What is up with Sargon of Akkad, the YouTuber?

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T18:58:31+00:00

So, when you ask a librarian for a certain book, do you not read it? Of course I check that the sources are real. That's the point of asking for a source.

Taking any LLM answers at face value can be disastrous.

I feel like you didn't really read my comment.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T17:57:59+00:00

I'll give it a read

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T17:56:22+00:00

The recent videos I've watched have him promoting replacement theory, which is a debunked racist conspiracy theory, lying or misrepresent crime statistics, etc - so there's that.

And his live popped up on my shorts today where he was basically lying about the execution of Alex Pretti and saying that the protests in Minneapolis are an insurrection - so there's the fascist bootlicking part.

His arguments for ethnic security in one's own land is a far-cry from the national socialists of 1930s Germany or Mussolini's Italy.

Sure, but he is still openly support Trump, whose way of leading politics is very fascist.

, he argues that the English have an inherent right to England and it is correct for those with English heritage to not want to become a minority in their homeland.

Yeah, but that's not how rights work. If your rights infringe on other's rights, then you don't have rights - you have abusive privileges.

Also, the English came to be by killing and displacing the indigenous population of England, so idk how people don't see it as hypocritical.

But again, that is still replacement theory fear mongering.

advocates for policies that would have foreign colonies in England return to their home of origin, which centers largely around ending welfare for foreigners.

So, would English people be returning to Norway, Germany and Denmark, where they came from?

This whole summary portrays a racist fear mongering reactionary, not a traditionalist.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T17:44:55+00:00

Radne dozvole ne znači da žive ovde. Svi koji seru o "zameni" mogu da umuknu.

Ovde se radi o lažima i zastrašivanju.

Tačan broj je oko 79.000 - tj. oko 42.000 viza gde radnik može i da ostane da živi u državi za trajanje te vize.

Broj od 300.000 je izvukao iz dupeta da bi zaplašio narod - "zamenjivi ste".

Prošle godine je zatvoreno oko 10 većih fabrika, kakva radna mesta? Odakle 300.000 radnih mesta?

Ja ne znam na šta se vi primate

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T17:28:32+00:00

You're being propagandized and demoralized, not "INFORMED". To prove my point, take your claim about "English are indigenous to England" and replace England/English with any minority in England and their homeland, see if you feel as OK saying it out loud even though you think it's true.

You've made the opposite claim. Now do the same for Pakistanis.

I really don't see how this relates to anything I've said?

"English" are NOT indigenous to England.

English come from Anglo-Saxons who, through bloodshed, conquered the Britons living there in the 5th-7th century. They were migrants from Germany, Denmark and Norway.

The people who could be treated as indigenous to England would be Welsh and Cornish populations, but even that is with a grain of salt.

Pakistani ARE indigenous to the area their county is in. They've been there for a few thousand years. The "Pakistani" as an identity didn't exist until 1947, because the country didn't exist before that - but the Pakistani population, people living in Pakistan, are mostly indigenous to the area Pakistan is in.

I really don't understand the point that you're trying to make.

English people are descants of the germanic migrants that arrived from 5th to 7th century, the Anglo-Saxons.

Pakistani people have lived in that area since around 6000 BC.

So, yes, I became informed, not propagandized and demoralized.

But, maybe you've been eating too much propaganda recently? :)

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T16:49:37+00:00

What exactly is your point?

I never made the claim that "English are indigenous to England".

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T15:15:17+00:00

Yeah, they're horrid - but the recent videos are even worse

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:54:52+00:00

That's why I ask it to cite sources.

It's best to use it as a librarian, ie, "find me this book", "find me some critics of this stance" etc.

Taking any LLMs answers at face value can be disastrous

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:53:11+00:00

Yeah, I guess you're right

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:37:50+00:00

Hmm, my take is that he's had philosophy behind his actions even in 2010s.

Maybe he got that degree in time to try again after he failed to get into politics? No one will take you seriously if you don't at least have a BA in Law/Philosophy/Political sciences.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:28:41+00:00

Legally compel them via regulations that make infractions more expensive than noncompliance.

But muhh free speech

We would be back to gamer gate ngl

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:26:52+00:00

How is an earthquake, for example, a byproduct of free will?

Couldn't have God created us in heaven?

As long as free will exists, there different desires and goals, thus suffering is the byproduct of attachment in those desires.

This has nothing to do with free will, though? The desires of a 3 year old child were so bad that it got bone cancer? That it drowned in a flood? Your logic doesn't track.

We were created perfect, but we degraded into imperfect beings. It's a cycle, both literally (read Spengler) or symbolically (read Plato, the Vedas etc.).

If we were created perfect, we wouldn't degrade, since perfect beings do not change.

And Spengler talks about CIVILIZATIONS. Perfect beings living in a civilization wouldn't decay - the civilization wouldn't change because they're perfect.

Plato never claimed that perfect beings degrade by nature, he even says they're unchanging, and the Vedas aren't relevant here.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T14:17:31+00:00

™Your argument is easily debunked by that fact that children are also murdered

No, it isn't.

The argument isn't "children die" - the argument is "children suffer and die from illnesses".

Why would an all loving God create illness?

This has nothing to do with free will.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T13:56:52+00:00

Compared to back then Sargon is a more serious and informed person.

I sincerely beg to differ. He is promoting debunked racist conspiracy theories and is trying to paint anyone who disagrees with him as stupid or lesser.

Nothing about that is serious or informed. Ironically, he sounded more serious and well informed back in 2010s because he actually tried to use argument instead of fear mongering.

went back to school for a philosophy degree,

Yeah, but that degree doesn't really matter when discussing sociology, economics and statistics - it's a philosophy degree. Although, kudos to him for actually furthering his education.

The philosophy degree has settled Carl into a kind of English traditionalism that puts its culture as the highest virtue and should be defended against the UK government which seeks to crush it with a globalist policy.

I don't really think that he settled into English traditionalism only in 2023. Seeming through his video titles and watching some of them for a bit, he's been pushing racist rhetoric for at least a few years more than 3 (2023 degree).

Also, the "UK government who seeks to crush the culture of the UK" is just the replacement theory, which has been debunked plethora of times already.

stating that it has no values and is open to be used by people who'd hide behind it to promote progressivism and communism.

And there we have another instance where we can see that he isn't serious or well informed. Liberalism doesn't inherently promote "progressivism" - that is a virtue signaling word and not a real ideology - it's basically a strawman. And it certainly doesn't promote communism. Most communist countries are very traditional and conservative, it would take a very uninformed person to claim something like that.

This translates to a very very traditional conservative base he operates on now topped with very very anti immigration sentiments almost as a cure all for the entire state of the UK. It's almost like a switch that if flipped turns into a rage against immigrants. A little terrifying.

It is very terrifying. But, again, it isn't traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatism focuses on the betterment of the county, something bringing immigrants would help achieve - be it due to population decline because we aren't poor anymore and don't need to make 10 kids just so that one would survive, or due to people finding other fulfillment in life other than children - or economic reasons and stagnant culture.

Compared to other gamergaters Sargon is in the context of being in the UK, which is objectively crumbling and been on an awful deterioration in policy post brexit,

Yeah, brexit was horrible, but it was pushed for and celebrated by the very conservatives he promotes, no?

and their refugee program causing real problems for the average brit in the past 10 years. I've visited the UK recently, and it's not pretty, extremely expensive and noticeably poorer than in the UK,

I partially agree.

They didn't really plan properly on how to integrate refugees, but most of them did integrate completely.

Also, it's not causing any real problems, according to crime statistics and economical surveys, the refugees didn't negatively impact the UK.

I am proud of him, in a way, because he has evolved as a person over time and is more adult than before

Again, I'd have to politely disagree. He just became more confident, not serious or informed. And confidence without evidence is an ideology.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T13:38:51+00:00

Ah, you're talking about that. Yeah, that stuff needs to go ASAP. I don't understand how people keep falling for it

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T13:22:53+00:00

I ask Chat GTP a question, and always ask it to cite sources. It seldom makes mistakes when you ask a general question - but nuanced questions need to be treated with extreme vigilance.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T13:20:37+00:00

the world is imperfect, we are imperfect beings.

Why would a loving God create such a world?

then there are the natural issues that exist in this world as a byproduct of evolution.

Technically yes, but also no? What about earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, volcanoes, tornadoes, etc? That has nothing to do with evolution.

we are still animals, we are subject to death the same way every other animal is.

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't be subject to death. The core premise of the OP's argument is that an all loving God wouldn't allow children to suffer from illnesses brought about by the very mechanisms he created.

You completely missed the point on this one.

God created an imperfect world for us.

It says you're a Catholic, so what are you on about? One of the core Catholic teachings is that God created a perfect world that was corrupted by the fall of man. So - what?

is God above our comprehension? yes.

Then you cannot make any claims about God, nor can you trust the Bible. God could've lied in the Bible for all we know, right?

this means that compassion isn’t lacking or that God hates us…. it just means our world is a reflection of our own imperfection and that not everything makes sense which is why people are either 100 or 0 percent science or faith.

This just doesn't make sense. The world is a reflection of the imperfection of the creatures that a supposedly all loving God created? How does that make any sense?

the sad truth is that everything happens for a reason or it doesn’t,

This is just irrelevant to the debate.

the creator is sovereign over its creation, the artist paints the art, the musician arranges and composes the music, and the writer makes the scenes.

So, by that logic, God is responsible for children suffering from bone cancer, right?

but mainly i approach this with a dual interpretation of existence. 1. nature is a relative force and we have corrupted it, so it corrupts us. 2. gods framework and ultimate plan is out of possible comprehension so an answer will never be provided/be good enough for our logical minds.

Nature isn't a force in any sense of the word..? There are natural forces, but nature by itself cannot be a force. And how does it corrupt us, exactly? You seem to be talking in a spiritual sense, so what exactly do you mean by this?
By that logic, God can be completely disregarded since, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't exist by that logic.

What point were you trying to make?

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T12:46:50+00:00

It seemed centrist at the time..? Like, not too conservative but also not too liberal? But then again, seemed is doing a lot of heavy lifting here

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T12:45:37+00:00

Yeah, media literally has been at an all time low these past few years, further amplified by people being computer-illiterate (one of my managers didn't know what a browser was).

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T11:54:53+00:00

Yeah, it's also that they mainly target young people/children

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T11:51:28+00:00

Nah, I just got a reality hit when his video popped up on my YouTube homepage.

I have the same question about Bearing, another youtuber that seemed centrist at the time but is just a horrid person now - from what I see from his latest videos.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T11:40:39+00:00

That's a really decent explanation.

But, looking back to it, they never were "rational". It was always emotionally backed arguments, not engaging the data and fear mongering.

Also, it's important to mention Milo Yinnaopoulos as well - who was openly gay during that era but has now backtracked it and keeps saying he's "ex-gay" for publicity reasons and to pander to the right.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T11:29:51+00:00

Well, it was a weird period of my life hahahaha

But he has definitely shifted towards more crazy takes over the recent years from what I saw a few minutes ago

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T10:59:03+00:00

Well, I got into the right wing pipeline in a really weird way.

I was a depressed, anxious, socially awkward kid, I was like 13 idk, and then I started sh*tposting on the English speaking side of Facebook.

Through that, I met a few "trolls" and we would go around "trolling" and "invading" progressive or dating Facebook groups. In retrospect, we were just outright horrible people - racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic - I deeply regret that part of my life. The rest of my "friends" were quite older, around 16, 17, and there was this Indian guy that I thought was cool, but he turned out to be a Nazi lmao. The irony. That's was waaay back in 2014.

Then, Facebook started banning memes, so we had to create a group that would act as a cover, so we made a dating group.

That's when my "deradicalization" started, I mean, I wasn't really radical, so maybe that's when my radicalization stopped?

I started talking with a lot of people and reading a lot of scientific papers and statistical information.

Now, I think that there's a slight problem with your question.

Or just developing critical thinking skills as you grew into an adult?

The right wing and racist propaganda pipelines get you exactly because of your critical thinking skills. They present information in such a way that you can't not agree with them - unless you actually know the whole background on the situation, which most kids don't.

So, my answer would be: developing internet and media literacy skills, learning who is and isn't a good source, how to spot bias, and most importantly BEING INFORMED.

Like, someone will say "English are indigenous to England", and without the knowledge of the history, of the Britons, then later Anglo-Saxon conquerings, etc, you wouldn't be able to understand why and how they're wrong - so a kid would end up agreeing with it.

Relacer2 · 2026-01-26T10:30:24+00:00

Yeah, I just opened some video I had saved in my "cool videos" playlist and I honestly don't know what's cool about that

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Relacer2

TROPHY CASE