Reflections on my Livestream with Sargon of Akkad

Two nights ago I participated in a livestream with Sargon of Akkad, quite a well-known “pop-liberal” on YouTube, about defining the Alt. Right. The guy is genuinely curious about the topic, but there some things inhibiting the learning process (which I’ll get into momentarily).

We began with myself making it clear that I am not at the center of the Alt. Right, that I am not the best person to be defining the term or the phenomenon, and that there are individuals who are much better suited for the job, people like Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson. Nevertheless, I associate with the label and my videos, podcasts and writings have been lumped under the label.

I started explaining the Western political situation over the past few decades which have fuelled the intellectual undercurrents which have coalesced to form the Alt. Right. Standard stuff.

Over the course of this exposition I referenced a few individuals, books and so on which would assist the listener in understanding things, which I was then accused of doing as an attempt to “cop-out” of giving a different answer. Let me repeat that: my referencing of authors, books and other media which might assist the listener in understanding what the Alt. Right is beyond my own — self-admittedly insufficient — exposition was deemed a “cop-out”; a “dodging” of questions or points. This is pure nonsense. I referenced Generation Identity, the European identitarian movement, I referenced Counter Currents, Greg Johnson’s website, I referenced RADIX Journal, Richard Spencer’s website, et cetera, and yet all this was deemed by Sargon and his audience as equal to the social justice warrior’s accusation that their opponents should “get an education” and whatnot. It is pure nonsense; pure, arrant, dishonest nonsense that these two scenarios were equated. Shame on those who believe they should be.

The conversation carried on however, and ultimately ended with me giving in and saying “Look, I can’t give you the answers you want. Speak to Spencer, Johnson, or someone else who’s nearer the center of the Alt. Right and not on its fringes as I am.”

Problems, overall, were focused in two areas:

1) There was this assumption, this expectation, that I’d be some maestro who knows every argument posited by all the various parts of the Alt. Right and all its niches, from race-realism to American identity politics; even though I explicitly said multiple times that I am not some know-it-all and am more on the fringes of the Alt. Right than at its center. I gave what definition I could — that those in the Alt. Right believe mainstream politicking has done nothing to cease the advance of progressivism in the West, that all humans are fundamentally unequal in their value, abilities and character, and that the Alt. Right is looking for identity which to some is racial/ethnic, to some cultural/social, but all is constantly being discussed and debated, and it can be difficult to pin one thing down for very long due to the innate diversity (ironically enough) existent with the Alt. Right, these networks, groups and parallel phenomena — but that wasn’t good enough, apparently.

2) Sargon and his audience wants the Alt. Right to be very easily definable using a very narrow definition when, in fact, that is simply not the case in reality as the Alt. Right is a network of many thousands of individuals, with overarching agreements which you could list on one hand. When I said — repeatedly — that the Alt. Right is a very broad church with multiple component parts and various figureheads with their respective areas of expertise, I was accused of “dodging” questions and so forth, when what I actually did was give an answer which Sargon didn’t want based upon his presupposed dialectic which is as follows:

Thesis: The loony Left is bad (SJWs, feminists, etc.).
Antithesis: The raving Right is bad (the Alt. Right, Rx, etc.).
Synthesis: Thus, moderate, center-ground liberalism is good.

Anything which fails to conform to this model is rendered logically unsound by virtue of its nonconformity to said model. The notion that the Alt. Right is very expansive and informal was not a possibility Sargon wanted to accept because, as was made clear in the stream, he finds certain elements most found on imageboards to be too open and clear for all to see. This was addressed when I wrote “Chanernative Right,” as well as when I wrote “Defining the Online Dissident Right” for West Coast Reactionaries. Both pieces I mentioned in the stream which I doubt Sargon or his audience will ever care to read.

I’d also like to just mention this “individualism vs. collectivism” nonsense Sargon is peddling. This has been addressed by both myself and Cato Disapproves — by me in “Stulti Philosophiam,” and by Cato Disapproves in “Ex Falso Quodlibet” — over on WCR.

I was very disappointed with the personal insults and other such nonsense which surfaced in the comments section once the livestream was online. I’d like to be able to counter accusations made against me one at a time, and especially the assertions that I was being dishonest or disingenuous — quite upsetting to read, actually, considering I pride myself on my honesty. Regardless, the livestream is now private due to my request as I am simply not ready to be bombarded with thousands upon thousands of comments — a significant portion of them quite malicious and cynical.

Expecting to answer questions, not to be interrogated over giving “the wrong” answers, leads me to say that I was in error appearing on Sargon’s stream and I apologise for wasting an hour of his time, and the time of those who watched, considering it is all now unavailable.


5 thoughts on “Reflections on my Livestream with Sargon of Akkad”

  1. That’s a shame though a unsurprising sequence of events. The phrase, “Everyone needs a good villain comes to mind.”

    1. That is absolutely the case with Sargon and anything to his right. He’s made his mind up about how we’re all just “Right-wing social justice warriors” and just seeks to confirm that presupposition. He has to maintain his status quo as he is financially — and reputationally — invested in it. It’s a pitiful state of affairs, honestly, as he can remain peddling this disingenuous nonsense for as long as there are people looking to pwn SJWs and the likes (i.e. disillusioned millennials who’ve realised political correctness has gone too far — of which there are hundreds of thousands).

  2. I was really upset when he started playing the pedantry game. When you said that egalitarianism was the belief that people are inherently equal, he responded that he’s “never heard anybody use that definition of egalitarianism.”

    This immediately popped up on google:

    of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
    “a fairer, more egalitarian society”

    1. I was equally amazed when he said that. There were many instances where he just picked over any little possibly fallible thing I said — whether it was a single word or smaller. I went in just expecting a relaxed chat, to be asked questions and to answer them, that being that. I’m very disappointed at how antagonistic things ended up being, which then effected my answers, which then effected the conversation, etc. It just wasn’t a good experience.

      Nevertheless, it was a waste of time to get into. I have better things to do with my time than bicker with nihilists over non-issues. I had a dream after the conversation which made this clear to me. I shan’t be talking with Carl again if it can be helped.

      1. I wouldn’t be too perturbed by that sequence of events. We can’t show weakness by getting upset at such things. I’ve started trying to introduce others to the alt right in the joe rogan (fear factor, ufc, etc) forums. He’s friends with plenty of techy people, and his forum started back in 2001. Since then, it has cultivated a tight knit group of followers, in an environment where all sorts of shitlordery is still allowed to run free. The place is the only forum not explicitly right wing that seems to be able to resist SJW influence. To describe the environment better, I’d point out that many members have x rated gifs as their avatars.

        It’s a place with strong moderation (not traditionally “strict,” but it’s a clubhouse with strict social hierarchies), however, so I’ve tread carefully, but many people there fall into Sargon’s camp. They’re “edgy” and say “nigger,” but they view the alt right as extremists, and they only seem to know us from the rumors. The first couple of weeks were more of an endurance contest, as trolls attempted to flood the thread with tranny porn and the like. I’ve gotten some private messages, and even some general interest from certain members, and the mods have allowed me to continue unbanned or “pinked,” which involves having one’s username turned pink and being sent to the “cunt farm,” where you will be able to post outside of the main threads with the other pinks. This is my first attempt to spread some redpills, although without proselytizing directly. It’s a tough crowd of people who revel in breaking others down, but by showing you are not bothered, they generally come to respect you, and the trolling only intensifies if you show dismay.

        To me, it’s really just an experiment, as M Woes said that we should get involved online, and share our successes and failures with each other in order to sharpen our game. Sorry to ramble on. I hope that you get where you are going.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s