I didn’t get the chance to watch the livestream yesterday. I was doing a podcast with Matthew Heimbach and Tony Hovater. Anyway, this is the Anglin vs. Sargon debate. I’m going to try to slog through this and analyze and respond to Sargon’s big brained nibba points.
Here we go.
FIRST HOUR
6:26 Sargon claims the Alt-Right is trying to strip away his “ethnic heritage” which is “800 years of fight against tyranny.” This is laughable. Ireland? Barbados? South Africa? India? Sargon’s ethnic heritage includes everything from racism to white supremacy to slavery to colonialism to Darwinism to eugenics. This fanciful tale of a “fight against tyranny” is English cant. John Locke himself wrote South Carolina’s constitution which planted slavery in the Deep South.
The British created Sierra Leone in West Africa as a dumping ground for the free blacks of London, the black loyalists that fought for Britain in the American Revolution and slaves interdicted by the Royal Navy which suppressed the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. They deported them to Freetown where their descendants live to this day. As late as the Second World War, Britain was led by white supremacists like Winston Churchill who believed in the White Man’s Burden.
12:26 Muh 800 Years of English Heritage. In reality, British men didn’t gain universal suffrage until well into the 20th century. The British believed so much in universal human rights that they spent half a century fighting to repress the American Revolution and later the French Revolution. The fighting only ended when Britain won the Napoleonic Wars.
12:55 Sargon is correct that liberal values are in conflict with White Nationalist values. It’s also true this has a lot to do with America’s unraveling. Liberal values are inherently in conflict with social hierarchies and national cohesion which is why liberal democracy always leads to cultural degeneration and national suicide. The Alt-Right is a rejection of liberalism.
14:45 Sargon claims that racial nationalism or racial supremacy is Nazism. If we grant this premise, it follows that the British Empire was also Nazism. David Hume was a Nazi. It was Britain that pioneered white supremacy in its Caribbean colonies specifically in Barbados in the 17th century. The White Australia policy also preserved Australia as a White country.
19:39 Sargon is correct that ethnonationalism is a violation of his liberal principles. Historically speaking, Britain and its colonies ignored the contradiction until after the Second World War. The British Nationality Act of 1948 opened Britain’s borders to all Commonwealth citizens. Similarly, Australia began to open its borders after 1947. Civic nationalism is a recent development in the UK.
21:53 Sargon is correct that the Civil Rights Movement was an outgrowth of American Nationalism. The same is true of abolitionism, women’s suffrage and gay liberation.
22:20 Sargon argues that ethnonationalism is a violation of the civil rights of non-White citizens. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that blacks weren’t US citizens and had “no rights which white men are bound to respect; and the black man might be reduced to slavery, bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise.” The Radical Republicans had to pass the 14th Amendment because blacks weren’t American citizens at the time.
24:47 Sargon argues that if a fascist government comes to power and takes away the rights of some groups, they will take away his rights. The United States has a long history of taking away rights. Blacks lost the right to vote in Pennsylvania in the 1830s. No one else lost their voting rights. Blacks were enslaved in the British Caribbean but Englishmen were never enslaved there. The definition of white supremacy as it was practiced across the British Empire was the denial of equal rights.
26:05 Sargon concedes that liberal democracy has led to racial treason and open borders in the US and UK. In my view, this is precisely why we need to discard the system.
29:57 Sargon is characterizing population transfers as violence. If this is true, then immigration enforcement and imprisonment is violent as neither are done voluntarily.
30:52 Sargon claims “they will be resisting you with guns.” In reality, the United States has deported millions of immigrants. There were mass deportations of Hispanics during the Hoover administration and Eisenhower administration. ICE has removed millions of illegal aliens under the George W. Bush and Barack Obama presidencies. Every criminal is arrested and detained with force.
31:14 The state arrests people in their “lawfully gained homes” on a daily basis. Is this tyranny?
32:10 The government shoots “lawful property owners” all the time who are resisting arrest. Andrew is correct that “lawful property owners” are also tased. So what?
32:50 After arguing that immigration is a privilege granted by the state, Sargon argues that revoking the privilege is immoral – why? If the state can grant the privilege, why can’t it revoke the privilege?
39:30 Anglin is correct that the state could encourage people to self deport in all sorts of ways including taking away their welfare benefits, discrimination, denying them housing and employment, etc. He is also right that Mexicans who engage in crime could be arrested and deported.
43:54 Sargon is arguing that racial collectivism leads to genocide. In some cases, this is true but extreme individualism also leads to genocide through the lost of ethnic cohesion, immigration and displacement. The result of group homicide or suicide is death.
44:04 Is the Alt-Right deeply afraid of the future of White people? Absolutely. The inevitable result of liberalism is racial suicide and genocide. See Africa.
46:23 Sargon argues that there will be White people who violently oppose us and we will end up killing them. If Antifa violently opposed us and were killed, would that be a loss?
48:59 Sargon is correct that black people make contributions to society. If Thomas Sowell lived in Africa, we could still read his books though. Similarly, we can have Mexican food without Mexicans. I’m cooking my own steak tacos for lunch tomorrow.
51:25 Sargon sets aside his individualism, which he admitted earlier is an English ethnic prejudice, to accuse the Germans of ruining Europe.
51:55 It’s true the Germans have some good ideas. Ethnonationalism is one example of a 19th century idea that supplanted 18th century civic nationalism.
52:16 As Andrew pointed out earlier in the debate, the First Congress based citizenship on whiteness. Unfortunately, he misses the opportunity to point out to Sargon that white supremacy was an Anglo idea.
54:17 ACKSHUALLY Sargon, the Germans adopted their “race bullshit” from the English and Americans. The same is true of eugenics.
Note: Well, that was the first hour. This was way too long. I might return to digest the second hour later.
I won’t waste my time on these two morons.
Thank you for sparing me the headache.
In media reception terms, reading this debate point by point is much more insightful. Aesthetically refined, valuable; or comfy, possibly. Internet blood sports are still too harsh as a listening experience. There is a listening effect causing the rationales to slip away into auto-erased oblivion as the frustration of the interaction proceeds, often for hours at a time. In the end, even though good points may have been made, not much is learned. At some point it will come down to Robert’s Rules of Order.
Carl Benjamin is 8% Ashkenazi Jude. That means he is a JEW. Period. He “argued” just like a kike. A Talmudic kike.
Sargon definitely has something in him.
It’s unmistakable. He’s concealing a very particular self interest.
You can see the Jew in his eyes. His expression is predatory yet totally degenerate. Anglin did a very good job, overall.
Yeah like never answering the question, constantly interrupting, logically inconsistent and telling lies. The way of the jew.
Carl (((BENJAMIN)))….
Yet more proof that Zog-gon of Mossad is an intellectually dishonest and pretentious twit who shouldn’t be taken seriously. But my opinion of Anglin isn’t much better, I’m afraid.
“Note: Well, that was the first hour. This was way too long. I might return to digest the second hour later.”
I listened to bit and pieces of it. Even if I was stuck on an uninhabited island for 12 months, I doubt I would use my time needed to gather coconuts to listen to this moronic exchange.
Why do people bother with these two?
Neither are worth the time.
I noticed that about Anglin when Sargon started to invoke Anglo-Saxon attitudes as superior to German ones. Anglin May have assumed that it was bait designed to get him to start sputtering about Cuck Island and Limeys. I think Anglin consciously decided not to go there and for good reason. Half the listeners there were probably British and were horrified by Sargon’s suggestion that the English way is to lay down and die in front of the Brown Slime.
Wouldn’t waste my time with either one, frankly. I would, however, question your assertion ethno-nationalism is a 19th century response to 18th century civic nationalism. Ethno nationalism came first and can be seen as early as the 17th century. I honestly am not aware of any example of civic nationalism before the 20th century and that includes the French Revolution.
Stupid envious loser nobodies criticizing Anglin.