His ideology itself prohibits him from taking necessary action to implement his ideas. By refusing discrimination against nonwhites in white nations even in the most non-racist, purely pragmatic way (from a standpoint that empirically, no, most nonwhites won’t fit into the individualist utopia) he has shut the doors for every realistic scenario of his ideology actually working.

As for “he’a actively refusing to cater to the left’s own definition of leftism”, that may very well be true, and my initial post didn’t deny that, but I’m just saying that he still clings onto dogmatic principles like “racism is bad” - for better or worse - and he has no control over what this word means. The alt-right has an advantage in debating leftists simply because they even refuse those principles and try to attack the ideas from the outside, offering a completely different moral perspective on these topics.

Don’t mistake this post in particular as an endorsement of the alt-right, however I do think that their ideology is much more consistent and realistic than anything Sargon has to offer.

You make some interesting points, certainly ones more consistent than what I've yet to see in these online sperg matches they call debates. On a purely ideological context, I have some disagreements. I hate to sound like a leftist but for better or worse any form of racism is bad and should be avoided in a "free" society. The left has it wrong since anti-racism should not mean a complete repudiation of your nation's cultural values and history, which is what conservatives (and more importantly for this conversation Liberalists (ugh)) support. The inclusion of immigrants into a society isn't entirely wrong (my family and I are non-white immigrants), but catering to them and not forcing them to assimilate only leads to more problems. For the record, I'm not a Liberalist, since any movement with Sargon at the head is doomed to fail through his own incompetence.

As it stands right now, more people support the ideas of Sargon and the Liberalists than those of the alt right, since most people either (a) still believe in the system's ideals or (b) are generally apathetic and go back to what has been taught to them since they were kids. Outside of that, one of the alt right's major problems is that outside of Jared Taylor, all of its thought leaders are absolutely exceptional or unappealing weirdos, and as schismatic as the leftist movents of the '60's and '70's.

 

[SpergPatrol]

He is so fucking cringe and a huge cunt on top of it. He can't debate and had his shit pushed in by Richard Spencer of all people. He doesn't do debates unless he has a ridiculous set of rules and if you push him, his only defense is 'wrong'.

And he thinks he's going to make major waves. Advice: Stick to your shit YouTube vids. Not going to bat for Tommy Robinson was a fucking bitch move. 'I HAVE A FAMILY' So did Tommy. You have to fight for change, get deep into the blood, but Carl is too much of a fucking pussy to do it.

We fought a war, had riots and bled and died for our first amendment and you won't even risk civil disobedience. And you think you can get one? Don't make me laugh faggot.

Sargon in a nutshell

 

[Lysol]

As it stands right now, more people support the ideas of Sargon and the Liberalists than those of the alt right, since most people either (a) still believe in the system's ideals or (b) are generally apathetic and go back to what has been taught to them since they were kids.

There's also the fact that Liberalistism's platform is basically big-tent centrism. It's not really a bad idea on paper until you realize that a lot of the matters that centrists disagree on are usually as immutable as progressives vs alt-right, just less heated. If I had to use a metaphor it'd be because the bigger the tent, the harder it is to nail down, which is why on a lot of the streams that had liberalists try to talk about their "party"'s philosophy, they didn't really have much of an explanation for what exactly they believe other than broad concepts such as whether or not freedom of speech should be as it is with the U.S.'s first amendment, and whether or not the populace should be able to be armed the same way they are in the U.S.

What's hilarious about that though, is that someone earlier in the thread posted that apparently there already is a big-tent centrism style party in the U.K. akin to what Sargon's trying to make, so there really wasn't any reason for him to make his own group at all.

 

[soy_king]

What's hilarious about that though, is that someone earlier in the thread posted that apparently there already is a big-tent centrism style party in the U.K. akin to what Sargon's trying to make, so there really wasn't any reason for him to make his own group at all.

I believe they're referring to the For Britain party? Yeah, I believe it is centrist, but the intention was to turn UKIP into a shitposting party mostly for the staying power if the name. They probably won't succeed, and at most will be sidelined by the hardliners in the party.

 

[Erich Raeder]

You make some interesting points, certainly ones more consistent than what I've yet to see in these online sperg matches they call debates. On a purely ideological context, I have some disagreements. I hate to sound like a leftist but for better or worse any form of racism is bad and should be avoided in a "free" society. The left has it wrong since anti-racism should not mean a complete repudiation of your nation's cultural values and history, which is what conservatives (and more importantly for this conversation Liberalists (ugh)) support. The inclusion of immigrants into a society isn't entirely wrong (my family and I are non-white immigrants), but catering to them and not forcing them to assimilate only leads to more problems. For the record, I'm not a Liberalist, since any movement with Sargon at the head is doomed to fail through his own incompetence.

As it stands right now, more people support the ideas of Sargon and the Liberalists than those of the alt right, since most people either (a) still believe in the system's ideals or (b) are generally apathetic and go back to what has been taught to them since they were kids. Outside of that, one of the alt right's major problems is that outside of Jared Taylor, all of its thought leaders are absolutely exceptional or unappealing weirdos, and as schismatic as the leftist movents of the '60's and '70's.

I see where you’re coming from if you’re a nonwhite immigrant yourself, so I probably need to clarify that I sometimes make bold political statements without thinking about possible consequences these ideas would have on individual people. Personally, sure, I don’t have a problem with people able and willing to assimilate.

It’s good that we have common ground on that it’s desirable to preserve cultural hegenomy, because that is where the biggest problem is. White people in western Europe and the USA to a large degree simply have no racial or even cultural awareness, while Jews, Blacks, Muslims, basically any other ethnic/ethnoreligious group still do. This is Sargons biggest Achilles heel because his strategy is NOT about trying to make white people rediscover their own identity but to make all others lose their identity. It won’t work.

Now to come back to my immigration statement, I think we also agree that there has to be a point where we need to say that we simply cannot take anymore immigrants without harming our cultural hegemony. But where is this point? Again, Sargon offers no solution. I think he proposed the idea in some debate that people should just check on an individual basis if someone is liberalist enough to become a citizen of Liberalistopia. Which sounds nice until you realize that, again, it’s impossible.

I also agree with you that alt-right leaders tend to be a bit exceptional, this is also why I made it clear that I don’t endorse the alt-right even if I’m not necessarily ideologically opposed to them in many aspects. However I think that people like Sean Last and to a lesser degree AltHype and even Spencer aren’t *that* bad at debating. People like Anglin, yeah. Although Spencer is obviously an edgelord so I can see why you wouldn’t take him seriously. On the liberalist side there’s really just Arch I can think of who managed to make a few good points, but he ultimately failed where Sargon failed too, just without making an ass out of himself.

If this is too off-topic then you may give me an applicable rating and I’ll stop. I think that this thread sometimes produces pretty interesting political arguments though.

 

[soy_king]

I see where you’re coming from if you’re a nonwhite immigrant yourself, so I probably need to clarify that I sometimes make bold political statements without thinking about possible consequences these ideas would have on individual people. Personally, sure, I don’t have a problem with people able and willing to assimilate.

It’s good that we have common ground on that it’s desirable to preserve cultural hegenomy, because that is where the biggest problem is. White people in western Europe and the USA to a large degree simply have no racial or even cultural awareness, while Jews, Blacks, Muslims, basically any other ethnic/ethnoreligious group still do. This is Sargons biggest Achilles heel because his strategy is NOT about trying to make white people rediscover their own identity but to make all others lose their identity. It won’t work.

Now to come back to my immigration statement, I think we also agree that there has to be a point where we need to say that we simply cannot take anymore immigrants without harming our cultural hegemony. But where is this point? Again, Sargon offers no solution. I think he proposed the idea in some debate that people should just check on an individual basis if someone is liberalist enough to become a citizen of Liberalistopia. Which sounds nice until you realize that, again, it’s impossible.

I also agree with you that alt-right leaders tend to be a bit exceptional, this is also why I made it clear that I don’t endorse the alt-right even if I’m not necessarily ideologically opposed to them in many aspects. However I think that people like Sean Last and to a lesser degree AltHype and even Spencer aren’t *that* bad at debating. People like Anglin, yeah. Although Spencer is obviously an edgelord so I can see why you wouldn’t take him seriously. On the liberalist side there’s really just Arch I can think of who managed to make a few good points, but he ultimately failed where Sargon failed too, just without making an ass out of himself.

If this is too off-topic then you may give me an applicable rating and I’ll stop. I think that this thread sometimes produces pretty interesting political arguments though.

Oh yeah this is definitely off topic, but then again so is half of this thread.

When it comes to assimilation, I'm a little bit torn on the issue, considering that an excellent cases in point are the United States and Canada. You could easily say that the native US population (White British Protestants) are a minority within this country, but their legacy of individual liberty, due process, freedom of religion, and parliamentary government lives on because the nation's culture was passed down and adopted by the immigrant groups through the educational system. The biggest problem facing the West is the intentional subterfuge of Western cultural values by leftists and Marxists infiltrating the education system, causing among other things a lack of confidence in the cultural foundations of Western nations. I'm not entirely sure if these values are inherent to the native European cultures, and to my mind I would say no.

This is where I greatly differ with Sargon and the Liberalists: they have no concrete plan in tackling the educational system and reverting it back to a more liberal bent. This is largely due to the fact that actual intellectuals aren't involved with the liberalists, so they don't have anyone who would actually be able to climb up the university hierarchy into academia.

I certainly agree with you where there is a certain point where you can't keep taking in immigrants at the rate currently practiced, in part because it's impossible to make sure all the people coming in are willing to assimilate. Then again, you and Sargon are probably in agreement where you wish to bring the number of immigrants coming in essentially to zero.

To be quite honest, I don't think we've reached the point where university and high school dropouts can lead an intellectual movement as Sargon or Spencer seem to believe. Hands down the most influential Liberal internet activist is Jordan Peterson, and I feel in part that's because he has the academic experience and credentials necessary to fight the issues properly (Note: not a Peterson fanboi either). Currently the alt right talking head with the most academic credentials is Jean Francois Gariepy, and I feel most of us know how absolutely exceptional JF is.

 

[Spooky]

Oh yeah this is definitely off topic, but then again so is half of this thread.

When it comes to assimilation, I'm a little bit torn on the issue, considering that an excellent cases in point are the United States and Canada. You could easily say that the native US population (White British Protestants) are a minority within this country, but their legacy of individual liberty, due process, freedom of religion, and parliamentary government lives on because the nation's culture was passed down and adopted by the immigrant groups through the educational system. The biggest problem facing the West is the intentional subterfuge of Western cultural values by leftists and Marxists infiltrating the education system, causing among other things a lack of confidence in the cultural foundations of Western nations. I'm not entirely sure if these values are inherent to the native European cultures, and to my mind I would say no.

This is where I greatly differ with Sargon and the Liberalists: they have no concrete plan in tackling the educational system and reverting it back to a more liberal bent. This is largely due to the fact that actual intellectuals aren't involved with the liberalists, so they don't have anyone who would actually be able to climb up the university hierarchy into academia.

I certainly agree with you where there is a certain point where you can't keep taking in immigrants at the rate currently practiced, in part because it's impossible to make sure all the people coming in are willing to assimilate. Then again, you and Sargon are probably in agreement where you wish to bring the number of immigrants coming in essentially to zero.

To be quite honest, I don't think we've reached the point where university and high school dropouts can lead an intellectual movement as Sargon or Spencer seem to believe. Hands down the most influential Liberal internet activist is Jordan Peterson, and I feel in part that's because he has the academic experience and credentials necessary to fight the issues properly (Note: not a Peterson fanboi either). Currently the alt right talking head with the most academic credentials is Jean Francois Gariepy, and I feel most of us know how absolutely exceptional JF is.

IDK if you live in the US or not, but we did a pretty poor job of integrating our values on nonwhite immigrants. We did a better job with our culture. Every ethnic group but whites think "hate speech" isn't free speech, the second amendment should be repealed, etc. It isn't all coming up roses here. The ACLU is no longer defending free speech FFS.

Edit: Figured I should probably put some links to support my claims here, so I don't come off as a tard.
Gun Rights - http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/22/public-views-about-guns/#race
Free Speech - https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america

 

[soy_king]

Maybe this was posted here a while ago, but it has been brought up again recently. I guess I will just leave it here in case anyone wants it


IDK if you live in the US or not, but we did a pretty poor job of integrating our values on nonwhite immigrants. We did a better job with our culture. Every ethnic group but whites think "hate speech" isn't free speech, the second amendment should be repealed, etc. It isn't all coming up roses here. The ACLU is no longer defending free speech FFS.

As it happens I am from the US, and yes there have been issues integrating nonwhite immigrants, but considering the fact that Irish, Polish, Italians, Jews, etc. were all considered subhuman scum over 100 years ago there has been significant progress integrating previously alien groups. As for integrating nonwhites, I would say Asians and Indians have integrated fairly well, and even the fact that there are so many black and Latino SJWs complaining about bullshit means that we're slowly integrating even those groups into our society.

 

[Toucan]

There's also the fact that Liberalistism's platform is basically big-tent centrism.

Considering Sargon's chameleon like politics I wonder how the doctrine of the liberalists will manifest in about a year when he has inevitably drifted further right. I remember waaay back in his early days when he took the political compass test he was something like -3 -4. Somewhere in the liberal libertarian category. Over time he has drifted very much into a conservative authoritarian. While the stated purpose of the liberalists is some kind of centre right, a bland ideology that obsesses over property rights and legal minutiae, the liberalists are also Sargon. Are we to expect a split in the liberalists in the future when Sargon inevitably drifts further right and does something stupid like try to co opt the alt right in the same way he is trying to co opt UKIP. I have always suspected that he protested too much when confronted with being a racist.

 

[Lysol]

Are we to expect a split in the liberalists in the future when Sargon inevitably drifts further right and does something stupid like try to co opt the alt right in the same way he is trying to co opt UKIP.

I don't think he could do much at this point that'd have the people in the Liberalist camp leave, considering it's essentially just his fanbase, and anyone who's seen a liberalist sperg out or defend Sargon it's pretty obvious that they're just fanboys of his that are along for the ride in the same vein as the Peterson fanboys that hang off of every word the guy says and would defend their fair lady to the death.

As far as him and his followers trying to co-opt the alt-right, that's hilariously laughable. He might have been able to try to worm his group's way into the alt-right a few years ago before they knew he even existed, but considering even the spokespersons and thought-leaders of the alt-right now know both who he is and how much of a sperg he can be, they'd see him and any of his hangers-on and call them out if they tried by this point. There's also the fact that as mentioned above, there's no way he'd openly try to do that in the first place because he tries to play along the same rules as the middle-ground of the overton window, and secondly because if he ever openly made any kind of statement alluding to him joining the alt-right in any way he'd never hear the end of it - especially given the Daily Stormer's glowing review and his "white niggers" rant.

 

[mrgou]

I watched a stream of Carl where someone asked something like "What are you going to do about the people that want a civil war" and Sargon replied something like "We shoot them". Truly a political genius, shoot the people that supposedly want a civil war to prevent a civil war - what if it's 10% of your population, his solution is just to kill 10% of a population? 20% 30%?