SargAng

Quite tired of idiots who dont know how to convince me of what I already believe getting uppity and making terrible appeals. While Thomas Sowell is a shit example when his contribution is being a maverick for his own racial group, and all Sargon could do is make it about his moral qualms regarding groups, I would say JF is (mostly) right.

Mostly since not even Sargon's positions pass the strict libertarian ethic set out, he just takes it when debating people more statist than him. And generally having absurd arguments on how to fix our situation, which shows why grilling Sargon on empirical matters is the correct response (Sargon thinks the welfare state is why Blacks perform poorly, despite European states which also have high single motherhood not having this pathology, and even if true he cant convince blacks to get rid of it). In the end we'd end up with Sargon spewing moralistic nonsense at empirical matters or practical reality, which would make him look absurd as he deserves and easily could be. Which is how we beat cuckservatives during the primary, and Sargon makes the same arguments as cuckservatives but for some reason people dont realize that.

It's a joke to think Sargon uses empiricism as Anglin seemed to say. Sargon argues from his romantic ideals regarding individualism and never has much in the way of facts. And that's what you call out and how you deal with him, he knows fuckall and people who also dont know jack (ie who he and his prefers to debate) dont know he is usually just asserting unverified crap (like saying Chavs commit more crime than Blacks in the UK, which no source for has been presented or found)

Tired of people going into these things halfcocked, letting their opponent decide what is debated (and even who they debate, clownish), or most galling of all letting them get away with ascribing positions to us without even realizing it. All because they dont know what their opponent will say and then dont even know their own position as a result. In all these debates it would be easier if they didnt let idiotic or feckless positions, like Sargon's, endure no scrutiny.

Ultimately most of Anglin's problems would have been solved by grilling Sargon on how universal these values really are (not at all, so the groups which hold them need defending and 'collectivism' is good at that while individualism has failed at both defense and conversion). I would say that Anglin took the bait that we need to deport everyone for an ethnostate (or didnt realize Sargon carried this assumption) but also didnt think that was necessary logistically, so was stuck between the positions. And people go into these things halfcocked all the time because they dont know their own position or their opponent's and dont even try to be persuasive. Like a lot of people downvoting this who probably couldnt convince me of what I already believe.

Anyone familiar with the prelude to this would know Sargon's whole shtick going in was to skirt around empirical questions which would damn his own worldview by debating the merits of using force to create a 100% purely white state (a principle Sargon ascribed and Anglin took the bait on and was left in the awkward position of supporting that but not the methods), which wont happen and doesnt need to happen to get what we want (Israel isnt less Jewish than Germany is German, but is still an ethnostate while Germany isnt). This is why he argued Anglin was "the only honest person" who had "courage of his convictions" because he figured he could get Anglin to admit to a violent solution while others are more wise to this shtick. Even if Anglin followed through with the 'consistent position' Sargon laid out it would be an excuse to avoid talking about empirical matters, because once he does talk about race his own worldview's universalism out the window, which is the whole moral center for why he even likes Liberalism: that it transcends groups. When the empirical issues force him to consider groups, like normal non-ideologues do.

I do think it is a dishonest track for a few reasons:

Sargon still doesnt have a solution to forming a liberalist coalition that wont be 90%+ white (like the Republicans and Libertarians are), and his own ideal state would enforce laws via force and individual rights would be violated. This is why Sargon needs a justifications for state services, in that they produce more individualism, as a workaround. Which is a slippery standard Anglin could have used to argue for White Nationalism since Whites produce freer societies. I think this 'Tactical Ancapping' is annoying but Anglin fell for it. Sargon wont argue race is a facile basis for laws, as that would be too empirical, so he will continue the tactical ancapping as minorities vote for the violence of redistribution (along racial lines, with no way of verifying who didnt vote for it) and disenfranchising whites by displaxing their voting power. A process which will continue and does need a solution, and almost any solution would be less anti-freedom than this self-destructive situation.

Also, Anglin's argument about removing their ability to work is basically enforcing e-verify, which has worked and didnt increase crime rates, they just left. I guess you can say this isnt libertarian but then you basically are saying Libertarianism cant enforce immigration laws once they are here, which helps none of this.

Sargon does make AnCap arguments against state force when he talks about the fact that people will resist and need to be met with violence, but never makes the argument that race is a poor basis for laws. And it was wrong to end up in the position arguing for 100% purity where it gives him the out of "well you'd have to use a lot of force, too much" to avoid arguing about the merit of race as a basis for society. The only out I could see is pointing out that tipping toward a white minority is bad for freedom and the group of people who become the minority and therefore action should be taken. Basically put both sides between a rock and a hard place to equalize things. Liberalism would be impossible without a white majority at least, making the choice their's to take action or flail around trying to teach blacks about Locke for the rest of time.