I am 100% opposed to all forms of violence, as it ultimately does not get anything done.

The issue here is: how can the system possibly imagine that violence will not occur, given the levels of absolute abuse they subject us to?

Furthermore, the reason I am against violence is that I think it helps the enemy – not because I care if the enemies die, or think that it is sad that they die.

This judge who has had her family home shot up was involved in a war to destroy men. But we are supposed to feel outraged and bad for her when the violence that she did to men results in violent actions from men?

New York Times:

Roy Den Hollander was a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer who flooded the courts with seemingly frivolous lawsuits that sought to eliminate women’s studies programs and prohibit nightclubs from holding “ladies’ nights.”

In one of his most recent cases, he openly seethed against a federal judge in New Jersey, Esther Salas, whom he described in a self-published, 1,700-page book as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.”

Mr. Den Hollander left the case, in which he challenged the male-only United States military draft, last summer, telling a lawyer who replaced him that he had terminal cancer.

On Sunday afternoon, Mr. Den Hollander showed up at Judge Salas’s home in North Brunswick, N.J., and fired multiple gunshots, killing the judge’s son and seriously wounding her husband, who is a criminal defense lawyer, investigators said. The judge, who was in the basement at the time, was not injured.

The New York State Police found Mr. Den Hollander’s body near Liberty, N.Y. — about a two-hour drive from the judge’s home — after he shot himself in an apparent suicide, officials said.

The startling sequence of events was a reminder of the dangers encountered by judges, who typically do not receive special security outside the courthouse unless they face specific threats. Judge Salas worked in one of the busiest courthouses in the country, overseeing dozens of cases at a time involving a wide range of defendants and litigants.

The F.B.I. on Monday contacted New York State’s chief judge, Janet M. DiFiore, to notify her that Mr. Den Hollander had her name and photo in his car, according to her spokesman, Lucian Chalfen. The agents did not indicate whether Mr. Den Hollander had intended to target her as well, he said.

Investigators were exploring whether Mr. Den Hollander had decided to “take out” some of his enemies, given his cancer diagnosis, before he died, according to one law enforcement official.

Mr. Den Hollander, 72, identified with a broader movement of men who in often abusive, misogynist and hateful language rail against “feminazis.” He wrote numerous online screeds, some of which exceeded a thousand pages.

The idea that men “abuse” women is about as insane as the coronavirus hoax. It’s something that really speaks to just how distant the mainstream false reality is from anything resembling actual reality.

Mr. Den Hollander had a long history of filing lawsuits against programs that he believed favored women. In 2008, he told The New York Times that his anger toward feminists stemmed from his bitter divorce from a woman he married in Russia.

He called women “the real oppressors” in a 2008 Fox News appearance and wrote online about his grievances against female judges.

When investigators discovered Mr. Den Hollander’s body, they found a package nearby that was addressed to Judge Salas, according to a law enforcement official. The package was empty.

On Sunday afternoon, the judge’s husband was at home when he looked out the window and thought he saw a FedEx deliveryman.

Carlos Salas, an older brother of Judge Salas, described an account of the shooting that he said was provided to him by federal authorities. After the doorbell rang, the couple’s son opened the door and was shot. When the judge’s husband went over to see what happened, he was shot multiple times.

The judge ran upstairs from the basement when she heard a scream and the gunshots.

The judge’s husband, Mark Anderl, 63, was in the hospital in stable condition, Mr. Salas said. The couple’s son and only child, Daniel Anderl, 20, died from a gunshot wound to the heart.

Daniel Anderl was about to start his junior year at Catholic University of America in Washington and was interested in pursuing a legal career as his parents had.

“It’s surreal,” Mr. Salas said. “He was a vibrant, young, good-looking man. He had so much promise.”

…

Two law enforcement officials, cautioning that the investigation was in its earliest stages, said federal authorities were examining whether Mr. Den Hollander might be linked to the July 11 killing of another men’s rights lawyer, Marc Angelucci, in San Bernardino County, Calif.

Mr. Angelucci was shot at his front door by a gunman wearing a FedEx uniform, one of the officials said.

The FedEx uniform surprise attack is unique enough that yes, I would assume that it was probably the same guy.

Judge Salas, 51, is the first Hispanic woman to serve as a federal judge in New Jersey. President Barack Obama nominated her to the United States District Court for New Jersey in 2010. She had previously served as a magistrate judge and an assistant federal public defender.

She was also half-Jewish, which I guess the New York Times isn’t interested in people knowing.

Judge Salas met her husband when he was a prosecutor in the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office, according to a 2018 profile of her in New Jersey Monthly. After a decade as a prosecutor, Mark Anderl became a criminal defense lawyer and now works at his own law firm, Anderl & Oakley P.C.

According to the federal docket, the only case that Mr. Den Hollander had before Judge Salas was a class-action lawsuit filed in 2015. He accused the Selective Service System, the independent government agency that maintains a database of Americans eligible for a potential draft, of violating women’s equal protection rights by requiring only men to register with the service.

In a 2018 ruling, Judge Salas allowed the case to proceed, a victory for Mr. Den Hollander. But in his online writings, he criticized the judge for not moving the case along fast enough.

Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, said Mr. Den Hollander had called him in May 2019 and asked him to take over the case. The two lawyers had overlapped as associates at the white-shoe law firm Cravath Swaine & Moore in the late 1980s.

Mr. Den Hollander said in the phone call that he could not continue in the case because he had terminal cancer and suggested that he did not have long to live, Mr. Gravante said. The case is ongoing.

Mr. Den Hollander has also sued various nightclubs, claiming they violated the 14th Amendment by having “ladies’ nights” discounts for women. After the case was dismissed, Mr. Den Hollander petitioned the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

“Of course, the three females on the court probably voted against it,” Mr. Den Hollander told The Times in 2011. “Fighting for the rights of men is not very popular thing to do in America these days.”

In 2008, he accused Columbia University of trying to establish feminism as a “religion” at the school through its women’s studies program and proposed creating a men’s studies program that could “train males to recognize and handle the power females often use to manipulate them.”

Shortly before the 2016 presidential election, he filed a lawsuit in Manhattan accusing several prominent news reporters of conspiring together in violation of federal racketeering law to disseminate “misleading news reports” about President Trump.

Mr. Den Hollander’s online writings identified with the men’s rights movement, which gained traction in the late 1980s and 1990s as a response to the feminist critique of traditional masculinity.

The movement embraces “a celebration of all things masculine and a near infatuation with the traditional masculine role itself,” the sociologist, Michael Kimmel, wrote in his book “Angry White Men.”

In a 150-page document posted on his website, which has since been taken down, Mr. Den Hollander wrote extensive commentary about how to fight feminists and their supporters, describing the judiciary as “useless for men.”

“The courts support the violation of the rights of men whenever it benefits females,” Mr. Den Hollander wrote. “Men just don’t count to the courts.”

Mr. Den Hollander seemed to presage the violence that took place over the weekend in a 2010 article he wrote for A Voice for Men, a men’s rights website.

“The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely,” he wrote. “But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly — firearms.”

Den Hollander was an interesting guy. He was on Opie and Anthony once and was berated by tranny-lover Jim Norton. Seems to be a likable and good natured fellow, who is genuinely concerned about the fate of men.

While all violence has negative outcomes, and this action will result in further aggressive behavior by the FBI against the men’s rights community, some violence has much more negative consequences than other violence, and neo-Nazis are the absolute worst.

One thing that has to be noted is that the while men’s rights activists target judges, fitness-oriented Iranian vegan YouTubers target the YouTube headquarters, and QAnon believers target mob bosses, neo-Nazis are obsessed with shooting old people at synagogues.

People can look at Hollander’s crime, and at least understand why he was angry and why he chose this target, and they might feel that he was in some way justified.

Brenton Tarrant made a point to target a mosque that had been involved in recruitment of terrorists, and that went over very well with the Breitbart crowd.

All violence results in negative things being done to the right, but only neo-Nazis are stupid enough to target the most sympathetic people possible, which are also completely useless targets.

Keep It Together, We Need You

There is no possible path to any kind of victory through random violence, and that is something all of us need to internalize. Of course, we shouldn’t apologize for the inevitable violence that does happen, and should instead simply say: “this was inevitable, you can’t just do this to people and expect none of them to eventually snap.”

I do my best to always tell my readers not to ever talk about or even think about violence, and to keep people from snapping, because if they do it, then we lose a good guy who could have contributed to something else.

These random acts of violence simply provide fodder to hurt us and to take our guns which we are going to need in the future.

If you get the urge to do something violent, go get involved in local politics, and let your energy out that way. In local politics, you’re doing something that is absolutely constructive for the future of this country. The country is going to break apart, probably pretty soon, and if you have a position in a local government, you are in a position where you can assist with the effort to give our people freedom from this system.

                                                                                                                               
“Excuse me, do you have my stapler?”

Peter C. Baker at the Jew York Times gave David Futrelle his first ever blowjob yesterday.

That’s the only word that could describe the promotional profile, which presented Futrelle as some sort of sardonic internet vigilante holding back the Nazi night.

David Futrelle: Tumblr thought-crime fighter

In reality, all this fink does is copy and paste young men blowing off steam about women in their own spaces online. The entries are followed by feline Comic Book Guy style “Worst. Post. Ever…” snark.

People with low self-esteems are attracted to Leftism because being a sycophant for the status quo is easy validation.

Being a man nowadays is hard, Futrelle takes the easy route. He is celebrated by elites at the Gray Yenta because he proudly accepts his status as a eunuch – what feminist women themselves deride as “Cuck Bois.”

New York Times:

In the final days of May, after police in Portland, Ore., reported that Jeremy Joseph Christian stabbed three men on a train, killing two of them, an unusual theory as to why the attack occurred emerged in certain parts of the internet. Mainstream commentators had already pointed to Christian’s alt-right flavored racism, which seemed obvious enough; the victims, after all, had been defending two Muslim women from his Islamophobic abuse, according to the police. Others raised the possibility that Christian was mentally unstable. But according to this new theory, the primary blame lay not with Christian at all and instead with an ideology internalized by the victims.

“Two good men killed by chivalry,” tweeted Paul Elam, a notorious figure in the field of “men’s rights activism.” “Let this be a lesson to your sons.” In follow-up tweets, Elam elaborated: If the victims had not been culturally conditioned to risk their lives on women’s behalf, they would still be alive. Therefore, while Christian was heading to trial, the real perpetrator was America’s anti-male status quo.

I don’t follow Elam on Twitter. I came across his theory only thanks to the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, run by a 51-year-old Chicagoan named David Futrelle. In a post called “Killed by Chivalry: Everything Wrong With the Men’s Right’s Movement in One Tweet,” Futrelle mockingly summarized Elam’s hypotheses and then went on to argue — making heavy reference to Elam’s writing over the years — that this “killer chivalry” argument epitomized a general disdain in the men’s rights movement not only for women but for the very notions of altruism and empathy.

Over the course of seven years spent running We Hunted the Mammoth, Futrelle has made himself an expert on the “manosphere”: the amorphous, fractious constellation of online men’s groups united in their belief that feminism is ruining the world. Most days, he trawls a constantly-updated list of sites he hates (including Elam’s “A Voice for Men”), seeking out arguments he finds repulsive, baffling and, he admits, fascinating to watch play out in real time. Clicking through his list, he reads post after post, charting the themes and preoccupations of the day, the latest catchphrases and memes, the shifting alliances and disputes.

“I plunge myself into this endlessly swirling caldron, and I see what’s new,” Futrelle told me recently. When he began the site in 2010, it was an after-work hobby. Since 2014, it has become a full-time enterprise, bankrolled by advertising revenue and PayPal donations from his readers. Most of those readers, Futrelle says, are women, for whom the site’s lively discussion threads offer a place they can talk (and laugh and cry and yell) about internet misogyny without being harassed on all sides by internet misogynists. The discussion under “Killed by Chivalry” quickly stretched to over 700 comments.

Futrelle’s journey toward his idiosyncratic career began in the late 2000s, when he kept finding himself in long, drawn-out Reddit arguments with self-described men’s rights activists (M.R.A.s, in manosphere shorthand). At first he was shocked to discover that M.R.A.s even existed — that there really was, in his words, “a group of guys who saw men as America’s most oppressed class.” Some of these men, he realized early on, were hardened misogynists or trolls: They argued that only men should be allowed to vote, or they gleefully condoned the use of violence to keep women in their proper place. But some of the less extreme posters reminded Futrelle uncomfortably of his younger self. Looking back on his high-school years, he saw himself as under the sway of some of the same flawed assumptions prevalent among the M.R.A.s.

“Like the ‘nice guy’ fallacy,” he told me, referring to the implicit belief that being persistently “nice” to a woman could lead to her owing you sex. “It’s rapey and gross. But it’s very widespread. And I had a little bit of it, back then.” Challenging those notions online sometimes felt, for Futrelle, like a form of penance; whether he was changing minds or not, he felt compelled to keep arguing.

Futrelle started his own site in 2010, originally under the goofy name Man Boobz, aiming to build a stand-alone repository of careful anti-M.R.A. analysis. Perhaps, he speculated, his site could become a web destination that a confused young man might conceivably stumble upon while Googling for answers. “That does happen, now and then,” he told me. “I’ll get an email saying, you know, ‘Thanks, I was going down a bad path.’ ” At first, almost all of his readers were committed M.R.A.s; they had followed him for Reddit so they could leave argumentative comments under whatever he wrote about them. But within just a few months, Futrelle was attracting a significant female audience: women eager to learn what men were getting up to online but put off by the prospect of trudging through the manosphere themselves.

“He’s basically our filter for looking at an eclipse,” said Jaclyn Friedman, a feminist writer and activist who relied on Futrelle and his site while assembling an early guide to the manosphere for The American Prospect, in 2013. As Friedman’s work became more visible, she was increasingly mentioned in the manosphere or contacted by its participants, occasionally in posts or emails suggesting she deserved to be raped or killed; Futrelle, she says, would help her sift through the threats, using his experience to make judgments about which were worth taking seriously.

…

As Donald Trump blustered his way to the presidency, Futrelle watched the manosphere thrill to the rule-breaking candidate as an avatar of their collective worldview: an old-school misogynist unshackled by politically correct strictures; a self-proclaimed anti-elite outsider but also a boastful “alpha” male who unapologetically did what he wanted with the political establishment, much like, it was gleefully pointed out, a powerful pickup artist or “seduction artist” did what he wanted with unsuspecting women.

“It’s hard to overstate the extent to which, for a lot of these guys, Trump is a wet dream come true,” Futrelle said. Increasingly, staying on top of his beat has meant adding more destinations to his daily roster, following his manosphere subjects as they branched out to a new generation of racist alt-right stamping grounds and meme-filled neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer, which, as he documented, was now making calculated appeals to a manosphere readership, claiming that all-male neo-Nazi clubs could be hubs for sharing tips and tricks on how to “hunt and capture your own women.”

Like Chapo Trap House, the system is giving Futrelle’s corporate product free promotion because the liberal bench is shallow and we’re winning the culture war.  This is a good sign, it means they can’t find the young Woody Guthrie or Rage Against The Machine so they have to settle for Man Boobz the internet blogger.

The “rules” Futrelle is so upset about people breaking are that feminism and the sexual revolution can never be challenged. Not even among teenage boys playing computer games.

That’s because the whole house is built on sand. One puff from the big bad Fascist wolf and Futrelle is blown the fuck out along with his wall of framed cat pictures.

And by the way David, since I know you’re reading this, just know that all the women who comment on your website would rather sleep with a misogynistic, muscular and dominant “Neo-Nazi” who berates them over you.

In Florida, there is an ongoing drama involving a father trying to force the mother of his child – they were never married – to mutilate the genitals of their 4-year-old son.

The mother signed an agreement way back in 2011 wherein the boy’s genitals would be mutilated by a doctor, and then she changed her mind, like “well, why should I cut up this baby’s sexual organs?” Now, this many years later, the father is demanding the agreement be enforced, not only against the mother’s will but the desire of the child himself, who wishes to keep his entire penis.

Clearly, the man is acting to punish the woman. They are not Jews or Moslems, and no one seriously believes this gibberish about not getting STDs – not to be vulgar here, but that would only be a relevant thing if you don’t clean your penis after sex; also, assuming this kid is going to be banging AIDS-ridden heroin hookers without condoms is a radical thought-pattern. Though I have to admit there is some drive in human beings to use children against an estranged former lover, it is a sick and evil act this man is engaging in.

Things escalated this week, with the judge in the case – who appears to be a Jew – demanding that the mother surrender the boy for mutilation or by arrested.

“Arrested” mean you are held against your will under the threat of force by the state. Effectively, this woman is being forced at gunpoint to surrender her son for mutilation.

Sun-Sentinel:

A West Boynton mom is now under court orders to let her 4-year-old son be circumcised, or she will be jailed.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen on Friday said Heather Hironimus is in contempt of court for violating a 2012 parenting plan with the boy’s father that authorizes the circumcision, and for recently disappearing with the child.

After dad, Dennis Nebus, of Boca Raton, testified he can’t find his son, the judge told the mom’s just-hired new attorney that she has until 2 p.m. Tuesday to appear in his courtroom with the child or the judge will sign a warrant for her arrest.

Gillen said it was “reprehensible” that Hironimus — who violated an order to appear in court Friday with the child — has kept the boy’s location hidden from the father since Feb. 20, as he was making arrangements with a Broward doctor to remove the child’s foreskin.

“I will allow her to avoid incarceration or get out of jail if she signs the consent to the procedure,” Gillen told attorney Thomas Hunker, who said he doesn’t know where his client is.

The judge also ordered the media not to release the name of the child, and also asked reporters to be “sensitive” about identifying the parents, “Not in deference to me, but in deference to the protection of the individuals involved.”

The boy’s name is Chase. Here is a webpage set up to defend his natural human right to genital integrity, and here is the official Facebook page.

Attorneys for the Sun Sentinel filed an emergency motion seeking to vacate the order as unconstitutional. A different circuit judge, Moses Baker Jr., denied the motion, ruling it did not fit the definition of an emergency because it didn’t involve “matters of life and death or instances of irreparable harm.”

…

Gillen Friday said Hironimus had willfully violated the parenting plan — which she initially agreed to — that made the father responsible for arranging the circumcision.

The judge also said the mom had worked with the circumcision opposition groups to have her child’s photos and name “plastered all over the Internet” in a “direct, contemptous violation of this court’s orders.”

Looks to me like the normal, natural behavior of a woman trying to do everything to protect the vitality of her child. This is the strongest force on planet earth. She is simply exploiting available resources to fulfill her prime directive, which is the protect of her child from forces trying to hurt him.

In May, Judge Gillen ordered the mother to comply with the signed plan and circumcision, and he warned her not to tell her son she was against the procedure.

Nebus said the mother has frightened the boy.

“My son has mentioned things to me that he’s scared to have his penis cut off,” he testified Friday.

The mother has argued the circumcision is not medically necessary, and she challenged Gillen’s May order in the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach. The appellate court upheld Gillen’s decision without comment.

Attorneys for both the mother and father have since filing competing court pleadings requesting that the judge rule in their favor. The mother last month filed a request for an injunction to block the circumcision, which was immediately denied.

“There is no reason this case has to have gone this far, under these circumstances, drawing this much attention to a little boy,” Gillen said Friday. “There is just no reason.”

The reason, Judge, is that this woman wants to protect her child by not mutilating his body in a barbaric and Satanic Jewish blood ritual to honor their sick desert demon-gods. Their is nothing more vile and sickening than state-sanctioned mutilation of children’s genitals, and the only reason we have this in America is that we are a nation occupied and controlled by Jewish rats.

The banning of circumcision is a very worthy cause to fight for. It should be banned entirely in all civilized countries. Campaigning for this indirectly brings light to the dark sickness that is Judaism (and Islam). It is only a backward, perverse people that could ever have thought it was a good idea to purposefully deform the sexual organs of small children.

Obviously, no one agrees with female circumcision – almost always referred to as “female genital mutilation” – and we hear constantly about how bad it is and how we need to spend our tax dollars going to Africa to try and convince the heathens to stop doing it. But somehow, male circumcision – which is never referred to as “male genital mutilation” – is a-okay and dandy fine. There is a subtext here that because the Jewish rats and Moslem monkeys do it, it would be wrong to question it.

It needs to be illegal. If these savages want to cut up their babies’ sex organs, they can go do it in their filthy desert hell. This has nothing to do with us.

Editor’s Note: This article is mainly intended for the fans of Sargon of Akkad, who now perhaps view me in a negative light, maybe even as the type of evil monster, who is also stupid, which Sargon has portrayed me as in his video response to my critique of his analysis of the Rotherham scandal.  I dare you all to read it all the way through, and to let me know what you think in the comments section.

So, Sargon of Akkad responded to my essay criticizing his video wherein he laid exclusive blame for the Rotherham Pakistani child-rape scandal on British political correctness.  The response was much more hostile than I had expected, given that I didn’t really understand that he was as much of an liberal as he is.

He is not a reactionary.  He is simply an SJW who hates women.

Assuming that he leaned further to the right than he actually does also led to several other mistakes on my part in my original critique, which I will briefly mention.

Firstly, I assumed that certain arguments were understood, which were in fact not understood by him or his audience.  The title of my article, “Sargon of Akkad Needs to Address His Implicit Support for Pakistani Child-Rape,” was also inappropriate, given that it was made with the assumption that he would understand this was meant to be a provocation based on the end result of his logic.

Because we do have a bottom line here, that infinite squirming cannot make disappear: if there weren’t any Pakis in Britain, there would not have been a single little girl raped by Pakis.  Period.  There is no point at which that statement stops being true.

Still, it would probably have been prudent to leave him more of an opening than I did, rather than forcing him to push SJW positions that he clearly has not thought through.  Now he is in a position where he will have to either admit he was wrong, or lie to himself for the rest of his life, pretending all of the used-up liberal talking points he presented in his video are true.

But you know, I’m American – we are not much for leaving openings.

One more thing before I get into the response to Sargon’s response: I want to say why I wrote a criticism of his video in the first place.

On the whole, I believe that people who are criticizing modern liberalism, and not talking about the invasion, are wasting time.  Obviously, here on the Daily Stormer, we talk about all sorts of issues with the modern system, from historical revisionism to gay “marriage.”  However, the main issue, the one which we nail ceaselessly, is the replacement of our population with hordes of non-Whites.  Because we can pass a law banning homosexuality, we can remove the vote from women, we can redistribute wealth.  One thing we can never do, however, is reclaim our homelands once the hordes reach a saturation point and declare themselves rulers.  There is simply no going back from that.  Once it is done, it is done.

I was fine with Sargon being a reactionary who focused exclusively on the feminist issue.  I have watched many of his videos, and not really disagreed with any of it.  However, if that is where he feels comfortable, even if it is simply because he wants to remain on YouTube, that’s fine.  But seeing him blame the British people for Pakistani child rape gangs was something that needed addressed.

And address it I did.

Now, it is time to address his response, and this time I am not going to leave any room for confusion.

This is going to be long, because I have been portrayed as some sort of know-nothing fool (again, mainly to my own miscalculation, having assumed that certain basics of reactionary thinking were understood by our friend Sargon) and it is necessary that I make my arguments crystal.

One thing I will not be doing is accusing Sargon of logical fallacies and then linking to Wikipedia articles explaining them, as in my view, when people do this on the internet (a popular technique among “gotcha” pseudo-intellectuals) it is meant to purposefully distort the discussion by obfuscating much more basic issues of fact which are capable of standing on their own without being abstracted into philosophical principles which the average reader – or indeed the average arguer posting links to them – may or may not be capable of grasping.

Now Then, Let’s Begin Then

Sargon’s video relies heavily on the punchy dry-humor which makes Sargon a popular YouTube personality.  He is not known for introducing new ideas, and that is fine, we like to watch his videos anyway because he recycles other people’s ideas in a way which is fun.  Often very fun.  Regrettably, with this video, the ideas he recycles are tired SWJ memes which could have been pulled directly from any random Tumblr blog.

#NotAllMuslims

Early on in the video, he declares that “not all Moslems are child-rapists.”  This is, of course, an obvious and obviously irrelevant fact.  He then claims I have missed the point of the video, saying “I was not addressing why the non-White Moslems were doing anything.  I don’t give a fuck why they were raping children, I really don’t.  Whatever their reason for that was a bad one.  The failure for preventing to this was because of political correctness.”

It seems to me, the reason they did it is something we should all be concerned about, assuming we wish to prevent it from continuing.  Unless of course your position is that the failure of Moslems to behave as civilized human beings while living as guests in civilized societies is entirely the responsibility of the authorities in the nation which they reside, which, bizarrely, appears to be Sargon’s position.

The sexual molestation and penetration of pre-pubescent children (generally considered rape in Western thought, although in Moslem culture in would usually be consensual on the part of the little girl) is an institution within the Islamic religion. Muhammed penetrated his favorite wife Aisha when she was nine, and used to masturbate with her in the bathtub when she was as young as six.  As Muhammed is considered the ideal man by the god Allah and thus all Moslems, the rape of children is considered morally acceptable within the mainstream of the Islamic faith across the planet.

So when we say “not all Moslems are child-rapists,” we are not saying “not all Moslems condone child-rape,” because in fact, as the Koran is considered the uncontested word of Allah and Muhammed the ideal man, they do, or by their own definition they aren’t Moslems.

Regarding Moslems and rape, Sweden now has the highest rape rate in Europe, exclusively due to Moslem immigration.

And regarding non-Whites and rape, the statistics in America might also be of interest.  Annually, Black Americans rape an average of about 20,000 White women, according to FBI statistics.

In my view, the culture of Islam is an expression of the races which adopt Islam.  This would certainly go a long way towards explaining while after being occupied by Moslems for 400 years, Greeks did not convert to Islam, after 700 years that Spanish didn’t, while Afghanistan and large parts of old India converted without much resistance at all after being conquered.

“Serbian” Sex Trafficking

He then uses articles about sex trafficking as proof that “White people also do this.”

Firstly, I find Googling up a single situation where Whites allegedly engaged in systematic sexual abuse to be highly intellectually dishonest, and probably a violation of one of your Wikipedia links about logical fallacies, given that we know that Rotherham is not some Moslem fluke, but something non-Whites and Moslems in particular have been engaging in since our first historical contact with them.  Moslems spent hundreds of years raiding Europe for White sex slaves, both for their brothels and for forced marriages.  You’ll note that the closer to Europe a group of Arabs is, the lighter their skin tone.  The entire 700 year long Moslem occupation of the Iberian Peninsula was basically a gigantic Rotherham affair.  Moslem pirates continually raided every European coast – all the way up to Iceland, in fact – for more than a thousand years, mainly for the purpose of stealing White women.  The Moslem obsession with White sex slaves is one of the defining aspects of Western history, and the main reason for the Crusades.

So, “Yeah, but, this one time in Serbia…” is just a completely ridiculous response, man.

But anyway, let’s talk about Serbia.  Full disclosure: you hit a bit of a nerve with this one.  The insults to the Serbs were much more offensive than the insults against me personally, which, as you can imagine, I’m very used to, given that I am probably the most hated man on the internet.

I’ve spent about a year of my life living in Serbia, so I know a thing or two about the place.  Anything to do with sex-trafficking is run by Albanian Moslems.  That is why, when you read about “Serbian sex trafficking,” you read about the women coming from different countries across the Balkans and Eastern Europe.  Why do they go through Serbia?  Because this is where the Albanian colony is, and Albanians are the only people in Europe who – as an ethnic group, we’re not talking about individuals here – are willing to involve themselves in large-scale human trafficking.

Again, the fact that you brought this up as your example, Sargon, shows that you had to do quite a bit of searching to find one example, and obviously you didn’t know anything about it previously, or you would have known that these are Albanians (which in itself shows serious general ignorance, given that this is common knowledge across Europe), and thus your example goes to prove my original assertion: sex trafficking, on any scale you can label “systematic” is done by either Moslems or Jews.

Sargon goes on to continue to attack the Serbs by bringing up atrocity lies from the NATO/Albanian/Muslim Bosniak war against the Serbs, citing the UN’s ICTY claims that mass rapes of Moslem women took place, and were ordered by high-ranking Serbian military officers.  Though I’m sure rapes did take place during the Balkan wars – I’m sure of that because rapes have taken place in every war which has ever happened in history – I don’t really put too much on the Nuremberg-style tribunal’s claims and coerced confessions.

However, if you want to somehow equate wartime rape by Slavs to systematic grooming and trafficking of children by Pakistanis in Britain, you could just cite the Soviet use of rape as a weapon against the Germans during WWII, because that actually did happen, and we have physical proof in the form of all of these half-Russian babies that were born after the war.  Interestingly, members Soviet army, being managed by Jews, were the only group who systematically used rape as a weapon of war during WWII, and the only American soldiers accused of rape (in any statistically significant numbers) were Negroes, who were actually raping French women.  Negroes fighting for the French also committed mass-rape of German women during WWI.

Seriously though, comparing wartime rape by any group to Rotherham is ridiculous.  Wartime and peacetime are very, very different things, and equating them demonstrates a high level of either intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity or both.

And obviously, there is no example of British people running grooming gangs, and as I was never arguing for mass Serbian immigration into Britain, even if your facts here were not all mixed-up, they would be irrelevant.

Race and Culture

Sargon then goes on to spew the same Marxist gibberish we have all heard from the SJWs and their Frankfurt School predecessors for our entire lives: race and culture are two different things.  Race is something you are born with, while culture just appears randomly through a process of… whatever.

And if a race cannot be identified by a series of behavior patterns which produces a cultural identity, then race itself doesn’t actually exist beyond some rather striking physical differences, and so what we refer to as “race” is in fact a product of a culture, which is a product of some mysterious process no one really seems to be able to put their finger on (although Jared Diamond gave a backward explanation of it, saying that culture was a result of environment, which is technically true, though it is race which is a product of environment through the process of natural selection, and race which then goes on to create culture; the entire thing was a viciously bizarre dance around the obvious).

This “race is a social construct” business is a rejection of the existence of genetic science and evolutionary biology in favor of a theory of magical happenings.  Honestly, it is surprising that even SJWs continue to spout this claptrap, given that even NYT Bestsellers are refuting it.  Someone such as Sargon, who claims to be against political correctness, resorting to an argument which was invented to serve as the central pillar of political correctness is shocking.

A Convenient Fantasy

The Jew Franz Boas first invented the idea that race is a social construct in order to combat the concepts of racialist anti-Semitism which emerged following the rise of Darwinian theory.  At the time, the universal view by the scientific establishment was that culture was a result of race, which was in turn a result of evolutionary development.

Wikipedia:

Boas was one of the most prominent opponents of the then popular ideologies of scientific racism, the idea that race is a biological concept and that human behavior is best understood through the typology of biological characteristics.

…

Among Boas’s main contributions to anthropological thought was his rejection of the then popular evolutionary approaches to the study of culture, which saw all societies progressing through a set of hierarchic technological and cultural stages, with Western-European culture at the summit. Boas argued that culture developed historically through the interactions of groups of people and the diffusion of ideas, and that consequently there was no process towards continuously “higher” cultural forms.

Boas’ student Margaret Mead applied his logic in her studies of Samoan society (the data was later found to have been faked almost in its entirety, but that isn’t really the point here), coming up with the idea (rather, popularizing Boas’ idea) that because culture was a social rather than a biological construct, the sexual norms of primitive island people could be forced on developed western White nations and would liberate them from their oppressive puritanical Christian sexual mores (which, by the way, the Jew Sigmund Freud had recently blamed for anti-Semitism) and lead them into a new age of enlightenment.

Mead’s theory of sexual liberation through the adoption of primitive sexual promiscuousness then was heavily influential on the Jew Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique and the mother of modern feminism.  It was upon the works of Friedan that the Jew Gloria Steinem based her revolution.  And the rest, as they say, is history.

You see, this is why it is very bizarre for me to see someone who is against feminism (and claims to oppose political correctness as a whole) is so emotionally attached to modern liberal concepts of racial equality. In an educated man, this disconnect would have to be the result of some form of schizophrenia.  But in your case, I believe it relates to a lack of information.

Following a different “race is a social construct so culture is necessarily fluid because there is no objective basis for it” historical thread, Boas’ thinking was also heavily influential on the Jew Frankfurt School, which, as the fountainhead of critical theory, is pretty well universally credited as the source of modern political correctness.  Sexual liberation, feminism, gay liberation, cultural relativism, racial equality and all other pillars of what is sometimes called “cultural Marxism” originated here, and the ideas were then disseminated through the American university system by a large group of Jews fleeing Hitler who were given positions in the education system, often based on faked credentials.

Then came the revolutions of the sixties.

Key Frankfurt School icon Theodor Adorno would have agreed with your analysis of me as an evil fascist because I identify with my race and my family of origin.  In his book The Authoritarian Personality, which was funded by the American Jewish Committee, he describes a need to break down familial and national bonds for the purpose of preventing another Holocaust of the Jews.  This is considered the seminal work which established the necessity of destroying masculinity in order to further social progress, which, as you are aware, is a key concept of the modern feminist movement as well as the anti-racist movement (which are really the same movement).

An Alternative View

My own view, as a Fascist and a “horrible person” as you called me, draws from the pre-war (that is, pre-Jewish domination of Western society) views of sociology based in Darwinian theory, which looked at race as a biological construct and culture as an expression of biology.

Note: In attempting to swallow the following red pill, you would do very, very well to remember that all dogs have a singular ancestor, probably going back less than 12,000 years (which is a significantly shorter time-frame than that of the evolutionary variance between the various human races).  And yet the intelligence, size temperament and overall orientation of different breeds of dogs are very different.

This is obviously a huge topic, but the simplest aspect of it is IQ.  The higher average IQ of a society, the more complex it is going to be both socially, technologically and morally.

Here is a map of global IQ averages:

The correlation between IQ and economic and material development is so obvious one would literally have to be brainwashed to deny that in this situation, correlation implies causation. Of course, SJWs are indeed brainwashed enough to claim this is just some astronomical coincidence which has no real explanation but is somehow White people’s fault, with the less-educated ones claiming that IQ isn’t biologically determined.  Emotionally mature adults, however, can generally accept that Africa is poor because Black people are just incredibly stupid.

So then, if we accept that IQ has an effect on economic and material development, we would have to assume that the social orders of these variant groups are largely determined by the same genetic variances which determine their IQs.  That is, culture, like intelligence, is a biological construct.

Another big thing, which I don’t have the space to go into in much detail in this already much too long piece, is the difference between collectivist and individualist societies.  This is social phenomena that you would no doubt attribute to culture, and I suppose I would to, it is merely that we have vastly different understandings of the nature of culture.  If Southeastern Asians – Thais, for example – are the most collectivist culture (technically Jews would be the most collectivist, but I’m trying to keep the Jew talk to a minimum here, as I don’t want to overwhelm you), Northern Europeans are the most individualistic culture.  This is due, like everything about humans and all other living things, to evolutionary development – the way our Northern race developed in our particular environment necessitated the nuclear family as the core unit, while most non-Whites developed with the tribe as the core unit.

Within individualist societies based around the nuclear family, altruism is a necessary biological trait, required for the maintenance of the social order.  You must show trust to people you are not emotionally close to, and you must be willing to share with people who are outside of your kin-group.  Presumably the reasons for that are obvious if you think about it for a few seconds (or minutes or hours, depending on your IQ), assuming you have some general understanding of the lifestyle of prehistoric Northern European people.

All races which have adopted Islam are races with a collectivist social orientation. This is why when a riot breaks out in some Arab country, everyone goes out on the street and joins in, even if they don’t really understand what the riot is about.  They do it because the group is doing it, and as people with a biological nature defined by collectivism, individual thought does not enter into group behavior.  Of course you can pull up some news article and say “well, this one time White people rioted in some country somewhere, so that means we’re all exactly the same,” but if we are adults with at least a little bit of intellectual honesty, we can certainly note that Moslems (and Blacks, of course) are generally much more prone to going out and rioting for reasons that very often unclear.

Another aspect of collectivist racial groups is that they view everything in terms of in-group and out-group.  This concept is in no way intuitive to those with a biological inclination toward individualism, and thus if it is not understood on the intellectual level – and because it is not allowed to be taught in schools due to political correctness, it is generally not understood on the intellectual level – a person with a biological inclination toward individualism will project their own psychological framework onto those with a collectivist psychological framework (this is a very important point – we as Whites are constantly projecting our modes of thought on non-Whites in the same way that we as men are constantly projecting our modes of thought on women).

For myself, I realized these things while living in Asia during my early twenties, and then went back and read a bunch of evil pre-war fascist writers (and Kevin MacDonald) to confirm what I had myself observed.  However, most people don’t spend years living in Asia, nor do they read evil pre-war fascist literature, so they never grasp this fundamentally important concept: if you are dealing with a collectivist racial group, and you are not part of that collective, you do not have any value beyond what you are able to offer them.  That doesn’t mean they won’t joke around and be friendly with you – which you will interpret as kinship behavior, due to your own orientation – but it does mean that they will rape your kids and feel nothing.

It is the biological inclination of Europeans to believe that if someone behaves abusively toward you, it must be due to something you have done wrong, because that is the way it worked in the old times.  Everyone was individualistic in psychological orientation, so we all treated each other altruistically, and negative social responses were usually due to violations of social etiquette.

This is the origin of “White guilt.”  We see that no matter what we do for the non-White races, they continue to fail, endlessly.  Just fail and fail and fail.  They then act aggressively toward us.  Our natural, biological response is then to believe that we are somehow doing something wrong to them, or they wouldn’t act this way.  We then decide to give them more and more and more.  And as we give, they take, and they complain that we haven’t done enough.  So we give more.

This can be shown to be obviously true by looking at the difference between Sweden and Italy.  Both have adopted political correctness and White guilt, because both are European peoples, but Sweden, being home to the “Whitest” Europeans have adopted it to the point where they are literally destroying their own nation on purpose, importing millions of foreigners who will overwhelm and take control of the country within our lifetimes.  In Italy, a more Southern people, they still have elements of collectivism, and so are internalizing White guilt on a lesser scale, demonstrating more resistance toward the invading aliens.

Following all of this, when we import people from different races and thereby different cultures (all races have different cultures, which is an accepted fact, even by race-deniers), we are not only bringing in lower-IQ persons, who will thereby lower the economic and material status of our nations, but also bringing in persons with hard-wired cultural norms and behavior patterns which will clash with our own, and who have no desire to behave altruistically toward people who are not members of their in-group.

And that is why we have Rotherham.

Other Examples

The reality of culture as a racial and thus biological construct is so painfully obvious, there is not even a single case in history which disproves the rule.  Blacks in America have turned Detroit – formerly one of the most advanced cities in America – into an African ghetto.  When the Blacks stole Rhodesia, they collapsed the whole place and turned it into one of the poorest countries in the world.  They did the same thing to Haiti.

Arabs have turned the suburbs of Paris into violent drug-ghettos.

As I’ve mentioned, Sweden has the highest rape rate in Europe.

Conversely, Whites went to the Americas and to Southern Africa, and turned them into Europe.

And if it’s all just skin color, as you claim in your video, why are yellow-skinned people doing so incredibly well?

To take the neo-Marxist position that this is all some kind of weird coincidence, maybe related to socio-economics or vague forms of invisible racism, or whatever, is simply pathetic.

Look at the IQ map again.  If all low-IQ countries are only coincidentally low-IQ, and in reality are only poor because of totally nonsensical institutionalized hatred of skin colors, why did they never develop their own civilizations, ever?  And before “Moslems did have a civilization,” it was actually Turks who turned Islam into a civilization, and Turks were yellow Asian Mongols who had fully mixed blood with the Whites who had inhabited Anatolia when they arrived, and the collapse of their civilization – which wasn’t really much anyway, but they did control a lot of land – was due to excessive mixing with the genetically lower Arab population.

Another angle here – why are even “edgy” MRAs such as yourself so quick to turn to insults and claims of stupidity as soon as these topics are broached?  You may disagree with all of this, Sargon, but is it really fair to characterize me as a knuckle-dragging retard?  Why did the Nobel Prize winner, discoverer of DNA James Watson, have his career destroyed for mentioning the obvious and scientifically confirmed fact that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites?  Is he also a complete idiot, who must be shunned lest his idiocy spread to the enlightened mass of liberals?

If I am really as stupid and hateful as you claim, why are my ideas such a threat that it is in many countries now illegal for me to even voice them publicly?

Yes, Political Correctness is Responsible

I agree with the statement “political correctness is responsible for Rotherham,” I just don’t agree with your explanation of how that played out.  Of course, I can agree with your statements that if it were not for fear of being called racist, the council and police would have addressed the problem, and fewer girls would have been raped.  That is simply an obvious fact.

But, Sargon, it is your own political correctness which is at the root of this problem, and that is your cultural Marxist belief that different races are all the same and that we simply need to educate these savages in our wise Western ways of morality (you must also believe you could teach a Pomeranian to herd sheep).

And just think for a second here: what if you’re wrong?

If I’m wrong, we’ll be out a few kebab shops, lose the opportunity to see some colorful men with towels wrapped around their heads, colorful women in ghost costumes walking down our streets.

If you’re wrong, you will have been responsible for the destruction of Western civilization.

By far the saddest part of the video was when Sargon played a clip of a working-class British man at a rally against Moslem rape gangs for the purpose of mocking him and the working class in general.

Abuse and mockery of working people is yet another pillar of the SJW movement which Sargon embodies.  Because of course, it is this idiot with the funny-sounding speech who is too stupid to understand the vast benefits of diversity – let’s just ignore the fact that he is the same idiot who has to live next to the council estate (for Americans, that’s the equivalent of Section 8) filled with the non-Whites, while Sargon with his middle class English is able to avoid confrontations with the colorfuls – at least he is able to avoid all confrontations where the chain of power isn’t clearly defined.

He mocked this young man in connection to my statement that the EDL was a “shill organization.”  I was not calling the boy he mocked a shill, but the leadership of the organization, which refuses to acknowledge Islam as a racial phenomenon, and also has aligned itself with the Jews.

I Don’t Expect a Second Response

So, Sargon can produce a second response to this if he wants, and I will respond to that, but I’m thinking this is probably the end. The only way he could possibly respond at this point would be to go much, much deeper into Marxist concepts, at which point his entire operation and possibly his own psyche would collapse.

He believed he could occupy some mythical middle ground, and what I have just done is demonstrated that no such middle ground exists.  Though he definitely had this coming, I don’t take joy in destroying people in the way I just destroyed him.

We have both said what we need to say, and my purpose is accomplished: I demonstrated that Sargon of Akkad is not a reactionary intellectual, he’s just a liberal who hates women.  I have agreed with all of his anti-feminist videos I’ve seen, but the fact that he opposes feminism while toeing the mainstream line on much more important issues demonstrates that he has some personal issue with women which is not directly tied to a larger political agenda in the way anti-feminism is for myself and others on the reactionary right.

On the scale of things, feminism is not the least of our worries, but it certainly is far from the greatest.

Funnily enough, when the Moslems whom Sargon defends do eventually take over Europe, they will indeed get rid of the feminism he so opposes.

Thank you all for reading this, and Sargon and his followers are welcome to comment and criticize freely.

And Sargon: Even though you said some very nasty things about me, which as a gentleman I believe were completely uncalled for, there are no hard feelings on my end, and I truly hope that there will come a day when we can stand in opposition to the forces of darkness and death which seek to destroy everything we are as a people.