Thursday, 7 September 2017

Open letter to Sargon of Akkad


So, Sargon of Akkad posted this to his channel the other day. I agree with a lot of his arguments. Yes, if alt right people want to wail about white genocide, maybe they should start having babies. That would be a start, no? On the other hand, I do have some concerns I'd love to hear Sargon's opinions on. I left the following as a comment on his video, but thought I'd put it here for posterity. The comment itself is in blue, and my further thoughts will be in normal text:










My concern, and I hope Sargon will address this, is as follows. We have a culture in the west where every group is allowed to play identity politics based on innate characteristics, except for the following: straights, cisgenders, males and whites. We also have a culture in the west where every group but the above is protected by legislation, and where institutional discrimination is legally permissible against the above categories. We ALSO have a cultural narrative that has been institutionalized in academia, law, politics, news media, social work, education and popular culture that describes the above-named groups as 1) responsible for creating a system that oppresses all other groups; 2) complicit in this oppression not by participation in the system, but by virtue of simply being who they are and therefore benefiting unjustly from said system; 3) uniquely monstrous in historical terms (colonialism, exploitation, slavery, etc); 4) enjoying "unearned privilege" over other groups; 5) uniquely capable of inflicting harm, even when harm is not intended; and 6) in control of everything. More than this, group slander against these groups, and even incitement to violence against them ("all men are pigs", "men are scum", "violence has a male face", #KillAllWhiteMen, #All I want for Christmas is White Genocide, etc) is seen as socially and legally permissible. The public discourse actively stirs up animosity and resentment against these particular groups, and promotes narratives that these groups are victimizers and that fear of them based on their biological characteristics alone is justified (m&ms anyone? How about white on black racism and police shootings?). The demonization narrative and the legal dehumanizing slander are cultural conditions that precede actual genocides. It doesn't matter if any of it is true. All that matters is that enough people believe it's true and that it is considered legally and socially acceptable to demonize and dehumanize the target group. I doubt straights, cisgenders and males (as a distinct, homogenous category) are in danger here. Straights and cisgenders will never be a minority. The vast majority of males in a normal society will always have women in their lives who cannot be convinced to lump their own husbands, brothers, fathers, sons, etc, into a group slated for extermination. You just won't be able to convince the average woman to hate ALL men enough to put her OWN men in an oven. But whites? None of the above applies to whites. What happens if whites become a minority in their own societies if the demonization narrative and the legalized dehumanizing slander of whites is still seen as socially permissible? If the culture of racial resentment against whites and the narrative of whites being responsible for all the evils of history is still legally permissible? What if this false history that whites are uniquely monstrous and that all other groups are their victims is still taught in schools? What if it is still taught that no matter what a white person does, they can't avoid victimizing other groups because even if they don't participate in the system of white privilege and whites' oppression of everyone else, they still benefit from it and there's nothing they can do to avoid benefiting from it? The institutionalized narratives paint whites into a corner they can't escape. Even innocence is no defence for the individual, because they are culpable simply by existing within a system of "white supremacy" that benefits them whether they want to benefit or not. Anti-white sentiment is socially and legally allowed. Inciting hatred, resentment and even violence against whites is also allowed in ways it is forbidden against minorities. And then we have Standpoint Theory and Epistemic Privilege. Under this set of theories (taught in all the places you'd expect) the oppressed have the status of "people who should be listened to". The theory describes all relationships as "master/slave", and the slave has epistemic privilege. They are presumed to understand their own and their master's experiences, motivations, intentions, thoughts and beliefs better than their master understands either. The problem is that the people who subscribe to these theories have assigned master and slave status based on something that can't be changed (skin color, gender, etc), when in reality power DOES change hands. What is to stop those who have been assigned epistemic privilege today from defending their epistemic privilege even when they find themselves in the position of master rather than slave? "I'm oppressed. How do I know? Well, I'm black, therefore oppressed, therefore I have epistemic privilege. This gives me a unique insight into how things work, and using my unique insight that my status as an oppressed person gives me, I can guarantee you I'm still oppressed. Well, of course you don't believe me. You're white. You're only saying that because you want to hold onto your privilege. I know this, because my epistemic privilege puts me in a position to understand your motivations better than you do. And believe me, if I were no longer oppressed, I'd let you know. But I can assure you I am still oppressed and you are still privileged (and privilege is invisible to the person who has it, mind you), and you have to believe me because I have epistemic privilege." Don't get me wrong, Carl. I couldn't care less about keeping the "white race" pure. But I've been thinking about all these things, and I'm seriously concerned about what is going to happen if whites ever do find themselves to be a minority in their own countries. If someone wanted to actually orchestrate a genocide, they couldn't do much better than promoting these narratives of collective white original sin, making white-bashing and overt resentment and animosity toward whites socially acceptable (even admirable) and then arranging for whites to be displaced in their own countries by other races. If I wanted an actual white genocide to happen, it's what I'd do.




Anyway, I honestly don't think there's a mastermind behind all of this. I just think it's the perfect storm of various conditions culminating in a situation that has me seriously worried. I have to wonder if some white nationalists are intuiting this potential state of affairs without really seeing all the dots. Whether they feel something coming that they can't articulate but feel they need to respond to and try to avert.

I know Sargon is aware of most of the stuff I talked about in my comment, and I know he believes it's inherently harmful, divisive and unjust. But I don't know if he's extrapolated the potential outcomes of the combination of all of these things if they were to be played out in previously white majority cultures where whites find themselves unprotected by law or legal precedent, and the targets of a legally and socially acceptable hate campaign.

Would leaving your entire estate to people of color, as that BLM leader he vlogged about suggested whites should do, be enough to remove the stain of original sin and spare your children? Would paying reparations be enough? Is there anything that would be enough to wash a white person clean of their unearned privilege and the blot of having benefited from a system of white supremacy that has uniquely exploited all other groups? How could it, when the system is set up so that you can't help but benefit, and cannot, because of your privilege, even appreciate how you've benefited?

All I know is I'm seriously worried about the world my kids are about to inherit.

17 comments:

  1. We already know what happens as the next step; it's called South Africa, where it's perfectly acceptable to torture and murder whites, and the black-on-white homicide rate now equals the casualty level for the Vietnam War. (To be fair, blacks kill each other at about 3 times that rate.)

    So far around 70,000 white native-born South Africans have died for the crime of being white, and another 800,000 have been driven from their homes and now eke out a precarious existence in primitive squatter camps, enjoying their "white privilege".

    This is the future that is building for the West, if we don't stand up for ourselves before it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You have a real gift for expressing yourself in a way that can reach people from all different vantage points -- mainly because you have no hate: you obviously have a genuine respect for the worth of ALL people. And you've clearly put into words something I've been sensing a lot myself lately -- the growing belief that we white people simply can't grasp reality because we're too privileged, so we need to put our blind faith in the people of color who tell us that we're all racist. Of course, we're supposed to ignore any people of color -- such as Tree of Logic -- who say or imply that this logic is full of shit. Please keep speaking and writing! You're doing more good than you could ever imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An interesting topic to which I have added a few observations of my own.
    http://jackcadesplace.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/interesting-observation-on-sargon-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're response to White GENOCIDE is "have more babies"? NO, its borders and the right of Whites to their nations. When did we get in a breeding race just to keep our own nations? That's evil.


    If you go to Nigeria and force them to accept tens of millions of Chinese and force-assimilate them, while simultaneously telling Nigerians that are upset by this "it's your fault, have more babies", you are still committing GENOCIDE.

    That's what this anti-White mentality is doing. It's genocide.



    Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for Everyone IS White Genocide.

    White Genocide Defined: “There can be no all-white countries anywhere, and there can be no all-white areas within the confines of those formerly all-white countries. There can be no all White communities, cities, no all White organizations.

    Do you see that this evil proposition is Genocide?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6pP8xBW0AAy6Hy.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  6. You and James Damore, I guess by accident, have in a wonderful way explained Antisemitism to the world.
    Jews aren't manly. Woody Allen, posterboy for Neuroticism.
    Posterboy for Jewishness.
    Dave Rubins explanaition aka Envy is pretty wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even the term Jew / Jewels is literal make up.
      Pretty girlish, isn't it?

      Delete
  7. This was excellent, Karen. I'd throw money at you if I had any.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The irony is that, if you think about it, black people have benefited from the system more than anybody.

    As Jordan Peterson pointed out, blacks in America if they were counted as a separate nation, would be the 19th most prosperous place on earth. I mean, I kinda hate to be a dick about it but I think being a black in America is can be safely claimed as preferable to running around in a grass skirt in a malarial jungle and living in grass huts. I mean, what do you think the average life expectancy was for a typical black person back then--30? 35? 40 on the outside?

    I mean, if I was going to be a super dickface about, maybe we should finance reparations by demanding tribute first, you know?

    Also, my family fought for the north so fuck you BLM.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So how are white people supposed to win the breeding competition when all the government need do is allow more non-whites in?

    This is just math to me, and the math doesn't work out under present conditions. It's a simple question of mathematics. Both population wise and financial.

    If we look at it as a thermodynamics style problem there is essentially an infinite population of non-whites outside the white countries to draw from. It would be roughly like trying to keep a house at 68F in mid winter in northern Canada with all the doors and windows open. The house is going to reach the temperature of the outdoors no matter how many furnaces you install.

    Furthermore, only poor whites which qualify for a multitude of government transfer payments can even begin to financially consider such volumes of children. Anyone who doesn't qualify for the assistance will find he's not making enough money to properly support his hoard of children to the standard the state and his neighbors expect of him. The children could then be taken by state.

    The number of children one can have is financially limited no matter how big of hit one wishes to take to his lifestyle. There's a minimum lifestyle expected (of productive, working people) before one is considered neglectful. The way white people raised 7 or more kids back in the 19 teens and twenties wouldn't fly today.

    Many the early laws to that effect had eugenics undertones and support because they would limit the number of children people could have based on their earnings.

    Whatever one thinks about this the subject I just don't see a path to stopping the plans that were set into motion decades ago by simply having more kids. The math doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sure you've already noticed, but Millennial Woes did an hour and some long video reply to your comments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3JPto1T78 Thoughtful and well worth watching.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Karen, I have a story for you about a group of LGBT folks who have through deceit taken over a gift that was meant to be shared (a property I spent my life savings and energy on that was supposed to be a sustainability, alternative technology and alternative economics think/do tank, sort of what the BLM person suggested white people do, but look what happens when they do!). They are shunning me and all cis, het, men. They have kicked out the only cis, het man who was living there. They have an ideology of supremacy towards anyone in the out-group. Please interview me! I'd like to publicize this far and wide as to the insanity of the Left. Well maybe not all the Left. I'm a luddite Gandhist...I'd rather talk to them than punish them. But they are not willing to talk to me. They have the cheapest place to live in Atlanta (no rent, almost no utilities since it's off-grid).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to mention that the "taken over" part is not so bad by itself, but that they also have abandoned the original mission and vision in favor of having an almost free place to live and a "safe space".

      Delete
  12. Karen, I thought you might find this interesting. It's a lecture by The People's lawyer Daniel Sheehan discussing Roe v Wade. It brings up the question on whether or not a woman has a fundamental right not to be a mother.
    He doesn't go further to then ask the implicit question whether a has a right not to be a father. I instinctively believe that procreation entails responsibility, however the legal system is not exactly consistent at present. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daniel Sheehan lecture on Roe v Wade:
      https://youtu.be/9SpaXCJTdJw

      Delete
  13. Karen, I wish you look into the phenomenon Victoria Kawesa. She is black a single mom living in Sweden, and is resently resigned party leader of the local feministic party Fi. They were two leaders, she and the political survivalist Gudrun Schyman. GS once burned 100.000 SEK in public to show the wage gap. Anyway, Kawesa is standing trial for copyright infringement, she had the guts to copy a thesis and present the text in a powerpoint on a seminar without naming the source. And the source was in the audience! She said "I'm sorry" and naturally thought it was over but now this female PhD student (or the university) takes it to court. Kawesa is then of course oppressed for being black (the entitlement is strong with this one). Kawesa has also argued that east european criminals (usually rather pale, right?) shall not be expelled since there is a whiteness culture in Sweden...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Karen, I'm sending you a message in here because I can't get the email function to work. You've been so instrumental in helping me reframe the discussion with the people in my life who insist that the male oppressor/female victim paradigm are the only reality. For example, I was at a loss as to how to respond to the new "me too" thing, then I saw your talk with Bettina Arndt, in which you challenged the idea that it's a horrible travesty for any woman to not always feel 100% safe: you pointed out that it's because of the masses of men who poured out their strength -- and literally their lives -- to build societies, that it is no longer "normal" for us to have to skitter around furtively like the squirrels.

    Anyhow, I first learned about you on JudgyBitch's blog -- a blog where a little community of us has gathered and been chatting and getting to know each other over the past few years...and as of today, her blog has been completely pulled off the web. I've emailed her a couple times, a few days back, with no response, whereas she used to generally respond to me within a day or so. I'm sure she has good reasons for going incognito, but losing this community will leave a huge hole in my life, and possibly the lives of others. So I've encouraged the guys (hopefully the messages are still going to people's emails) to try to meet up over here. I know you're very busy with "the yardening," but I'm hoping you might post more if and when you find the time.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!