“Uygur Did Nothing Wrong” – Famed TYT Critic, Carl Benjamin A.K.A. Sargon of Akkad Stakes Reputation To Defend Opponent

Social Commentator, Carl Benjamin, has recently come out to defend the Founder of The Young Turks amid allegations of …we’re not entirely sure.

Last week, “Social Justice” fanatics ousted Liberal host Cenk Uygur from his own organization after old blog posts were dug up by his political opponents at Gateway Pundit.

Despite years of being a core presence and prominent figure for liberal ideals, blog posts from nearly two decades ago may cost him more than merely his far left Justice Democrats. The cringe-worthy statements, as well as the original hatchet job revealing them, can be seen here.

The problem? There are no victims of Uygur’s words and actions, and though his words are uncharacteristic and uncomfortable to read, in today’s political climate it appears this is all it takes to be purged and excommunicated. The only information available doesn’t indicate that these were unwelcome advances. So the offense claimed, is that he wasn’t sensitive enough in how he spoke nearly twenty years ago, to the hysterical sensibilities of people living in the future.

This is why we don’t permit retroactive punishment in our legal system and limit the time to prosecute a crime. Though Uygur’s comments could have landed him in hot water when he uttered them, he hadn’t actually harmed anyone and grew to be a person his base idolizes. Is this a world we want; a world without forgiveness, where nothing is considered victimless, or too long ago to be worth mentioning? If so, it’s time to start digging around the affairs of those who won’t let other people be. Of course, we don’t need to dig; they bare their reprehensibility on full display.

Browsing Feminist groups like the CannaMamas, I’d like to point out I see some truly appalling things about men written quite regularly. Just look at anything from Feminist Current, for example. Women can say whatever grotesque thing they’d like about men without fear of reprisal from society; we at SALT are just wondering when we’re going to start hearing that sexism requires Prejudice + Power.

So I ask you: how much more of this are we going to allow?

Kyle Kulinski, the host of popular Youtube channel Secular Talk and co-founder of the Justice Democrats, recoiled at the response of the staff, who were terribly unkind to their employer. Apparently, Kulinski has seen enough and resigned in disgust. This impressive display of principles deserves praise, as does anyone who stands up to the craven loons that comprise the far left.

The Social Justice cultists are going full communist revolutionary, and like any communist, their concern is accruing power by any means necessary; securing by force what they cannot claim by merit. Make no mistake, ousting Uygur was a coup for power; it always is.

Now, Uygur’s staunchest critic, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad) is coming out in his defense:
Benjamin, whose Youtube channel rose to infamy during the Gamergate debacle, is no fan of The Young Turks or Cenk Uygur,

We have seen a cultural shift these last few years, particularly since the candidacy of U.S. President Donald Trumpwhich has fueled the rise of fringe-group nutters like the “Alt-Right” and the “Social Justice” crowd, each citing the other as the justification they need for their …less than appealing rhetoric.

Like Benjamin, I am most deeply concerned about the tumor that is the Social Justice Crowd—It is my belief the Alt-Right aren’t as insidious a threat, considering their unpalatability to the ordinary public and the incompetence of their poster-boy.

The “Social Justice” crowd, however, seem to be gaining support in both Social and traditional media, as well as companies fully endorsing their practices and theories. I personally believe they are the single greatest threat to Western Society, and many will freely admit that.

If you happen to wonder what about them should be disliked, allow me to articulate a few things that should discredit anyone sharing their beliefs:

These are people so ignorant, they organize under the banner of the Hammer and Sickle,
a contemptible symbol that appropriately captures the intellect of its followers. These are people who try to get their political opponents fired, arrested, aggressed upon, defamed, ostracized, exiled or even killed.

They rank the value of what is said and the order in which people may speak based on the conditions of birth (race, gender, sexual orientation) of the one speaking; an abhorrent affront to those who fought to end racism.

These people support, if not comprise the domestic terrorist organization Antifa–which calls for violence against anyone they label a “Nazi” – that is, anyone that disagrees with them.

If there’s any doubt, however to the legitimacy of these kinds of allegations, let’s take a look at some of the things that offend these people: everything. Things like what you say and wear, but more obscure items like the milk, mathematics, science and exams seem to be offensive too. Are we to expect eating your vegetables and bathing to be the next forms of oppression? Tucker Carlson comprised a hilarious list of #100racistthings on Twitter that is well worth checking out.

These are people who claim words are violence and that anything that unintentionally offends someone is a micro-aggression, an act which permits violence against the offender.

These are people who actually advocate a reverse onus in rape cases, particularly the New Zealand government.

These are people who believe that anyone who doesn’t ascribe to their radical postmodern fantasy of 70+ genders must be inherently bigoted and thus should be killed, maimed, or simply attacked.

These are the good guys?—I’m not seeing how these are the good guys. I’m not seeing how anyone can be so bold as to claim they are.

These are people that want to force their views upon others, not least of which, in the workplace. Mandatory Diversity training is their flagship. It’s also a good example of their values, considering it doesn’t work at all, promotes prejudice, increases anxiety and ascribes ill intent without compelling evidence; a stain that cannot be scrubbed clean.

We feel we should ask; isn’t PC culture just the Left’s answer to McCarthyism?


We Need To Talk About Your Halloween Costume

You might want to rethink that costume.

White people, we need to talk.

It’s Halloween again, and before you rush out and assemble your costume, we should discuss the elephant in the room: cultural appropriation. It’s an elephant, not because it’s unnoticed, but because it’s big, imposing and stinks. Like an elephant in a room, it’s hard to determine exactly how it got there.

One by one, schools are either banning Halloween outright or mandating which costumes one may wear, on the Orwellian pretense of inclusion. To be fair, Halloween can be a major pain in the ass for the school hosting it, particularly among children. Here are a few reasons from a Huffington Post article on the subject that doesn’t involve political correctness:

1. Due to increase in supervision duties, teachers do not have the time to dress or apply make up for up to 30 students in their classrooms.

2. Increase in the need to monitor and address appropriate dress and socially acceptable costumes.

3. Costumes are hot and uncomfortable causing irritation and often crying.

4. Too many upset students when costumes become torn, lost or parts forgotten at school.

5. Many costumes are dangerous on the playground and impedes moving comfortably and or are not conducive to the learning environment.

6. Costumes and parading increases apprehension in an increasing number of students who are presently experiencing anxiety issues — which can result in crying, worrying and withdrawn type of behaviors.

7. We also have an increase in number of students who cannot be photographed whom we have an obligation to protect so this can be difficult to monitor.

You might feel a school should be able to restrict Halloween costumes—they do have dress codes after all—but it’s not just kids whose choices are being restricted. Every year, new stories emerge of college administrators punishing (often severely) students who make the mistake of wearing a “culturally insensitive costume”, but if they’re going to restrict costumes, tasteless and offending ones should make the list, right?


Consider one mother’s explanation of what she has to put her daughter through:

The message my daughter got was that she could not pretend — could not even imagine herself — to be a Native person. She got the message that a barrier existed between herself and the “Native princess’ she wanted to be — the barrier of race. And nothing could surmount that barrier. Not even a child’s imagination.

At first, it seems like dressing up as other cultures is an indefensible position. It might be worthwhile to explore that. Firstly, we couldn’t help notice many of the people who claim it is offensive to dress up like another culture during Halloween tend to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, a day devoted to the most offensive Irish stereotypes. Why doesn’t it strike any of these people as odd, dressing up like the Irish one day, and then on another day, not a month and a half later, berating people for celebrating Cinco De Mayo? Are they not essentially the same holiday in how they’re celebrated, i.e. dressing up like another culture, drinking, and propagating derogatory stereotypes?


This blatant hypocrisy alone should be cited to instantly negate any charge of cultural appropriation about Halloween costumes or Cinco De Mayo. The conversation should look like this:
A: “Your costume is offensive”.
B: “See you on St. Patty’s”.

The latest case making the rounds is that the Moana costume is offensive. The fact she’s a (fictional) Hawaiian character makes this controversy absurd. We’re to tell our children it’s offensive to Hawaiians to dress up as them, yet the first thing you’re greeted with upon arriving at the islands is a Hawaiian putting a lei (i.e a part of their culture) on you. Imagine cultural appropriation being thrust upon you—it would be an insult to refuse.

And therein lies the problem. Who gets to decide what’s offensive? Is every community offended by “culturally insensitive costumes”; did we take a census of that community to determine if something bothers the majority of them, and is this even a sufficient reason to browbeat others for exercising their right to free speech and free expression? As an Irish-Canadian, people of any ethnicity imitating derogatory Irish stereotypes don’t offend me nearly as much as the idea of restricting it. While many colleges thankfully promote and support St. Patrick’s day, we couldn’t help notice the ideological inconsistency.

Even if you accept the idea of cultural appropriation as a terrible thing, Moana is a particular character; I thought cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes was about offensive stereotypes? What about Moana is an offensive stereotype? It’s all so confusing.

Moana from Disney’s

You might be thinking this is a pretty trivial matter, but ask yourself:
Is it possible the yearly ratcheting of restrictions on Halloween costumes has been bleeding into the culture overall?

Recently our moral sherpas pointed to hoop earrings as another egregious offense. We couldn’t help notice these same people typically smoke marijuana and practice yoga; acts which perfectly fit the definition, yet seem to slip by unnoticed. Perhaps we would do best to remember the old adage involving glass houses and stones.

Keep in mind, school boards across both Canada and the United States are removing”offensive” appropriations throughout their administrations. Whether it’s tearing down a totem-pole built as a sign of respect and peace, or scrubbing all references of “Chief”, as with the Toronto District School Board—all with no one having actually complained. The idea an administration responsible for education couldn’t bother to look up the etymology of chief, which is of French origin, predating the discovery of the New World, is appalling.

If you’re wondering why school boards and corporations are drinking the social justice kool-aid, we touched on it a bit last week. Mandatory Diversity Training is the Jim Jones of social justice to administrations in the West, trying to shield themselves from frivolous litigations.

These ideologies are leading to anxiety and depression amongst its members, showing us that in the game of victimhood, no one is a winner—so why play it at all? What’s disturbing is, this is all using children, who are too young to fend off these attacks. If what a child wears is so upsetting to you, you probably have bigger issues to deal with.

So, what outfit are you or your children actually allowed to wear, according to the PC police? Images of tan or gray bodysuits come to mind.


As ridiculous as this seems, it’s worth noting many people dress up as witches for Halloween, in spite of there being a rather large “Wiccan” community in America. Will we be hearing from them next Halloween? Where does it end?

If it wasn’t offensive yesterday, why should we accept it as offensive today?

Dave Rubin will bring this point home:


A case is now being made it is racist for white girls to dress as white princesses due to such costumes glorifying “white beauty” and promoting “white privilege”. So no Disney princesses at all for your little girl.


Penn State Teaching Assistant will only call on white men “If I have to” – Defends actions as common practice

A Teaching Assistant at Penn State is reluctant to call upon white people, particularly men.



Stephanie McKellop, a doctoral student and teaching assistant at Penn State University, has come under fire for revealing her use of something called “progressive stacking”.

'I will always call on my Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. [White Women] come next. And, if I have to, white men,' they said in the tweets on MondayIf you haven’t heard of “progressive stacking”, you’re not alone. It’s another social Marxist strategy to combat invisible “oppression”.

An article from Dailymail explains;

“In subsequent post, McKellop explains that the tactic – called progressive stacking – was one learned from a professor in undergrad. 

‘In normal life, who has the easiest time speaking, most opportunities? Flip it,’ they added. 

‘The classroom is the place YOU get to control social setting.’

McKellop would continue to tweet about the reaction they were receiving for teaching the method and added: ‘Penn thinks I’m racist and discriminatory towards my students for using a very well worn pedagogical tactic which includes calling on [people of color].'”

It’s bad enough Social Marxism is driving up the cost of tuition; but studies show diversity training, which is mandatory in higher education, is ineffective and actually causes racial bias. What is perhaps most alarming is McKellop’s defense of her actions as widely accepted and practiced.

In spite of having been debunked, mandatory diversity training persists; this “training” imparts cultural Marxist philosophies to employees who must accept their political re-education as a term of employment.

“Progressive Stacking” is simply affirmative action applied to social interaction. Affirmative action, of course, has been shown to be discriminatory to Asians, but this unjustifiable discrimination is largely ignored. Likewise, progressive stacking is meant to focus on “marginalized social identity groups”, as privileged groups tend to dominate the classroom. Could these groups be dominating the conversation, because they actually earned their seat and didn’t rely on identity quotas to artificially gain them entrance to a room they aren’t qualified to be in? One has to wonder.

We couldn’t help notice that McKellop is white, and self-identifies as gender non-binary. Gender non-binaries insist that gender is a social construct, and it is oppressively cis-normative to assume someone’s gender. Perhaps she could explain how she knows the gender of her students, without first asking them?

Image result for MckEllop
Stephanie McKellop

It’s also important to note that race cannot always be easily identified, so how does she determine their nationality? It’s a microaggression to ask, according to Cultural Marxists. Of course, these same people tell us race is also a social construct; so how is McKellop navigating all this to determine the gender and race of her students? Perhaps ideological consistency isn’t her strong suit.

Of course, as a very liberal woman, she’s vastly more likely to be mentally ill than the general population; this may help explain the logical contradictions. The thing is, she doesn’t seem to see the need to exclude herself, in spite of being white. Here she is, not a black woman, taking up a position that a black woman could do.

Just like all her colleagues, she is virtue signaling and pushing cultural marxism simply as an attempt to reduce the guilt she feels for not vacating a position to a lower status victim.

Her dirty secret: it’s not about giving priority to blacks, it’s about her trying to show others how #woke she is, while assuaging her guilt for not vacating her position, an act which contradicts her ideology. She doesn’t vacate her position because she still wishes to achieve in this world.