Anglin vs. Sargon

What is striking in the recent debate between Andrew Anglin and Carl Benjamin (also known by his YouTube pseudonym, Sargon of Akkad) is Benjamin’s schizoid stance that, yes, white people have the right to exist—but they don’t have the right to reverse the genocidal levels of immigration!

Reason for this schizoid disorder? This secular man subscribes Christian ethics, particularly a secularised version of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount; Pauline universalism, and an out-group altruism that did not exist before Christianity.

Published in: on February 12, 2018 at 11:41 am  Comments (12)  

12 Comments

  1. Carly is 8% Ashkenazi Jew. His “arguments” were totally Talmudic. He knows if Whites actually achieve racial solidarity, and collectively decide to LIVE – he and his co-Orcs will be out on their parasitic gluteus maximi. He needs to GO.

    • By 8 percent (sorry about my math) do you mean one of his great-great parents was Jew? Both?

      • I mean he’s got 8% Jew alleles in him. Probably both, from the “Jamaican” ancestry.

    • Whatever obscure Kike DNA he is inflicted with has nothing to do with his arguments. As far as I am concerned, he is just some self-loathing, lard arse White skin who subscribes to an extremely pitiful form of Christian ethics.

      I have no history with debating, but if I were a replacement for Anglin, I would have said: “Yes, I believe that our race deserves to exist and by any means necessary. I don’t care if I have to crush a thousand baby skulls for this end. I don’t care if I have to nuke half the world a la Turner Diaries. I don’t care about coming into conflict with your sick moral compass. I bend over Lady ‘Liberty’ and fuck her up the arse. Your rights mean nothing to me you fat, useless eunuch. I take a shit on The Second Treatise. Your ‘philosophy’ is precisely why my race is dying. Now go and die for me so we can have one less useless consumer capitalist pig breathing in my precious air.”

      That’s about the gist of it.

      • I must confess that when you find volitional strength to answer this Dostoevsky’s famous question: Is world harmony worth the tear of a child? – YES! – you face an awful experience of unplugging from the Matrix whose insatiable belly digests the best, the strongest, the noblest, the purest of us (including semidivine Nordic infants and nymphs) and in the same time It strikes constantly the Aryan painful points: compassion, magnanimity, honour and loyalty. The problem is we tend to project our soul-patterns on the alien and hostile creatures and their chameleon-like social organisms imitating the structures of our Logos. They are bloodthirsty parasites and should be crushed in the egg.

  2. ‘Sargon’ is a mudblood, as far as I know he claims to be a quadroon.

    • He made a video showing his parents, who were clearly both White. He was then caught on a video claiming to not be one. He states that his grandfather was “swarthy”. Now he is saying that he is a quadroon again. So, either he knows he is not black and is claiming he is for god knows what reason, or, he has a race dysphoria and thinks he is actually black, which, I’m afraid, is even worse.

    • P.S – I have seen the new AWD propaganda on the site.

      “The only right is the right of lead” should be our talking point against Liberalism and enlightenment values.

      Frail Whites like Benjamin and his ‘Liberalists’ will serve as prey to the Aryan predator.

  3. Cornelius Van Til has proven conclusively that atheists cannot develop their own moral axiology and therefore are stuck in the axiology of their old religion. That is why it is very easy to kick back atheists to their old Christian ethics. It also explains neatly why atheists with a Talmudic background, like Leon Trotsky and atheists with a Muslim background like Ataturk, Saddam Hussein, Ebru Umar and Ayaan Hirsi Ali do not follow Christian axiology.

    https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/

    (That is why “Christian” Identity works. It stresses the OT instead of the NT, being Karaite Judaism for Whites.)

    The only way to get rid of your old axiology, is to take a new religion. Pray to Odin, pray to Jupiter, pray to Cthulhu…
    … whatever, to get genuine faith.

  4. “secular man subscribes to christian ethics” you moron. You think Crusaders were ethno-masochists? This shit is a recent invention, it even has a name “MISPLACED CHARITY”, don’t give to the dogs what is your children’s

    • They were ethno-masochists as, once the Muslim converted to Xtianity, he was allowed to marry the white woman.

      As to your comment in the other thread I didn’t let pass through, obviously, you didn’t read the PDF. In the study of Xtianity’s criminal history after Constantine it is pivotal that, unlike the Aryan (the adept of Greco-Roman culture—I see you call them names, ‘pagans’), quite a few Christians had a Semitic background.

      I would recommend reading the PDF first and then trying to comment here. Otherwise, we’ll spam your rants.

    • It is unbelievable how Christians who cannot except that they have been at the altar of an anti-White, vile cult immediately resort to rants and insults.

      Crusaders? You mean the racially healthy Aryans who were prohibited from so much as touching a woman, whether it were his mother or sister, and thus, were prohibited from taking wives, leading to the extinction of their lineage? You mean the Aryans whose mission was to “take back the Holy Land” for the very Jews we are supposed to be opposed to? You mean the Aryans who were so busy doing this that they left the Aryan Spaniards to rot under the yoke of the Moors (Cesar Tort’s ancestors)? Think about it – young White girls having their naked bodies pawed over by greasy flesh merchants – that is precisely what Christianity was allowing, because a patch of sand was more important to them.

      And, like C.T said, Europe let the Semitic converts marry Aryan women. So, yes, they were ethno-masochists.

      “This shit is a recent invention”. I have heard this a million times from WN sites and ideologues. I have asked to no end for an explanation. When was Christianity perverted, the “GOOD” Christianity? Give me the rough century if you cannot give me the year. Who perverted it (saying “Jews” is not enough)? If I can find David Irving videos on the internet, the why not this “recent invention”?

      I would like some details please.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: