Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Sargon of Akkad’ Category

 

[Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer fame, has a debate, or conversation, with Sargon of Akkad. hosted by Baked Alaska, with input from Andy Warski. Here are a selection of clips that YouTuber, Kronos, has posted KATANA.]

 

Andrew Anglin

 

vs

 

Sargon of Akkad

 

Feb 2018 – Clips

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LZh6VzLhxU

 

Streamed live 16 hours ago

NEW MERCH: https://www.bakedalaska.tv JOIN THE DISCORD: https://discord.gg/K6bs4f4 ANDREW ANGLIN: https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin https://www.dailystormer.name SARGON OF AKKAD: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-ye… REMEMBER TO SUBSCRIBE, COMMENT, SHARE, SMASH THAT LIKE BUTTON, AND SMASH THAT BELL BUTTON BTC Wallet: 1F3iu15DwhPRAyqJF1hMiDESRpxw8psSHk ETH Wallet: 0xC397fc134B6559030102b4BD48297c5C97d4d92A LTC Wallet: LhVG4QZ6GhNsyQhsZr7zV1af92gWxP6d19 GAB: https://gab.ai/apple TWITCH: https://twitch.tv/iambakedalaska FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/realbakedalaska INSTA: https://instagram.com/bakedalaska CASHME: https://cash.me/$realbakedalaska SNAPCHAT: realbakedalaska

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPTS

(Various mins)

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ChhZMWmXQE

 

 

Andrew Anglin vs. Sargon of Akkad

 

Anglin: So I guess my question to start with for [00:02] Sargon, would be, do you grant the moral premise that White people have a right to their own country, and you’re just saying that it’s impossible to make that happen?

 

Sargon: Well I said at the beginning that I didn’t really want to debate the talking points, because there’s no point!

 

Anglin: Then what do you want to talk about Sargon?

 

Sargon: Let me explain.

 

Alaska: Wait hold on. You agree, you agreed to a debate. I mean, and then, you know.

 

Sargon: I really want to talk to Andrew.

 

Alaska: So you just show up at a debate and you don’t want to debate them?

 

Sargon: Not really. It seems I’m with, ..

 

Alaska: Why did you contact and send me an email, …

 

Sargon: Let me explain.

 

Alaska: Okay go ahead.

 

Sargon: I don’t know how to contact, sorry contact Andrew?

 

Alaska: We have been emailing back and forth.

 

Sargon: Yeah, because you were in contact with Andrew.

 

Alaska: I know, so if you didn’t want a debate, you should have emailed me, and said, “hey I don’t really want a debate [01:00] can we have a different sort of dialogue”. But go ahead.

 

Sargon: I don’t want to bicker or anything. So when you said debate I figured you mean “talk about things from different perspectives”.

 

Alaska: Okay! Go ahead and talk!

 

Anglin: That’s what we can do. I’m not trying to have an aggressive debate!

 

Sargon: Let me talk a second.

 

Anglin: I think it’s I think it’s a good starting point. What I just said, that you went straight to logistics and, .. Embrace race realism. And then the moral right of White people. So go ahead.

 

Sargon: Okay. Listen right. The problem that I have with anything that the Alt-Right says, when it comes to the concept of an ethno-state, is that it is trying to strip away the ethnic heritage that I have inherited. Do you understand that?

 

Anglin: What? I don’t understand that? No. Always, is it the thing that you’re a quadroon?

 

Sargon: No.

 

Anglin: That’s not true Sargon.

 
(more…)

Read Full Post »

 

 

 

[Arya Sattya, a British woman, gives a short, but very good, critique of the recent debate hosted by Andy Warski, between Richard Spencer and Sargon of Akkad, among others. Although she disagrees with some aspects of Spencer’s views, she is highly critical of Sargon for his lack of sincerity and constant naysaying about the viability of having White only ethno-state. She goes through several of Sargon’s “arguments” pointing out the “pipul” or hair-splitting, nature of many of them  KATANA.]

 

_______________________

 

 

Arya Sattya

 

Richard Spencer vs Sargon of Akkad

 

Debate Roundup

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click the link below to view the video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2DZSzxHZvY

 

 

YouTube Description

 

 

Published on Jan 5, 2018

 

This is a discussion of some of the points brought up in the debate between Richard Spencer and Sargon of Akkad on Warski live.

 

Please like, comment, share and subscribe!

 

 

 

 

This video is not intended to encourage or condone hatred or violence.

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

(12:09)

 

[Music]

 

[00:12]

 

 

Hello.

 

I just wanted to talk about some points that came up in the debate last night on Andy Wolski’s channel with Richard Spencer, Sargon of Akkad, Styxhexenhammer666, but also included other people like, Millennial Woes, and so on. The stream at it’s highest, had over 13,000 people watching live, and at one point reached the point of being the number one most watched stream in the world on YouTube.

 

It was a really interesting debate, and I think all this really goes to show just how many people are starting to get interested in the ideas of the so called, “Alt-Right” and just how much progress the movement is making as a whole. I really recommend going on watching it now, if you haven’t already. But I’ll put a link in the description.

 

With regards to the debate itself, I’d like to start off by saying that there are lots of points of disagreement I have with Richard Spencer, and I do think that it’s highly likely that he is, to some extent, “controlled opposition“, which I think I’ll discuss in another video.

 

But, there are also a lot of things I do agree with him on. And I thought that he performed exceptionally well in the debate. There were various polls done afterwards and it was in my opinion too, that he comfortably won the debate.

 

So, it started off with Richard Spencer calmly stating his points, and Sargon just shouting over him and coming across as incredibly impatient, for seemingly no reason at all. The first major point was about whether to adhere to abstract principles, or real-world pragmatic concerns, which Sargon just couldn’t seem to understand at all. The worlds described by Locke*, that he always seems to harp on about, was ultimately one invented for and by White people in countries that were overwhelmingly White. The United States itself was explicitly invented by, and for, White people. Which Richard Spencer mentioned at a later point in the debate, when he spoke about the 1790 Immigration Act**, which explicitly welcomed White people of good character. Sargon here is making what one might call the “Enlightenment fallacy” which I think I want to expand on in a video of itself.

 

[* John Locke, (born August 29, 1632, Wrington, Somerset, England—died October 28, 1704, High Laver, Essex), English philosopher whose works lie at the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism. He was an inspirer of both the European Enlightenment and the Constitution of the United States. His philosophical thinking was close to that of the founders of modern science, especially Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, and other members of the Royal Society. His political thought was grounded in the notion of a social contract between citizens and in the importance of toleration, especially in matters of religion. Much of what he advocated in the realm of politics was accepted in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 and in the United States after the country’s declaration of independence in 1776.

The next major point was about the rights of individuals, versus, the rights of groups. I don’t think that these things are mutually exclusive at all. I think that most people want to live under a State that exists for their interests, and that protects the rights and freedoms of the individuals within that State. But that State is a group identity.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Locke]

 

[** Naturalization Act of 1790

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free White persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, stating that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” the only US statute ever to use the term. It specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790]

 

I personally want to live under an ethno-state that protects my freedom as an individual and acts in my interests. And I want that to be an ethno-state for, and by my group. Respecting individual and group rights is not mutually exclusive, which Sargon seems to go out of his way to pretend to not understand at all. It’s about finding a balance between Authoritarianism that’s necessary for a state to function, and Libertarianism which stands up for the rights and freedoms of people within the state.

 

 

[02:51]

 

 

The point that Richard Spencer was making was about how we already have States that restrict our freedoms, and Sargon doesn’t have a problem with that now. So, Sargon despite his constant waffling on about abstract principles that originally emerged more as descriptions of States inhabited by White people, than prescriptive ideals, he does understand that in the real world we do have to restrict some freedoms, and we do have to find a balance between authoritarian and libertarian ideals. We do have to find a balance between the rights of the individuals and the preservation of the group as a whole, which they exist in.

 

I think it’s all somewhat hypocritical, when, as some have pointed out, Sargon himself started an online poll to ban social justice causes in the universities. Surely this goes against some of Sargon’s beloved principles?

 

(more…)

Read Full Post »