Responding to the Cult of Sargon

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 11, 2017

Sargon bringing a friend home to meet his wife, colorized 2018

As we reported yesterday, Sargon of Akkad has declared himself the leader of a cult – “The Liberalists,” he’s called it – and declared that one of the main purposes of his cult is to fight us, the Alt-Right.

I don’t have to tell you what comes next.

I am going to lay down some basic points to cut through this gibberish he is pushing. Not that you don’t all already see through it. But I want to catalog it together for you, so you’ve got all the angles you need when addressing Sargon or the members of his new cult.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

He appears to be hinging his entire cult doctrine on some sort of as-of-yet undefined form of radical individualism.

This is not something that most people actually even comprehend – and I am one of those people.

He’s doing an emperor’s new clothes thing here, acting like there is some fundamental distinction between his beliefs about the individual and our beliefs about the individual, but he doesn’t break that down into any detail, because the only thing he is actually saying is that he believes that nonwhites should be treated as individuals and we do not.

In an all-white country, we wouldn’t infringe on people’s rights or outlaw private property. In fact, people would have a lot more rights than they have now. The only rights that would be curtailed are the new rights that have been given to people by the Jews over the last few decades, such as homosexuality and miscegenation – and the reason we would be curtailing these rights is that giving individuals these rights infringes on the rights of other individuals to not have to deal with the consequences of these actions.

In a white America, individual families would have the right to go out in public and not have to see men kissing one another.

Because the idea that an individual’s decisions don’t affect other individuals in harmful ways is nonsensical. It is just a goofy, dumb claim.

Beyond sexual things, I don’t really have any idea what he is on about. The only form of extreme “collectivism” that I can really imagine is a Marxist collective, where hierarchy is removed through economic scheming. We do not want to ban the free market (nationally, obviously globalism is negative), we don’t want to take away private property.

We want people to be able to think freely, we just don’t want foreign groups in our countries aggressively pushing for the interests of a foreign people.

Furthermore, the concept of a “collective” is basic human nature and the idea of an “individualist” is really a myth. Every individual person exists as a part of a society, short of a hermit living alone in a cave. Everyone is in a collective now. Sargon just formed a new one. What happens when you use multiculturalism and sexual deviancy to remove the main collective of a cohesive dominant culture is that people form new, smaller collectives, and society atomizes.

Churches, universities, hobbies, etc. are all collectives.

We all remember high school, where the kids who made a point to be different tended to all be similar to one another. When I was in high school at the turn of the millennium, there were gothics – they all claimed to want to be different, yet they all dressed alike and were interested in the same things.

This goes back to our basic biology, which is tribal in nature. Our brains are hardwired to come together with a group and to adopt the same symbols, beliefs and behaviors of that group. You cannot disprove that, because it is an obvious fact. And again: the hilarious thing here is that Sargon’s own “scene” (now an official cult) proves this point. What were called the “skeptics,” which he is now calling “the Liberalists,” all think the same things.

“What if the Child Consents?”

Sargon made a name for himself by deconstruction what SJWs were saying. He was simply attacking them, breaking down why everything they are saying is stupid.

Picking apart something someone else is saying – in particular when it is something as stupid as what SJWs say – is very different than advocating FOR something.

It appears as though he hadn’t really put too much thought into what he was advocating for until he realized that the Alt-Right was advocating for something and that in order to address what we are saying he has to be advocating for something. He had vague ideas relating to the philosophy of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, but even though I have my disagreements with this particular philosophy, it doesn’t even really work in the way he is trying to use it. These were white men who would appalled at the idea of a multiracial society.

All of these men he cites were a product of white society and formed their philosophy in that context.

So, in order to fill-in the blanks of his advocacy position, he simply decided to adopt modern extremist libertarian positions – specifically because that critique can be used against any system whatsoever. In his debate with Richard Spencer, he was asking him to solve problems that have existed for centuries in relation to the structure of governments, the social order and the management of economies.

But how far is he willing to go with “freedom of the individual”?

For instance, does he believe in legalizing hard drugs? Voluntary indentured servitude?

That parents have a right to starve their children to death?

Does he want to eliminate all social safety nets?

Most importantly: what if the child consents?

Of course, he will claim he is not an anarcho-capitalist, but that is the line of argument he is using when he claims that the Alt-Right can’t work because no ordered system ever can work.

The reason he can’t use the purely classical liberal line against the Alt-Right is that any of those arguments can be easily addressed. Again: we have a position on individual rights, private property and free markets that is very easy to grasp and very difficult to argue against, so he’s started using arguments from a system he claims he doesn’t even support just to give his critique the illusion of substance.

Pointing this out demonstrates that he is not actually proposing anything – that his only concern is with not being a racist. And it is easy to point out by simply forcing him to address the extremist libertarian positions he is arguing from.

No One Wants to Die for an Abstract Concept

Sargon seems to underestimate just how serious the state of the world is for most people. Our society has effectively already collapsed.

And the last thing anyone wants to fight for is some weird abstract idea that no one really even understands.

Sargon is saying “yes, race exists and yes, multiculturalism has had a negative effect on white people – but we can’t address that issue because of this abstract concept. Instead, we have to fight to preserve the abstract concept.”

Well, fighting for abstract concepts is for people who are not backed up against the wall. It is simply the realm of the hobby to go to war over a philosophical ideal.

In the 1960s, people fought for all of this “liberation” that Sargon is defending because there was no risk. The baby boomers lived very comfortably, so fighting for “freedom” was just like a game.

Things have changed. We are now in an extreme situation, where people are very alienated, they are struggling just to survive. People are ready to put their entire being into a fight for a better future.

The only things that are actually worth giving your entire being to fight for are things that exist in real life.

At one point in his recent stream with Mister Metokur, Sargon did mention along with his desire to fight for an abstraction that he doesn’t want trannies teaching his kid to cut his dick off. That is the only real life thing he mentioned. The rest of it was vague abstractions, which again, he hasn’t defined.

Presumably, he also wouldn’t want a daughter to be sex trafficked by a Pakistani rape-gang. He doesn’t want his house burned down by a roving pack of Africans. He doesn’t want to be forced into third-world living conditions. He doesn’t want to feel like a stranger in his own home, being surrounded by people that speak hundreds of different languages. He doesn’t want Britain to become an Islamic state. And he doesn’t want to be arrested for talking about any of these things.

So even if you eliminate race from your perception entirely, the effects of race do not just magically disappear. And the idea that vague notions of “individual liberty” and other abstract ideas are going to hold this multiracial circus show together is utterly nonsensical. We are dealing with real life problems that require real life solutions.

And when you are living with real life, reality is the only thing that matters.

What is the Point of Multiculturalism?

Sargon still has failed to explain the positive of why you would want brown people in your country. Instead, he only puts forward negative arguments against people arguing for white countries – it’s mean, it’s immoral, but they have rights now because they are already here, you can’t even tell for sure if someone is 100% genetically white, etc.

But the question remains: can he name a single benefit derived from having nonwhites in our countries?

Because if not, his entire negative argument of why it would be wrong to remove them is meaningless.

He seems to at least tacitly admit that multiracialism has detrimental effects (even if he claims that these effects somehow have no relationship to race), but hinges everything on the alleged immorality of removing them.

Imagine if you get shot and you’re bleeding out, but there is a lot of traffic on the road to the hospital: is your solution going to be to stay and home and bleed to death? And then if a family member is like “hey, you’d better do something, you’re going to bleed to death,” do you start arguing with them about how it is impossible to get to the hospital and so you just have to make the best of bleeding to death?

If we accept that multiculturalism is an extreme disaster, then we need to work on fixing the situation – not to find some impossible method of dealing with an unbearable situation.

That’s All I’ve Got

Hopefully in the near future Sargon will be releasing an agenda of some kind. It is currently frustrating to critique him given that he has put so little forward with regards to his vision for society. But this is what we’ve got right now.

Andy Warski has announced that Richard Spencer and Sargon will be having a second debate – this time with Mike Enoch included.

So that is going to be good.

Honestly, I’m not sure how Sargon will be able to continue with this agenda after that. I think the “I’m sorry I performed so poorly in the debate – I am now the leader of a cult” trick will only work once.

Join the discussion at The Goyim Know BBS