Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Richard Spencer After Action Discussion

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 5, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

52:30

Richard Spencer After Action Discussion

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everyone, so I thought I'd do a quick after action report with people who messaged me about the debate on Andy Worski's channel with Richard Spencer.
	So V, how did you find it in general?
	They advocated for Romania during communism.
	I know people hate the horseshoe theory, but listen, okay.
	Just have an open mind, read The Conquest of Bread, and replace class with race.
	And then you can even troll the outright by copying segments of it, posting it, and you will see how they agree with, right?
	So whenever you see worker, replace it with the white person.
	And whenever you see the rich or the bourgeoisie, replace it with Jew, and you have the perfect outright handbook.
	Okay.
	Friended, what did you think of it?
	I think your mic's not working.
	Can you hear me now?
	Oh, yeah, I can.
	Yeah, sorry.
	Go ahead.
	I was amazed that you guys were actually talking about ideas.
	I was trying to imagine.
	Did you drop out?
	Or did you get in last minute and Dick Hofflin was going to jump in?
	Yeah, I think so.
	Basically, like a bunch of people had asked, and I was like, yeah, okay, I'll talk to him.
	And I heard other people going to it.
	When Kevin Logan found out, he messaged me on Facebook.
	He recently unblocked me on Facebook saying, I can't believe you're the representative for the left.
	And I just flat out told him, dude, you can't win an argument with the alt-right.
	You agree with too many of their premises.
	So, you know.
	He didn't, though, did he?
	Well, no, no, he does.
	From a far-left perspective, he does.
	I mean, Richard Spencer sounds like a bloody leftist.
	But sorry, yeah, Friended, what did you think?
	Well, I thought it was actually pretty amazing.
	I think, I mean, Richard Spencer is putting forward an argument that is like a classical conservative argument.
	I don't know, have either of you read Mark Lilith's most recent book about the once in future liberal, where he outlines that conservatism in America has been very individualistic since the days of Reagan, but was much more groupish before that.
	Yeah, it really seems like he is putting forward a vision of conservatism that is very much pre-Reagan, which I think is very interesting.
	And the argument that Lilith makes in that book is that you can only get so far with individualism because the breaking point is that you can't really organize people into voting blocks.
	So, I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to what he is saying.
	I know that you're making a very much an individualistic case, but I wonder if that case ultimately has legs.
	Does that make sense?
	Well, the purpose of individualism is to prevent voting blocks, isn't it?
	Yeah, but I mean, if you don't have voting blocks, how do you have power?
	You have power on issues rather than identities.
	Yeah, but people still, I mean, people do gravitate.
	It's very easy.
	The case that Mark Lilith makes is that it's very easy for people at the top of society to be very individualistic.
	I think I disagree with Sargon here.
	I do think people should have identities, but it should be identities.
	They don't have identities either way.
	I mean, I'm not trying to take people's identities away.
	I'm just saying it's not what you should be voting on.
	No, but I think it's preferable to have identities that people choose, like religion, for instance, rather than identities that people can't get out of.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I'm totally for that.
	But I mean, that was Spencer's position.
	You're a white person, so let me define white person.
	he refused to actually adequately define what a white person acts like and so i i do think you struggle here um You struggle to ask the correct question.
	Because I know where you are getting at.
	I think they're using the same social justice academic concept of whiteness, which is not just being white, as genetically white.
	It is an ideology, like the mindset of a white person.
	This is what they were getting at, right?
	Because when Richard Spencer said, it's like, you know, people who are gambling and drinking and blah, blah, blah.
	He was actually talking like acting in a way that's non-white, right?
	So what do you do with the white person that is acting in a way that's non-white?
	Is he still white or is he now, you know, someone that's working against the white people?
	Well, they're an uncle Tom or a cuck or whatever label you want to put on them.
	But that's the point.
	You're going to have to control them.
	You've got to keep them in line.
	This is what the communists used to do.
	They were advocating for class.
	So they were advocating for the worker.
	And there was like the worker mindset.
	And if you were a worker, but you didn't have the correct mindset, then you're a problem.
	You are against the worker.
	It's like, hold on, I am a worker.
	But they would view you as an enemy.
	Like, if you're a worker against communism, you are anti-revolutionary.
	So you are a problem and you have to be either shot or sent to the gulag.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, friend, sorry, what did you think of the, I don't know, the positions he was putting across, I suppose.
	One of the things that he was talking about that I found particularly interesting was the forces of history versus the forces of the ideas.
	There are two influential books in my case.
	One is The Dictator's Handbook, and the other is The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, where both of those books very much softened my reverence for ideas as much as, like, these other forces that are working in history that are really larger than the ideas.
	So when you guys started talking about that stuff, it really – I mean, that stuff was really interesting.
	It's interesting because I'm actually very much with Leonard Peikoff on this.
	I think that he makes a very compelling case in the ominous parallels, the ideas and the motivation for everything.
	They are, but the case that Jonathan Haidt makes in Righteous Mind is that the ideas kind of justify the behavior on a biological level.
	And there was a section where JF was talking specifically about that.
	And the alt-right mentions it a lot.
	And I think the people on the left kind of ignore that at their own peril.
	I think we are innately emotional individuals.
	Jonathan Haidt uses the term intuitions.
	I like the term intuitions a lot better because we do have these root intuitions.
	And Spencer said something about becoming part of something greater than yourself.
	And they're really, I mean, there's that famous Kennedy speech where he says, you know, ask not what you can do for your country, but what, or what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, which is very much a call to, you know, a groupish kind of mentality.
	I got a question, though, regarding this.
	So you're saying that people are emotional, which is totally correct.
	But if you know something is not true, right?
	So the intellectual argument is false, but you're relying on people's emotions in order to push that argument.
	Aren't you a piece of shit?
	Yes, the liberal perspective is very much you are a piece of shit.
	Yeah, you're manipulating people, right?
	It is manipulating, right?
	You know that what you are promoting isn't intellectual, because otherwise you'd use the intellectual argument, right?
	Because that one is stronger.
	And the fact that people like Spencer threw that away so handily and then even started going down the road of like aristocracy and stuff like that.
	I mean, it seemed, I mean, it did have shades of like crazed manipulation.
	JF disagreed with it.
	JF said that, no.
	The point that JF made, though, is backed up by the scientific evidence.
	The case that Jonathan Haidt lays out in The Righteous Mind, he just puts so much of the biological evidence behind it that it's impossible.
	He wrote an influential paper in 2000 called The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tale.
	And he's basically making a case.
	And obviously, human beings lie on a spectrum, right?
	There are very rational people.
	You, Sargon, myself, we lean towards the very rational end of the spectrum.
	I mean, I try to manage my emotions as much as possible.
	Many people do.
	But there are, I would say, 80% of the population is on the other end of the spectrum.
	And it's difficult because if Spencer is offering something to people that has emotional resonance with them and he can gather those people around and gain the political power, I mean, that's what's scary.
	That's why I call it the horseshoe theory that people hate.
	It's because the other side of parliament is also using emotion.
	They don't have the arguments, the ideology.
	They also rely on the pathos and the etho.
	I mean, did you see how Richard Spencer talks?
	When he talks about the white ethnostate, you see his eyes sparkling up and you see the joy in his voice as he talks with passion and with love for what he is saying, you know?
	But I also noticed that he is very smart, right?
	Because I tried to catch him on the fact that he talked about the football identity, right?
	And he knows that most of the out-right don't like football.
	So he can attack the football identity.
	But what about anime identity?
	Isn't that degenerate weebo shit?
	You know, what about gaming identity?
	Well, he said he wanted more of it or less of it, whichever the chat thought was best, I guess.
	Very much.
	He basically feels what the crowd wants, and it's like his people.
	And it's like, of course, he's not going to attack anime.
	So it's like, yeah, you know, if anime gets white nationalist like anime, then it's okay for more foreign culture to be brought into our white ethnostate.
	The thing that I think Richard Spencer would say, though, is that the identity that he's putting forward has the force of history behind it.
	And when he does, I mean, he was talking very much, like he's mentioning all of these painters that are from the Renaissance that were obviously white.
	I don't think anime culture has that kind of force of history.
	Well, that's only because you don't live 300 years later.
	Wait until anime culture is classical art, mate.
	Star Wars is going to be the religion of the future.
	Sorry to interrupt you.
	Right, Dev, are you there?
	I'm here.
	All right.
	Do you want to give your impressions of the debate?
	Yeah.
	One thing I noticed, it just seemed to be maybe in your benefit and maybe not.
	Richard's mic, whenever the two of you would yell at each other, his mic seemed to take priority.
	So you would get drowned out more than him.
	But at the same time, often he was so ridiculous that actually helped you.
	Being able to actually clearly hear Richard Spencer fully articulate an idea is basically the best way to disprove Richard Spencer.
	I found it really hilarious when he was just going on about...
	I mean, like, towards the end where it was like, yes, I would just censor people.
	You know, you'd censor an entire nation because someone outside of the nation was trying to talk to them.
	That's insane to me.
	No, that's what China does.
	You know, the firewall of China, North Korea, Romania, the Iron Curtain, you know, these were, you know, I listened to Yuri, Yuri Besmanov, and he actually says, you know, the Soviet Russia wasn't a country that you can subverse.
	And it's like, okay, if that's the principle, send everyone to a maximum security prison, and then you have, like, you know, no subversion, no, you put, yeah, you put them behind bars, and you're going to have your perfect white system.
	And then you can, you know, just choose who you marry with who.
	And, you know, you can control every little aspect of every individual's life.
	Because at the end of the day, I understand the individual is not important.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	I mean, like, everything he's proposing is against the concept of freedom as we understand it.
	I mean, he actually advocated for a formal aristocracy.
	And some people are naturally inclined to be kings.
	It's like, okay, would you be a serf in your own system?
	No, of course I wouldn't.
	Well, then, but you'd advocate it for someone else.
	It was crazy.
	Like, what he didn't understand, right?
	And Chad, I think, didn't understand, is that an aristocracy actually has two different laws for different classes of people.
	You have the highborn that have a different system of laws in the same nation than the lowborn.
	So for instance, if a highborn, let's say, rapes a peasant's daughter, he only pays a fine.
	If a peasant rapes a highborn daughter, then he can be executed, right?
	So it's even though they're the citizens of the same state, it's different laws that apply to them differently, which is why it's an oppressive system by design.
	It's not oppressive like the United States where Richard Spencer gets punched or censored, which is despite of the system, he wants to create the system by design from the get-go.
	Basically.
	And like, yeah, like the, I saw a super chat, someone saying, yeah, well, you know, you're ignoring that democracies can fall to tyranny.
	It's like, yeah, but that doesn't mean we should set up a tyranny instead, just to subvert the accident of it happening if the democracy fails.
	Despite of democracy, you can get tyranny.
	And if you have like a better system that would prevent tyranny from happening, people will say, well, let's give it a go.
	Let's think about it.
	But you're not doing that.
	You're saying democracy can be taken over by tyranny, so let's just have tyranny.
	It's insane.
	It's just like...
	Yeah.
	And there are loads of things that JF said.
	I was just like, wow.
	I mean, when he first introduced himself to me, he said he was a libertarian, and he was...
	An ANCAP, I think, yeah.
	He did not sound like a libertarian to me, you know.
	I was just advocating for a huge amount of collectivism, frankly.
	Was he supposed to be moderating?
	Is that something that you mentioned before?
	Yeah, he was.
	Yeah.
	Instead, he decided I was someone he needed to ask questions of, I guess.
	Yeah, after the stream was over, like after you had left during the post-show, it was just Andy and him.
	And he basically said that bringing up that Richard Spencer basically wanted feudalism and wanted an aristocracy was a straw man.
	Those were his words.
	Like I can go back to the stream and take the exact words where he said, I mean, I'm sorry if we trapped Richard Spencer in admitting he wants an aristocracy.
	It was like the moon landings.
	And for some reason, then he went on to immigration and saying it was a causal effect.
	And a spatial ethno-state, if I remember correctly.
	This is the ideological resonance that you get from the far left when you read the Jezebel article, you know, like blacks in space, like articles on The Guardian.
	There were SJWs on Twitter complaining that it was like an all-right party.
	When Spencer went to war with you, Sargon, pretty quickly.
	He did go out of the gate.
	He did, yeah.
	He did see threatened, didn't he?
	It'll be interesting to see in the coming days and weeks how the SJW side spends this because I thought it was a total vindication of your position on the left.
	This will make articles in the media, by the way.
	It was the number one worldwide stream.
	I do think there's going to be articles written about it.
	Richard Spencer admitting he wants a monarchy.
	How would SJWs even compete in that conversation?
	I told them they couldn't.
	I told them outright.
	They have not got the tools to win a debate against Spencer.
	They don't.
	No, they do.
	They do.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Listen, they will not appeal to logic.
	They will appeal to emotion, right?
	Because the difference between SJWs, I guess, is that they represent the human race, if you will, right?
	While the white identitarians just replace the white.
	They don't, though.
	That's the thing.
	Their argument all comes down to it's okay when we do it.
	And Spencer's argument came down to it's okay when we do it.
	I mean, literally, what was he arguing when it was full censorship?
	He was just saying, well, it's okay when I do it.
	I'm right or something like that.
	The retort on horseshoe theory was awesome.
	I laughed out loud.
	What did I say?
	I can't remember.
	Well, they came at you with the horseshoe theory and you were like, no, that's not my idea.
	It's not.
	No, that's mine.
	But it's not mine personally.
	This is what this is.
	I know, but just shut him up.
	This is what I read.
	This is what I thought, what I was learned in history school in the ninth grade, I believe.
	So before I even came to YouTube, before I even knew what the outright is, I was presented with the horseshoe theory by a historian.
	I need to go on Google and find out who said it first and when it was coined.
	But then I saw it with my own eyes.
	I see the social justice warriors acting the same like the outright.
	And it's not the policy, right?
	Because the policy is different.
	And this is why people go, oh, we're doing it.
	Yeah, that's it.
	The principle is the same.
	It's like, okay, violence is politics.
	Like, beating people up to impose your political will is acceptable.
	Censorship is acceptable.
	Protecting the collective, like protecting blacks or protecting whites is okay, even if like at the detriment of individuals' rights.
	Censoring art is okay.
	Censoring football.
	Principles of charity and all, though.
	I don't think that Spencer was advocating for violence.
	I think that Spencer was saying violence occurs.
	That violence is not a problem.
	Yeah, but I think that's a very slippery way of saying I'm okay with violence.
	He said politics is violence.
	Potentially, yeah.
	I mean, he did.
	As V says, I mean, he says politics is violence.
	It's like, yeah, that's why we give the monopoly on violence to the state.
	I mean, like, when he was like, you know, what happens if a Muslim comes and stabs you?
	And it's like, well, that'll be in spite of the laws, not because of them.
	Yeah, and not to mention, it's like, he said, like, what's the state stopping you from arresting you?
	Like, if Donald Trump would arrest you tomorrow, there would be massive media outcry.
	And you would have like judges fighting for you.
	You'd get a lawyer.
	And if he wins the case, you can sue the government.
	This is what these people don't understand.
	You can legitimately sue the government because the government also has obligations towards you.
	And if the government doesn't fulfill those obligations, then you have a legal right.
	You can sue the United States government.
	And if you're right, if you're actually being wrong, you can win.
	There's so many people suing Romania, for instance, and they're winning.
	Yeah.
	No, no, you're right.
	Yeah, it's like, okay, well, might makes right, right?
	Okay, so the state has the might to kill you if they want as one person, but because of the law, because you can sue the state if they do something bad to you, if they don't protect your rights, you can actually get the state, which is more powerful than you, to give you money and to give you reparations.
	Yeah, it took us a long time to build those institutions and to put those institutions into place.
	I mean, there was an interesting debate, too, that you guys kind of touched on with the law.
	Like, is the law the document or is it the people?
	Is it the innate rights?
	And I mean, my thinking on that is a lot of times, if you don't have the institutions in place to support that document, then it really is just a document.
	But we do, I mean, we're lucky that we live in nations.
	Well, I don't know about UV.
	You're like communists.
	You talk about it sometimes.
	I'm in the European Union, though.
	Like when I was six, back during communism.
	Have you been in a democracy your whole life, your whole adult life?
	No, no, no.
	Oh, really?
	So you saw the transformation?
	Yeah, which is why the outright scares the living shit out of me.
	Yeah.
	People don't understand.
	I'm legitimately scared of these ideologies, right?
	Yeah, I agree with you.
	I don't think people have enough reverence for how society is held together.
	I mean, when there are people actively promoting political violence in the street, and we have this whole new social media internet technology, which we've never dealt with something like that as a human species.
	The same reason I'm scared of the far left is why I'm scared of the far right.
	And by the way, Millennial Walls pinned me perfectly.
	He said, you're a person who comes from a totalitarian dictatorship and therefore you're dictatorialophobic or something like that.
	You're afraid of tyranny.
	And it's like, bitch, why aren't you afraid of tyranny?
	He's never experienced that.
	That's why.
	He's lived in the world's safest, most stable constitutional monarchy his whole life.
	We haven't had it.
	The nation of Britain has never had a civil war.
	He doesn't know what tyranny is like.
	He has no idea.
	And him and Spencer are always completely thinking that they are the ones in charge of the tyranny.
	And when, like, literally, I said to him, would you rather be, would you like to be a serf on your plantation?
	No.
	Well, then, don't suggest it.
	Do you know what pisses me off the most about it, right?
	Because at the end of the stream, Millennial Woz said, okay, if you're against the out-right, then you're against white people.
	And I'm like, okay, white people didn't elect you as their representative, right?
	This is you, Millennial Woz, talking out of your ass about your ideology.
	And when people contradict you, you're not saying they're contradicting millennial walls.
	You're saying they're contradicting the existence of the white race.
	Oh, all of a sudden you have so much fucking authority behind you, my son, don't you?
	I'm sorry, I'm a little bit frightened.
	But it's annoying, right?
	It's the exact same shit what feminists are doing.
	You see this random twat that you wouldn't give two cents about, like Anita Sarkeesian, and she comes to you with these ridiculous arguments and you say to her, fuck off.
	And it's like, oh, you're not saying fuck off to Anita Sarkeesian.
	You're saying all of women.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, oh, so if I bring this up, it's mushworshu, muhorshu.
	I'm sorry if I see the similarities.
	In principle and practice, they're basically the same functionally.
	They achieve their goals using the same methods.
	Okay, we've got different goals.
	Oh, well, I don't give a fuck.
	The methods are the problem and the principles by which you're operating are the problem.
	Because fundamentally, it really does come down to might makes right.
	I don't know.
	Have I ever spoken for white people or have I ever spoke for Romanians everywhere?
	Or have I ever spoken?
	Even if I'm a gamer, I can't speak for all gamers, you know?
	And this is what baffles me.
	Like, how can you speak for white people?
	Do you speak for Antifa, for instance?
	You know, are they not white?
	Oh, they're not acting white, right?
	So it's not whiteness in the ideological sense.
	So they're the wrong type of whites.
	They're the race traitors, I guess.
	The problem I have with the does might make right argument is, is it a property of the natural world that might does make right?
	Because I feel like it is.
	It's an anarchy, mate.
	So that's why we have laws and justice.
	Exactly.
	And institutions designed to fight that, to fight that feeling.
	If you want might makes right, look at Somalia, right?
	I've been reading about it recently because I was interested.
	And apparently, the reason they have such a poor economy where even communism would lift them up is because every time there's like some civil conflict inside and now like, you know, the mighty impose their will and then someone mightier comes and impose their will to the point where the laws and the rules always change and it's always in a flux and this doesn't create a functioning society.
	So at one point in history, yeah, at one point in history, someone said, okay, this isn't working.
	We need a code of laws.
	And no one is above the law, a principle that I guess is astonishing, right?
	Because this is what it means.
	Even the mightiest person, the president, if Donald Trump tomorrow runs with his car over someone, he's going to go to jail.
	He's going to, you know, there's going to be an investigation and he's going to be arrested because he committed the crime.
	Because no one is above the law.
	To say that the idea that might makes right means that you don't really believe in the American Constitution.
	You don't believe that laws are coming from God or from nature, right?
	Everyone is like God-given rights.
	You don't believe that people have rights that are inherently for all humans.
	You think that some humans are better than others.
	So you're literally arguing against everything that the United States, which is the most individualistic state in the entire world, stands for.
	Yeah, that was a huge flaw on his part to go down the aristocracy route.
	I can't.
	I honestly, I always think Richard Spencer is super smart, but I don't.
	That just made no sense to me at all.
	For me, the fact that he would never really define his terms was really infuriating.
	And I think highly.
	Are you talking on the white thing?
	Yeah, not just the white thing, but that was probably the primary one.
	So I think it's your fault there, Sargon.
	I think you know.
	Shut up and let me finish.
	He's saying that like that.
	It's all Airy Fairy.
	It's all feelings.
	It's all like, yeah, but what about the way I feel about the white race is how you should conceive of the white race.
	It's like, Richard, I've been to some severe slums in my country.
	And I tell you what, the last thing you want to do is praise the white race if you see them.
	You want to get out before you get stabbed.
	It's ridiculous lack of specificity that really was just like, well, I think a giant flaw in his argument, frankly.
	Here's something that I noticed, right?
	They keep talking.
	It's like, it's okay to be proud of your heritage.
	And I agree.
	It's okay to be proud of what your ancestors did.
	But I'm starting to think that you're moving from proud towards ancestry towards ancestry worship.
	That is the vibe that I got.
	Yeah, we whisk Kangs, exactly.
	This is ancestral worship.
	And it's not only that, it's the philosophy that if you get a lot of people with melanin together, right, something magical happens.
	But in his case, it's the reverse.
	You get a lot of people with no melanin together, and magic starts to happen.
	And listen, this is why it really pisses me off.
	It's like, okay, you want the ethno-state because of IQ.
	Then why not create a state where you just allow people based on IQ?
	It doesn't matter.
	Black, white, Asian, you know, you have high IQ, you get in.
	They don't want that, right?
	And it's like, oh, well, so you're saying you want a mensa ethno-state?
	Yeah, it's like I suppose like a meritocratic ethno-state.
	You know, you prove you have what it takes to get in, you get in.
	What happens if you don't, though?
	What if you're born retarded?
	get kicked out yeah but like what what i noticed is that what happens when they invade Jeez.
	No, but the thing is, like, they're racist.
	The idiots are overrunning us.
	No, but here's the thing, right?
	No, here's the thing, right?
	They're racist.
	And it's fine.
	If you want to be a racist, go for it.
	But don't try to moral fact about it and make reasons why you're a racist.
	Just come out to say what it is.
	You hate non-whites.
	That's fine.
	But no, I hate non-whites because of IQ.
	I hate non-whites because...
	Okay, if you hate non-whites because of IQ, then in your ethnostate, you would have to allow a black person that has high IQ.
	Well, yeah.
	I believe high IQ is negatively correlated with fertility, though.
	I know, yeah, that's obvious.
	I spoke about it.
	Are you saying there's going to be a high IQ genocide in a high IQ ethno state?
	Well, look at doctors.
	Teen pregnancies are not usually marked by high IQ.
	But look at doctors.
	Like how many kids do they have, you know, compared to, let's say, plumbers.
	Should we, Dev, do you want to jump in with a few comments?
	Because I think you might have some.
	Yeah, sorry, I'm too Canadianly polite to my bad.
	Sorry, I'm sortomanianly rude.
	V, I'm not sure that it's trending towards ancestry worship.
	I think it's more of a case of Richard Spencer and people like him just wanting to take responsibility for all of these positive accomplishments of their ancestors.
	And just through the superficial relationship of race.
	If we can accept that Richard Spencer can take responsibility for the white race's accomplishments, he now has all these things under his belt that he actually didn't do.
	Yeah, no, no, it's entirely true.
	Isn't that called stolen valor or something like that?
	Well, it's the reverse progressivism, isn't it?
	Like, reverse progressivism means all the bad things your ancestors did are now yours.
	And the altright is like, all the accomplishments that your ancestors did are yours.
	And the reason I say ancestral worship, I actually made a video showing like some of the messages I got.
	It's like, V, you have disrespected your ancestors and you need to be killed.
	And it's like, okay, you know what?
	If I say this, people say, oh, strong man, strong man.
	And if I show it, it's like, look on the screen, you moron.
	This is what I got.
	40 op votes, you know?
	Oh, that is so petty, V.
	That is so petty.
	It's not matter.
	You know, like, they don't want to admit that there are radicals.
	Like Sargon said, you know, these are the radicals that will shoot Richard Spencer in the back and take over.
	They don't want to admit that these radicals exist amongst them.
	He really was the Kropotkin of the alt-right.
	Andrew Anglin is going to murder Richard Spencer.
	And he'll do it without even thinking twice.
	Because Richard Spencer was basically cucked on loads of issues.
	This is something I've noticed about the alt-right is that they give a lot of credence to individualist morality.
	And that's wrong on their part.
	Because when it comes to a debate with the alt-right, I mean, Millennial Woese is really getting away from that.
	And you saw that in the debate where he starts going, well, you do anything to protect the race.
	And it's like, yeah, but the race isn't under threat in your ethnostate.
	It's not under threat.
	You don't need to.
	But anything comes first.
	So anything came first.
	And another thing I love is when they ask me to define what the alt-right argument is for something.
	That's amazing.
	It's like they don't know their own principles.
	I mean, I know what their principles are, so I can actually make the arguments.
	But to be honest with you, I thought they were going to go fascist dictatorship rather than monarchy and feudalism.
	So, I mean, that surprised me.
	You know what?
	What's interesting is that a lot of people keep saying, it's like, why are you for the alt-right?
	Or the why are you sucking Sargon's dickhead?
	Like, okay, you haven't watched my channel, okay?
	Every single criticism that I have for the far left, and God knows I made more anti-far left videos than all the alt-right put together, can be applied to the far right.
	I would be a hypocrite if I were to criticize the far left for doing something, and then it's okay when the alt-right does it.
	Yeah, it's, I don't know.
	During that debate I counted, Richard Spencer said the phrase, lived experiences at least a dozen times.
	I know.
	I didn't want to pull him up on it because it felt petty at the time because it was near the beginning of it, but he did keep saying that lived experience.
	And I was like, right, okay.
	I'm not happy that this is happening, by the way.
	I wouldn't mind if I had an ally against fighting the far left, but at the end of the day, I fight the far left because they want to sense up my video games.
	And it seems that Richard Spencer is more than happy to do so as well.
	People were clipping the stream up as it was going.
	It'll be super interesting to see how people spend it.
	One of the things that's fascinating about this kind of stuff is just how people can watch it and have completely different outlooks on what happened.
	I think that's one of the most interesting things about these.
	I think there's a bunch of people who have their mindsets.
	There's on our side, you know, people who no matter what I say, will always say that he is right.
	And there's people on the out-right side who no matter what you would say, they would say the alt-right is right.
	And then there's people in the middle.
	And, you know, the battle is for the people in the middle.
	And it is an ideological battle, right?
	It's a battle of ideas.
	By the way, what do you think about Andrew Angling being Jewish?
	Who is that?
	He's the Daily Stormer.
	It's not Andrew Anglin, it's Weave.
	Who's Jewish?
	Weave.
	Is he really Jewish or was it just like a video?
	Apparently, it has been reported that his mother has said that he is Jewish on both sides of his family.
	I think it was Newsweek that reported it.
	I actually only saw that today, which is what was the name of Paul Ramsey Paul Ron in the video you showed me?
	Yeah, Ramsey Paul.
	He's not part of the alt-right.
	No, I know, I know.
	But he basically said that a Jew coined the alt-right.
	No, well, I don't know if a Jew coined the alt-right.
	That's what he said in his video.
	He says that the term alt-right, the name alt-right, was coined by a Jewish person.
	In the beginning, I was all for the alt-right.
	I looked at their principles.
	They wanted to limit immigration.
	They were against Islam and whatnot.
	But they were like a decent movement, like a conservative movement that I could agree with.
	And then they had the civil war within the alt-right, which was like alt-light versus alt-right.
	And they kicked out all of the moderates, if you will, all of the people on the right.
	And then they turned into like basic bitch fascism.
	Like, I don't know how else to call it.
	They're literally like neo-Nazis that remain, right?
	I mean, you heard their tyrannical views, right?
	So they pushed away people like Paul.
	And now, like, the only people that are left in the alt-right are people who are for dictatorship.
	I don't know how else to call it.
	And I'm sorry, but I can't be for that, you know?
	It's very interesting that it was very much an individualist morality up against a collectivist morality.
	But since Spencer was very much taking the collectivist morality side from the very beginning, it's strange that he went towards aristocracy, which I just, I don't think of aristocracy as collectivist at all.
	It is, it is, collective.
	I mean, he's for group rights.
	An aristocracy, obviously, is founded.
	You know what you should have said, Sargon?
	And I'm really sad you didn't pin him on it.
	It's like, if every individual's rights is protected, then by definition, the group which is formed by individuals also has its rights protected.
	Oh, that's a good point.
	I should have, yeah, I should have said that.
	But yeah, the idea of group rights to me, all it is is aristocratic privilege.
	But I mean, that was at the beginning of the stream.
	By the end of the stream, that all makes a lot of sense from his point of view.
	I can see why he argues for it.
	I mean, my problem with the SJWs is that they are forming a new aristocracy made up of protected groups that they have declared.
	And they want, I mean, almost a caste system.
	And that's my problem with the SJWs.
	When Richard Spencer comes along and goes, by the way, I'm for aristocracy.
	That was my problem with them, Richard This is what Okay, listen If you're an outriter And you're listening to this shit You need to understand The problem we have with SJWs isn't that they put minorities first on the ladder and they're like the sacred cow.
	And if you were to put white people on the ladder and consider them like the sacred cow, everything would be fine.
	No.
	The problem is with the idea of creating a group of people that are the minorities, which are the sacred.
	This is what pisses me off, right?
	No one should be above the law, right?
	People should be judged on their character.
	I don't care if white people are good at inventing something.
	Tell me what you invented.
	Tell me what you did for the white race, and then I'll give you the accomplishments.
	Yeah, I'm sure it's stolen valor or something.
	In the American military, they have this term for people who pretend to be veterans.
	Oh, it's a crime.
	Yeah, yeah, it's a crime.
	If you're like basically a civilian interacting as a soldier, and it's for a reason, because these people have earned the privileges they will receive in society, the credit that they deserve.
	And I say they deserve because I totally understand.
	I think that's meritorious.
	And so I have no problem with people treating veterans with a bit of deference.
	No problem at all.
	It's something you've earned.
	It's available to anyone to earn if they want to earn it.
	I don't particularly want to earn it, so I don't expect to have it.
	It's fine, you know, it's completely, I'm completely okay with it.
	The problem with aristocracy is that it's given by birth.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And they were fine with it.
	And it's like, okay.
	It's like, you are born white and therefore, right?
	This is what pisses me out.
	You're born black and therefore.
	And you can't get out of your whiteness.
	You can't get out of your blackness.
	This is things that are assigned to you since birth.
	This is like, imagine that this is the hand of cards you're dealt with, right?
	People don't care how you play the cards.
	It's like what is the hand you're dealt with and that's it.
	And I don't want to play such a game.
	Yeah.
	It's necessarily tyrannical.
	I mean, if people want to know what to read, common sense, I think it is that, or is it the rights of man?
	I think it's common sense in which Thomas Paine absolutely demolishes the concept of monarchy.
	And he's just got to the point where he's just broken it down to this is this is literally just a long time ago a group of people agreed that you should be oppressed.
	You should not have your rights.
	And it's like, okay, that's not a good enough reason.
	I wouldn't do that.
	Law is based on law.
	and it's like, well, yeah, the British monarchy isn't the type of monarchy.
	It is a monarchy, but it's...
	No, it's not the type of monarchy they want.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	I think he wants something a lot more prominent.
	You can read John Stuart Mill to find out, find good arguments against why the tyranny of the majority is a bad thing, which, again, Richard Spencer argued for, which, okay.
	I mean, for me, these are losing conditions.
	When you're arguing for censorship, autocracy, dictatorship, aristocracy, and social tyranny.
	They're losing conditions for me.
	Yeah, always there's like this reason.
	Like all tyrannies, if you read history, every single one, the tyrannical ideologue is like there's this greater threat.
	And because of this greater threat, you just need to give away your rights.
	And we'll have like this big government that's going to protect you from that greater threat.
	I mean, just pragmatically, though, we have to protect ourselves democratically from what they offer.
	And if the left is only offering an individualist pitch for morality and their groupish morality resonates with people, how do we protect ourselves from them gaining democratic power the same way any other tyrannical regime gains?
	You have to work harder at being more effective at spreading the message, that's what.
	Yeah, and the message has to be more effective as well.
	It does.
	Apparently, Jim Internet Aristarchat or Meteker tit it out.
	Man, the part where Richard Spencer read the first few captures of Mein Kampf while Sargon ate an entire cooked ham live on the stream was not nuts.
	To be fair, though, I can eat a cooked ham pretty fucking quickly.
	There was a WeWas Kangs meme going around of JF2.
	Someone memed it up immediately.
	I think the absolute best part of all the clips that are coming out of the stream are the ones where Richard Spencer finally answered the question and said that traps were gay.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, that's going to kill it.
	I've actually seen statistics polling and stuff.
	That's the popular opinion, apparently.
	Two-thirds of people think that.
	Apparently, 40% of people thought you won, while 60% of people thought Richard Spencer won, according to a poll by Mr. Mettheker.
	But I guess that says a lot about your audience.
	I think he's going to have a bit of a skew there.
	But I mean, 40%, considering his audience, that's not bad, actually.
	But for me, Richard Spencer just lost on every fucking point.
	I was just like, this is why at some points I couldn't help but laugh.
	It was just like, that's admitting that you want to be a tyrant, Richard.
	I think that they're making fun of you saying, have you stopped pitching your wife?
	I think they don't understand the context in which you said this.
	He was asking you a loaded question.
	That's a spin, though.
	They're going to spin it their way.
	I mean, everyone's going to spin it their way.
	Everyone spins it.
	One thing I noticed about the whole thing is that every time you got really frustrated, Sargon, that was basically the moment where I think you had shown that you had got one over Richard Spencer.
	Because he was like, you ask him a question, and he's like, that question makes no sense to me.
	I don't understand it.
	Are you autistic?
	And then you got angry about it.
	And I'm just like, yes, that's it.
	You just blew him the fuck out.
	There were loads of times where I'd ask him something and he'd just, there'd be like, you know, two or three seconds of silence.
	And he'd be like, no.
	He didn't understand.
	You know what they will hit you with?
	Hold on.
	It doesn't matter what they fucking hit me with.
	I don't care.
	You know what they will hit Sargon with?
	And this is how they will speak.
	Talk away from me now that I've said I don't care.
	Go on, Lenzy.
	Go on.
	What are they going to hit you with?
	Okay, this is like how a lot of people are going to give you flag for.
	And I think this is your fault for not explaining it better, but they will attack you for going like, define what white is.
	And I think they don't understand.
	It's like the same thing when I ask a social justice warrior, like, define what black is.
	Because it's not black as in the race, as in the genetics.
	They have like the concept that white people need to behave in a certain way.
	So when you were asking it, I felt like you're asking, can you tell me how a white person needs to behave?
	What do you understand by what?
	Because according to Richard Spencer, a person who gambles and who drinks is not white culture, right?
	This is like something foreign.
	And what do you do with the white person who drinks?
	And if you read like progressivism, they also have like blackness, the ideology of blackness, right?
	And it's basically like a black person has to vote a certain way, has to feel.
	I've tried to get them to define blackness.
	I've asked SJWs all the same questions of our Spencer.
	What do you mean?
	Because it's such a cheesy term, isn't it?
	Say whiteness and people assume that okay yeah, you have white skin, you're white, but it's not like that.
	Right, Jews have white skin and they're not white.
	And not only that then.
	Then they go on and they complain about the ideology of the, the group, and it's like okay, what if you have a white person that's outside of the ideology and this is the what the communists did as well it's like the ideology of the working class and it's like okay, what if you have a worker that's not a communist?
	Ah, we need to shoot him, we need to, we need to do.
	You know, he's a problem.
	He's a problem because he's the only way to deal with him.
	So well, if you, if you leave the the reason these things happen is if you leave one dissenter left unmolested, then other people start thinking they can dissent.
	Yeah yeah, they actually have the saying.
	It's like uh, imagine a bad apple in a pack of good apples.
	It's going to spoil the other apple.
	So it's better to lock 10 innocents and make sure that the guilty person gets locked up as well than to allow you know, an innocent, a guilty person, to walk away because it's the poison apple that's going to poison all of the apples.
	Yeah well, this is the thing, collectivism just leads to tyranny.
	That's where tyranny comes from.
	But sorry yeah, go ahead Friended, that's straight from the Art Of War.
	You guys are hilarious that there was a ton of real substance in this debate, which that's what was the most interesting part for me.
	All the spin that comes out of this will have nothing to do with that substance at all.
	Yeah, that's right, it'll all.
	It'll all be about uh, our traps, gay or you know what, what.
	Like it's just uh.
	But there was, there was a ton of really interesting, like philosophical arguments going back and forth.
	I mean I, i'm gonna have to watch it again, just I, and I, I can't wait to see.
	Like i'm sure the distributors will make a video on it, like i'm sure a lot of really smart youtubers are gonna, are gonna dissect this, and I think I mean I can't imagine.
	I'm just trying to think of you say SJ, an SJW could have got in there be, but who, who could have gone in there and had this kind of interesting?
	Professor uh professor what, the giraffe neck?
	Oh he, he's actually smart.
	He would have failed.
	He would have failed his smarts.
	Okay, when you say SJWS you, you think the common, you know Retard, that's not an SJW paroting shit.
	No, he's Antifa, he's worse, he's an ideologue like he.
	Actually, I said Gary Edwards, and I just want to make it clear, Gary Edwards is not an SJ.
	No no no, I was talking about, you know the, the university professor, the one with the long neck.
	Uh, he's very oh yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, I couldn't listen to the street because it's like um um um um, I know he's disgusting to look at and and he's um, you know, not very pleasant to the eyes, but he knows his ideology right, and he's not the parrot he, he understands things about the, the common SJW uh, foot soldier, or at least this is the, the uh impression that I got from him.
	Yeah anyway um yeah Dev, do you want to, do you want to give us a comment and then i'm going to stop recording?
	Yeah Sargon, you mentioned um, a few minutes back that collectivism leads to tyranny.
	Um, and that actually reminds me and this, this whole debate reminded me of a debate that you had with somebody.
	It was a live debate.
	Uh, what was that guy's name?
	Thomas, I forget what else, anything else about it Thomas Smith, it might have been him.
	Yeah, and his argument in that debate was that intersectionality eventually leads to individualism and and just to play devil's advocate, I can kind of see where he was coming from in that debate.
	He just did a really pissed poor job explaining it.
	His idea is that if you Do, you know the mathematical calculations of intersectionality down to their very end, you eventually get an individual human being, because everyone has their own circumstances.
	If you categorize them detail in a, in a detailed enough way, is what you mean.
	Yes yeah yeah, you have like 10,000 or 100,000 different categorizations of, of oppressed and and oppressive, and you work all that out and then you get an individual and I mean I, I guess that kind of makes sense, but but at the same time, it's still just, you know, calculating somebody down.
	Imagine how tyrannical that system is going to be before you've got anywhere near calculating that detailed.
	Like it's just Plato's Plato's corpse is somewhere and it's just got an erection.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't see why anyone should have the right to have any decision on how my life is going to run in that, and they're not even elected.
	That that's the shocking thing.
	Yeah, it's.
	This is this, is the eternal problem with Plato's Republic, which is what they were arguing for.
	And I'm totally with Aristotle, you know, you've got to look at the actions of the individual and how they work, and that way you have to talk about personal morality.
	I mean, like Richard Spencer just completely denied the idea of talking about morality.
	He was like oh, you know, he was completely dismissive, so it's like okay well, we won't talk about morality, then let's talk about how you plan to say, implement your ethno state, what do white people have to do?
	And he wouldn't do it and it was just like, god damn, you know.
	Just answering need to understand why collectivism is oppressive, at least the one that they're advocating for.
	Right is that when you have collectivism, you define what the, the collective is right.
	So you define what white people are and how they behave and how they act.
	And then you, when you have a white person that doesn't behave like the collective, he's a problem.
	You either force him to behave or you kill him.
	So, for instance, Islam, right, all women have to wear burqas.
	Right in the collective, a good Muslim woman wears a burqa.
	And even if you have a good Muslim woman who doesn't wear a burqa well, she's the problem.
	What do you do, by definition, she's not good.
	Well yeah, exactly right.
	But even if you would, she would be good by every other standard.
	Besides the fact that she doesn't wear a burqa, she's a problem yeah, so this is why it's impressive.
	This is why these people just don't understand that what they're asking is for tyranny, because unless you fit their very narrow definition of what it is to be a white person and again i'm not talking about skin color, i'm talking about behaving white so if Richard Spencer says white people don't like football and you happen to be a white person that is into football identity you're a problem you need to be dealt with.
	Yeah, he got a lot of shit for that football thing, rightly so.
	It's crazy.
	I know no, but all collectivist ideologists do it.
	For instance, in Islam, it's like that in Iran, if i'm not mistaken singing is uh is Haram, isn't it?
	Yeah, so that because it takes away from the major identity.
	Progressives do the same, except that progressive co-op, right?
	So, for progressives, like Dungeons and Dragons is sexist.
	Why?
	Because if you play Dungeons and Dragons, you're not doing political activism on the Twitter.
	So, basically, what they want is that co-op, Dungeons and Dragons.
	So, when you play it, you get injected with social justice propaganda.
	That is the end goal, right?
	But for other identitarian movements, it's perfectly okay to just censor it.
	It's like Dungeons and Dragons, it takes away from white identity.
	Just censor it.
	It's degenerate.
	It's no.
	Yeah, but right, okay.
	Yeah, I'll stop it there because it's getting quite late and I'm fucking knackered.
	But yeah, I just want to say I had loads of fun doing it.
	I was, as far as I'm concerned, fully on the attack.
	And Spencer just kept appealing to nothing.
	He was just like, well, I don't have an answer for that.
	That's autistic.
	It's like, you're right.
	You just don't know the answers.
	And then when answers were forthcoming, they were nuts.
	Neo-feudalism.
	Good thing I was like, sorry, King, Richard.
	Your questions to the alt-right daily acted like it's a hostile takeover or something like hostile invasion.
	It was really funny.
	How dare you ask us questions about what we believe in?
	Those are loaded questions.
	Even though you said you can answer, I don't know.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, you would not believe how many people in the alt-right think Jews are oppressing white people.
	And the thing is, like, they took offense to the terminology.
	It's like, sorry, like, I mean, I read the one on the Daily Stormer and it was hilarious because Andrew Anglin, he starts with, you know, like, this is a way to try and make us SJWs.
	But let me tell you about how the Jew has oppressed the white man since time immemorial.
	It's like, so your answer is yes then.
	Okay, that's fine.
	I mean, I'm not saying that people can't be oppressed.
	I want to know whether you think this is true.
	And yeah, it was about, it was over half, I think, from the polling that I did.
	So it was just like, right, okay.
	I mean, I'm not judging you.
	It's just interesting you think that way because the alt-right just seems to be Black Lives Matter.
	You know, the biggest problem saying like Jews oppress white people.
	Like, you're not giving names.
	You're not saying, okay, George Soros is oppressing white people.
	Because then you know what to do, right?
	George Soros is a problem.
	He's oppressing white people.
	So everything George Soros does needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
	So you actually try to solve the issue.
	But when you say Jews everywhere, it's like, okay, there's this Jewish neighbor that I have that jerks off and plays video games all day.
	Is he oppressing white?
	I have that same neighbor here in California.
	But anyway, so yeah, interested to see how people felt about it because I feel really great about it.
	I had a really good time.
	And as far as I'm concerned, like listening to it, Richard just seemed totally against the concept of freedom.

▲