Richard Spencer vs Sargon of Akkad Debate Roundup — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

[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?

 

 

The next major point was this whole charade that Sargon likes to engage in where he autisticly pretends not to understand what a White person is. By this point, Sargon was constantly talking over everyone with things that had nothing to do with anything at all. At one point he said something along the lines of: “I’m ready to accept your apology whenever you are!”, in the background, while Richard Spencer was talking. Just constantly trying to derail and bring down the level of debate. Just exhausting pilpul* tactics designed to wear out the opponent, and slowly and subtly undermine the process of true intellectual inquiry.

 

[* Pilpul: Among the Jews, penetrating investigation, disputation, and drawing of conclusions, esp. in Talmudic study.

Sophistry, hair-splitting, quibbling.]

 

He presents pragmatic objections, such as how to implement an ethno-state, which are, of course, worthy of discussion in their own right. But he presents them, as if they were somehow fatal ideological blows, which really just betrays an attempt to shut down a discussion that he knows he can’t win.

 

Richard Spencer at one point just came out and said that Sargon is not as intelligent as he thinks he is, which was both hilarious and true. And his ability to debate, whilst clearly stating his points, just showed how out of depth Sargon was. Regarding the actual point in itself, of how to identify a White person, Sargon was committing a fallacy which is ironically called “Loki’s wager”* wherein, for example, one can take the colour spectrum and identify the colour red, but cannot identify the border between red and orange, for example. But that does not mean that the color “red” does not exist.

 

[*Loki’s Wager is a recent (c. 2010) term for a form of continuum fallacy called the Sorites paradox.

Named for a story from the Prose Edda, it is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.

Loki once made a bet with the dwarf Brok, and wagered his head. He lost, and in due time the dwarves came to collect. Loki had no problem with giving it up, but insisted they had absolutely no right to take any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter; certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but neither side could agree exactly where one ended and the other began. So Loki kept his head indefinitely, although his lips were stitched shut as punishment for getting out of the bet with tricky wordplay.

The fallacy may be overome either by establishing a reasonable, working definition of the term in issue, or by showing that the other party is being unreasonable and avoiding the argument.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager]

 

But in terms of race, it goes even further than that, because by and large, racial boundaries in humans are a lot more clearly defined than the colour spectrum. JF [Jean-Francois Gariépy] at one point was talking about how there are studies which show just how accurate the average person can be in judging race and ancestry on appearance alone.

 

There was another good point that was brought up about the infiltration of White ethno-states by similar looking subgroups, such as jews. I think this is important, because I do think that this has historically been a huge problem for Europe. But, I think I’ll probably get into that in more detail in another video.

 

In addition, I think about how to go about the restoring of the ethnic homogeneity of America in a pragmatic sense, is a different problem for America and Europe. But the more important point right now, is that we get to a point of agreement on the fact that ethnically homogeneous societies are more stable, more prosperous, and that’s what we should be aiming to create to the best of our ability.

 

The point isn’t necessarily to ensure that an ethno-state is 100% perfectly homogeneous. But, that the state primarily exists to protect the ethnic group that it represents. And part of that is the State doing whatever it can to make sure that the homelands of White people are not continuously invaded by other ethnic groups, who seek to undermine and destroy it.

 

 

[06:19]

 

 

It begins with us agreeing that things like people, culture, and heritage, are valuable in and of themselves and should be protected. And that ethno-states are one way of doing this.

 

This feeds into the next major point about “purity spiraling” within ethno-states, which Sargon again tries to present as some sort of “fatal blow” to the entire narrative that Richard Spencer’s trying to argue for. JF did point out that ethnicity is very clear for the vast majority of people already. But there’s this notion that was brought up that an ethno-state is self-defeating, somehow. Which I really disagree with. I think that people generally gravitate towards their own ethnic group and want to support it already. It’s something that’s totally in line with the natural order, and is what happens in the real world, already.

 

I really believe that living in an ethno-state, would, and does, continuously feed into future prosperity, because the people know that the ethno-state will continue to protect their genes, or proverbial “selfish genes”, long into the future. And once again an ethno-state doesn’t necessarily prohibit a limited and controlled level of degeneracy, or race mixing along the edges, but the main focus is in protecting the integrity of the group and the idea, or the ideal of a monolithic homogeneous society for the majority.

 

I think Sargon’s mixed race descent, is one of the fundamental sources of his sort of visceral and emotional objection to the Alt-Right and one of the sources of his inability to even try and understand where Richard Spencer is coming from in an unbiased manner.

 

Regarding pragmatics again, Richard Spencer, in the debate, brings up just some of several ways in which an ethnic State could be implemented peacefully. But I’m reminded of a point that came up in the Millennial hangout with Mike Isaacson and Millennial Woes, where Mike Isaacson stated that the views of the Alt-Right lead to genocide! The fundamental objection to this line of attempt at derailment is that their ideas are already leading to the destruction and the long-term genocide of our people already!

 

When White women in their own homelands are being raped and attacked by foreign invaders in numbers approaching the hundreds of thousands already, how is that not considered violence? Why should we sit back and do nothing about this? Why is violence considered okay to Sargon when it’s directed at White people? This just shows how the cultural Marxist anti-White propaganda machine has fundamentally already sunk it’s roots deep into the psyche of the race-denialist-skeptic community.

 

 

[08:53]

 

 

Just, because the destruction of our people, race, and culture, is going on slowly and is obfuscated by the “fake news” mainstream media, does Sargon think that makes it okay? Even if, hypothetically speaking, for the sake of argument, there at some point there had to be actions that some may consider to be violence in the establishment of an ethno-state — of course, that would be something that would be very regrettable — but, would it not be less regrettable than idly sitting by whilst our entire people, culture, and heritage is destroyed? Whilst our liberties are taken away by cultural Marxist police states, such as the United Kingdom, while our women and children are raped and attacked en mass, and whilst our people and values are wiped out demographically?

 

Which is more regrettably, hypothetical violence that could potentially occur at some point in the future in defense of our people, heritage, culture, and values, or mass violence and destruction that is already happening?

 

After the debate Sargon put up a video on his own channel putting his own spin on the debate, which was frankly 50 odd minutes of obnoxiously retarded, disingenuous drivel, straw man arguments, glaring misrepresentations, and outright lies. I think I could probably go through just about every single sentence in that video and break it down and refute it.

 

There are many more points that I could go into that came up in the debate, but the point is that what Sargon is trying to do  is no longer honest intellectual inquiry! It’s straight up pilpul designed to poison the well and exhaust the opponents! I’ve noticed that this isn’t the first time that Sargon has put up videos like this immediately after high profile debates that haven’t gone his way, or show him up for the disingenuous mediocre intellectual that he really is. He puts up a couple of similar videos immediately after some of the Millenniyule debates on Millennial Woes’ channel. And I used to enjoy listening to some of them back when they were going up after Anita Sarkeesian videos. But at this point it seems really obvious to me the extent to which he feels he has to go out of his way to control the narrative. To, in a sense, stem the potential ideological wandering of his audience, because, quite frankly, the debate did not go his way. And I think he probably understands himself that his performance did not speak for itself and doesn’t stand up on its own merits.

 

I made a whole list of points during the debate which I may just go into in another video if people are interested. But for now, I’d like to just make one more point about this debate. And that is regarding Kevin Logan, who came on towards the end.

 

Kevin Logan is an unbearably odious, male feminist, and Social Justice Warrior, who makes character assassination videos and defends cultural Marxism and communists. Everything he said in the debate, and in general, amounts to nothing more than self-hatred of the White race! Nothing he said in the debate was particularly interesting, but he did try and get away with the “ethno-states will never happen” black pill.

 

I’d like to add, in regards to this, that ethno-states already exist, have existed for a long time, and explicit ethno-states are coming back to White countries, sooner than you think! Our movement is growing in momentum every day, so I think he should probably start getting ready.

 

We will never give up! We will never surrender everything we love! We will never lose hope! And the harder you push, the stronger we will become!

 

Thank you for watching.

 

 

[12:09]

 

[Music]

 

[12:31]

 

==================================

 

 

PDF Notes

Version 1 — xx

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xx

 

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

 

———————————————————————

Version History

 

Version 2: Jan 9, 2018  — Fixed some typos. Added some footnotes and links.

 

Version 1: Jan 9, 2018  — Published post.

 

This entry was posted in Brainwashing, Deception, Jewish Supremacism, Media - jewish domination, Millennial Woes, Mind Control, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Race, Race - Mixing, Richard Spencer, Sargon of Akkad, Third World, Third World Immigration, Transcript, Western Civilization, White genocide, White Nationalism. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Richard Spencer vs Sargon of Akkad Debate Roundup — TRANSCRIPT

  1. I am a white Protestant nationalist who wants his Republic back from his racial and religious mass murdering Zionist/Jesuit/Islamic cultural marxist occupiers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.