Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Doomerpolitics Did Nothing Wrong

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 5, 2021 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

57:04

Doomerpolitics Did Nothing Wrong

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, hello.
	How's it going?
	No Fallout boy today, I'm afraid.
	I wasn't really prepared to go live, and I was trying to set things up in the back, and it went live.
	So, you know, boomerisms, what are you going to do about me?
	I hope you're all having a very nice Sunday morning.
	I'm too used to getting up early these days.
	It's terrible.
	I don't get lions anymore.
	And so I wake up at like 9 o'clock and it's like, right, wide awake.
	Oh, better go do something.
	And something very interesting happened recently.
	And I think you're going to enjoy it.
	But let me finish doing what I was doing.
	And then we'll get started.
	Also, give a bit of time for people to be like, oh my god, Sargon streaming.
	Good morning.
	Right.
	Yes, I can see the chat now.
	Hello, folks.
	Right, so linked in the description is a video by a channel called Doomer Politics.
	And I think you should all go and subscribe to him.
	We're going to talk about him in a minute.
	And he seems to be a good boy, didn't do nothing.
	In fact, I could totally stand by that.
	He seems to have done nothing wrong with the video that he's done.
	But anyway, just have a quick chat to you for a second.
	Did you guys celebrate Labour Day in the UK?
	It's on a Monday here.
	No, because we're not communists.
	No, we have May Day, which is May the 1st, which is the communist holiday here for some reason.
	Don't know why we allow that.
	Jump on Adam and Sitch's stream tomorrow.
	Tomorrow, that's later on today.
	I don't know.
	Maybe.
	We'll see.
	My kids are at their grandparents at the moment.
	So they may burst in at some point.
	This isn't going to be a long stream.
	just gonna just talk about a few things in a minute um i'm sniping on not so obvious as premiere Oh, I didn't realize.
	Sorry.
	I haven't looked around at the internet to see what's going on.
	I woke up and I just wanted to talk about this.
	The kids are wonderful.
	Thank you.
	The I word in the chat, even though Joe Rogan might be allowed to promote it, I can't because I didn't get $100 million from Spotify.
	So there we go.
	Hi from North FC, simple ass.
	No super chats.
	Well, no, this isn't a monetized channel, is it?
	Because apparently I'm a bad boy.
	And YouTube don't like me.
	Even though I deleted a bunch of videos I thought they might have taken exception with, they were still like, new.
	So, right, okay.
	Well, thanks very much.
	But you're welcome, Samuel, for the free content.
	I'm happy to be able to put out free content.
	It's because everything's going so well in other respects.
	So thank you, everyone, who's become a subscriber on lotacies.com, by the way.
	And I hope you're enjoying the content we're putting up there.
	Send help the cops here in Australia stabbing me in the ass with a vax needle.
	Dude, I think that's going to be the least of your worries, given the way that things in Australia are going.
	My God.
	I can't, can't get over what's happening in Australia.
	Like, you calling us Nazis.
	Well, we're going to ban you calling us Nazis.
	It's like, really?
	Really?
	Criticism of the police is going to be banned because they're being too authoritarian.
	That's the way you want to go, is it?
	I think that's hardly fitting for one of the English-speaking countries.
	That's, you know, fitting for some sort of East Asian tyranny, maybe, or some communist hellhole.
	But the free world is banning that kind of criticism.
	Maybe you should stop acting like Nazis.
	It's disgusting.
	I hate it.
	Anyway, let's talk about Doomer Politics.
	So there's a chap called, who has a very small channel called Duma Politics.
	Now, when I saw this video, he had like 400 subscribers.
	He's now got 1,000 subscribers.
	You should go over and subscribe to him.
	He had made a previous video about Vadim Newquist, a man sometimes referred to as creationist cat on the internet, who pretends to be a cat on the internet.
	And he, I haven't watched that video, but he called him a crybully in the title, which I think is probably true.
	I think Vande Nucos does fit that bill, so I don't need to watch it, but I'm sure it's a good video.
	But his apparent breakout hit is this one: Vorsch is unironically evil.
	That's true.
	That's a demonstrably true statement.
	And his over hour and a half-long video goes on in great detail to substantiate this.
	Now, Shortfataku had been saying to me for ages that he's going to make this video.
	He's been collecting clips.
	And I mean, Duma Politics doesn't even mention Vorsch's promotion of child pornography once in the video.
	Without showing Vorsch defending child pornography, he can still demonstrate that he is unironically evil.
	I mean, that's a level of good faith that I personally wouldn't have expected from someone criticizing Vorsch.
	You know, he's so easy to go, well, look at this: pro-pedo, pro-nonce advocacy, you know, and then pro-murder, pro-revolution, pro-tyranny.
	Like, it's so easy to show how evil Vorsch is.
	Like, a demonstrably bad person.
	But Duma Politics has gone, they've taken the high road and actually watched tons and tons and tons of Vorsch's content.
	So you don't have to.
	Because imagine watching like 80 hours of Vorsch just bullshitting and lying and smearing whatever it is that's in front of him.
	Oh, this thing makes progressive politics look slightly unpalatable.
	I'm going to call it Nazism or white supremacy or whatever it is.
	Imagine having to sit through that, right?
	But he did.
	He made all the notes.
	He got all the clips.
	He arranged his argument really, really, really well.
	And he has presented it in a very concise and watchable video.
	It's really good.
	It's really, really good, in fact.
	And Vorsch's response to this, I haven't seen the response, but I heard him talking about it.
	We'll go into in a minute, was to watch like a five-minute clip of it on his stream, disparage it, and then move on.
	As if, no, I've addressed that point now.
	It's like, no, there is so much here that Vorsch has just simply refused to address.
	And I mean, personally, for me, the best point he makes is about a character in one of Plato's dialogues called Calicles.
	Now, I've actually not so long ago read about this because it was in a book by Bernard Williams I was reading.
	It was very interesting.
	And the thing about Calicles, and Vorsch very much is YouTube's Calicles, is that he believes that morality doesn't exist and all is power.
	Everything is a power game.
	And this is, of course, exactly Vorsch's position.
	And so the issue that Socrates in the dialogue, I think it's Gorgias or Gorgias, I don't know how to pronounce it.
	I've only ever seen it written down.
	The issue that Socrates is trying to address with him, one of them, is trying to get him to commit to ethics.
	And that's actually the main point of Bernard Williams' book on it: look, how do we get people who are so demonstrably psychopathic as to reject ethics entirely to commit to ethics?
	And it's a difficult question.
	And I actually don't think that Bernard Williams comes to a satisfactory conclusion.
	His conclusion is to say, well, ethics is the necessary condition of a rational being.
	Calicles is a rational being, and therefore he must necessarily be ethical.
	But the thing is, Calicles can just be like, no, I don't.
	And watch me be evil.
	And what's Bernard going to do about that?
	It's not easy.
	And I'm not saying I've got a solution either, by the way.
	There are some people who are so irredeemably evil and committed against doing good and for their own personal gain that there's simply no trying to reason with them.
	And it seems that honestly, Vorsch is one of those people.
	So The entire video is, like I said, really long.
	He's got these broken in sections.
	So the first one is bad faith.
	And now, I don't know whether I have to explain this to anyone watching.
	If you don't think Vorsch is a bad faith actor, then you are a bad faith actor.
	And we'll go into a stream that Duma Politics did with a guy called President Something about this.
	And the only argument that the person Duma Politics is debating, the only arguments they can present are bad faith.
	And so the only way they could defend that Vorsch is not acting in bad faith is by acting themselves in extreme bad faith.
	And I think this is just a persistent feature of Vorsch fanboys.
	This is gross.
	It's awful.
	And I tell you what, after not having been within left-wing politics for a very long time, I'm more than happy to call myself a conservative these days because A, it gives me a lot more intellectual flexibility.
	And it's actually, now that I think about it, allowed me to view the world in a more three-dimensional way.
	The problem with the left-wing politics, I think, enlightenment politics generally, actually, is that it tends to abstract and compress down lots of complicated things into very thin, narrow ideas that actually don't really represent the world accurately.
	Whereas from the conservative point of view, you can actually sort of expand these up and have different layers of things that will come together.
	And actually, I think it's a fairer representation of the world.
	I also think that if you're calling yourself left-wing at this point, emotionally, you've probably got something wrong with you, or you just don't know much about the world.
	Anyway, so yes, the first section, bad faith, obviously.
	And we'll go into that in a bit more depth in a minute.
	And the second one is the format.
	So he's just like streaming, pausing, calling something a Nazi, streaming, pause and calling something a Nazi.
	You know how unbelievably uncharitable all of this is.
	And then he goes into equivocation, where, of course, Vorsch does this.
	The next one is misinformation, where, of course, Vorsch just lies about things and then is proud of his lie because his whole point is to defend left-wing politics, progressive politics, whatever you want to call it.
	Us good, them bad.
	And so if we lie, our lies are good and their truths are evil.
	That's how Vorsch's mindset is.
	And so Vorsch thinks nothing of just, and he says this.
	He just says this openly.
	It's okay if we lie because we're good and they're bad.
	And he's got this weird religious commitment.
	It's, no, we know that we are good.
	And therefore, it's like, well, I mean, that's literally what the Nazis said.
	You know, it's literally what any, you know, the Crusaders, the jihadists, all of the worst people on earth have that opinion, this kind of unshakable resolution in the moral conviction of themselves rather than anything else.
	And I think that anyone who thinks that way probably is leading into a path of evil.
	There's just no getting around it.
	And so if you're openly spreading lies for your own benefit, I think you're probably the villain.
	I think that's what a villain would do.
	I don't think heroes go around deliberately and willfully and knowingly spreading lies.
	I mean, that's heroes tell the truth.
	That's a good section.
	And the next section is dehumanization, of course.
	I mean, you know, it doesn't need to be said.
	Everyone's a Nazi.
	Also, punch Nazis.
	Ergo, punch everyone.
	Like everyone who disagrees.
	That's literally the complexity of Vorsch's moral position laid bare.
	And dehumanizing people, I mean, I'm not a progressive, but when I considered myself to be a progressive, I was against the idea of dehumanization.
	That seemed to be a core aspect of progressive politics.
	Course, this appears to have fallen away into sort of raw leftist politics where it's about power for power's sake and power uberalis, as it were.
	And then we get into the next section of morality.
	Now, what I find very interesting about this is that Vorsch basically doesn't seem to have any.
	Morality is whatever serves his interests at any given time.
	And it's deeply, deeply evil.
	Like, this is the pit of evil in Vorsch's soul, where it's like, look, you know, I mean, honestly, it's conceivable that if Vorsch thought it would advance the goals of socialism, the revolution, whatever it is, that he'd shoot a child.
	You know, it's like when the Australian government, they were like, oh, we're really worried about COVID, and so we're going to have to shoot 10 puppies.
	That, I would say, is evil.
	And I don't see how Vorsk could argue against that if he thought that it was necessary to advance the cause of socialism.
	It's exactly the same perspective.
	And of course, this puts him among the worst kind of people who have ever lived.
	And I don't think I'm overstating it when I say that that's probably true.
	It's just a good thing that his personal power and influence is actually very severely limited to extremely online people and not to, I don't know, real world politics, because that would be terrible.
	But then you get to Vorsch's section on Vorsch and fascism.
	And he does a very, very good job of pointing out that Vorsch calls everyone fascist.
	Vorsch doesn't really know anything about fascism, of course.
	But if you, there are two ways of looking at it.
	There's a sort of like an essential way of looking at fascism, as in what is the intellectual bedrock, what do they themselves think, what are they pushing outward in the world to try and achieve, what are their animating principles?
	You know, how is what is their metaphysic?
	What is the construction of the world around them?
	And what do they think is good and bad?
	And then there is the sort of external view of fascism where you are someone on the outside of fascism and you're looking at what they're doing.
	And so you're picking at the sort of platonic form.
	So the difference between Aristotle and Plato here, you know, where Plato is like, well, a man is a featherless biped.
	No, that's not what a man is, but that is true that men are bipeds and they are featherless.
	You know, but that's why did you pick those things out?
	It's compared to Aristotle's man being a rational animal.
	And so, you know, even if you met a man with feathers, he'd still be a man.
	But Vorsch, of course, doesn't know anything about this.
	But Duma Politics does a great job here, saying, look, by Vorsch's own standards, if he takes his platonic looking from the outside in perspective, he looks a lot like a fascist.
	And so he just goes through, like, oh, look, you know, he's saying, well, this is what fascists do, this is what fascists do.
	Okay, but this is what Vorsch also does.
	And he is very, very charitable.
	And I think Duma politics is a lot more charitable to this perspective and Vorsch and Vorsch's fans than I think is warranted, right?
	Fascism, and I think this comes from him thinking that fascism is somehow connected to right-wing politics.
	Now, I'm going to guess that Doom Politics says he's not a philosopher and that he sounds fairly young, I'd say sort of early or mid-20s.
	And so I'm not surprised that he would have this perspective.
	But the thing is, the more you read into fascism and the more you understand the root of fascism and the distinctions between fascism and national socialism, you realize that actually this is not a movement of the right.
	There is nothing you cannot get to fascism from conservative or classically liberal politics.
	You have to go through socialism.
	There's no other way.
	And so it's no surprise and no coincidence that Mussolini, Various others like Sorel and Demand and things like this.
	They were all doctrinaire socialists for their entire adult careers before either being instrumental in the development of fascism or becoming fascists themselves.
	And this is no surprise because they themselves are trying to achieve socialism.
	Now, socialism is a word that is difficult to define and doesn't really have a solid definition, but it seems to the commonality that when people are using it, the intent behind it seems to be a rationally ordered top-down plan of society.
	And so fascism is really the apotheosis of socialism, if that is an accurate description, which I think it is.
	It is the final realization that to achieve socialism, it requires the total incorporation of the nation.
	Now, I've done a lot of work on this, and you can go to loadsis.com if you'd like to find more.
	But Shaw Fataku bullied me into reading Zeev Sternhall, and Zeev Sternhall being an Israeli liberal philosopher and historian who went through the intellectual precursors of fascism to explain and laid it out in honestly boring and pedantic detail just what they were trying to achieve and how they thought they could do it.
	So essentially, socialism is invented as a product of the sort of French Revolution and it gets exported to Germany.
	And the Germans look at this and go, wow, this is very idealistic.
	We don't agree.
	We're going to, Marx particularly, compress it down to purely materialistic view.
	And so there is nothing metaphysical about it.
	It's all just a very thin material philosophy.
	And then this gets translated back into French.
	And these French socialists are like bollocks.
	This is nonsense.
	And they spend about 10 or 15 years going about going over how this doesn't make any sense.
	This is nonsense.
	This is missing out on loads of sort of thick aspects of life.
	And then you get the sort of crisis at the end of the 19th century when the socialist community in Europe essentially came to the conclusion that wait a minute, the proletariat are not revolutionary.
	They're in fact ultra-conservative and don't want a revolution and a revolutionary politics to build the glorious new future that we're all expecting.
	And from this deep and genuinely like seismic, paradigmatic loss of faith in the socialist project spawn a series of new ideologies.
	Now you get Lenin's vanguardism, as of course you can see happening in Russia.
	Then you also get the sort of doctrinaire Marxists just refusing to engage with the arguments that have been made.
	And then of course you get fascism and national socialism being a product of that.
	So the explicit difference between fascism and Marxism is that fascism can be considered to be an idealistic rewriting of Marxism.
	Where Marxism thought, right, okay, well, what we're going to do is make the entire nation or the entire world proletarian.
	We're going to use the proletariats to wipe out the other classes in a genuine genocide.
	The fascists said, well, that's not going to work, is it?
	You know, we're not going to be able to make them do that.
	So what we need to do is use, in fact, will sublimate the proletariat back into the rest of the nation, what they call the total incorporation of the nation.
	So the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and the upper classes will be consumed back into the nation and it will become a revolutionary whole.
	The entire nation will be revolutionary.
	And this will be used to enact the glorious revolution, defeat all of our enemies, and bring about true socialism.
	And so when he refuses to call Vorsch a fascist, well, he's on that path.
	He's very, very, very, very much on that path.
	Because fundamentally, at the very root of it all, if you believe that, as the conservatism traditionalists always had, that morals and ethics are God-given, and you replace the state as the source of God, then you have actually given unto people the ability to alter everything about the world and be the progenitor and source of morality.
	And so, power actually does synonymize with morality or supersede it as the core primary fascist belief.
	And that's Vorsch's belief.
	So, he might not be a full-fledged fascist yet, but he's certainly got that awful, awful doctrinaire core down.
	All is power.
	There's nothing about good or evil.
	And so, that from that, everything follows.
	From that, anything that can be used to justify lying on purpose, deliberately, cruelly lashing people on the internet, doing any of the bad things that Vorsch does, all of this is justified.
	And so, the fact that he's not prepared to call him a fascist when Vorsch demonstrates all of the hallmarks of fascism, apart from an intellectual understanding that the only thing he's missing really is Italian syndicalism, is very, very amusing.
	But, like I said, go and watch it for yourself after I've finished this.
	I won't be doing this for very long.
	Then you talk about stochastic terrorism, which I think is honestly, I think it's kind of bollocks.
	But by the standards that the left stochastic terrorism is anything that can be contributing to an environment that might lead to the increase of acts of violence towards certain people, right?
	And don't get me wrong, it's not bollocks, but like it seems to be missing the point to me.
	I'm more concerned about virtue ethics.
	So, the things you do are the things that really matter.
	You know, the consequences sometimes and definitely is an aspect of it.
	And the intentions, of course, sometimes definitely an aspect of it.
	But I think the real moral content is in the behavior itself, probably because I'm English and this is the very core of the common law.
	And, I mean, we don't have punishments for the things you think, right?
	Whereas progressives very much do.
	It's action.
	It's action.
	It's actual acts taken that I think is really important.
	But anyway, but the point is, it's not actually bollocks.
	I shouldn't have said that, really.
	But yeah, so Vorsch himself is contributing to an atmosphere of stochastic terrorism, which is obviously true.
	I mean, Vorsch has advocated violence on many occasions.
	Even when he's not just winking and nodding to his audience, saying, don't do that, guys.
	You know, there are times where he is actively advocating for punching people who he considers Nazis.
	Also, you're a Nazi.
	So it's one of those things.
	It's like, right, okay, so he appears to have no grasp on morality.
	He seems to repudiate morality.
	He seems to be acting entirely within self-interest.
	He thinks that all is power and nothing else.
	And he thinks violence is good.
	That's fascism.
	That's actually like, that's not just using fascism as an insult.
	That is a philosophically accurate description of what fascism is.
	The only thing he now needs is the total incorporation of the nation.
	That's the one thing that's missing.
	So, yes.
	But yeah, and so that's the video in brief.
	And like I said, I've linked it in the description.
	Go and watch it.
	It's so well put together.
	And then I watched some of this stream where he's talking to someone called President Sunday.
	And man, I felt so bad listening to Doomer Politics talk to this fucking idiot, right?
	Now, he says at some point in the stream that he used to be subscribed to me, and thank God he's not subscribed to me now, right?
	I am so sorry if in 2014, 2015, I attracted this kind of bad faith moron, right?
	We're going to watch a couple of minutes of this, and you are just not going to believe how any defense of Vorsch has to be done in the most bad faith possible.
	It's just disgusting.
	And I'm so glad that this kind of person isn't attracted to my politics now.
	You know, if that was my politics.
	I mean, I didn't think I was bad faith in 2014, but then I did consider myself to be of the left.
	Now, absolutely not.
	And so now I'm just totally out of that bubble.
	But anyway, let's listen to this for a minute.
	That was the word.
	Okay, so here's the issue with that, is that we're talking about the first, like, you were literally talking about the first thing that he said in the debate.
	Literally the first thing.
	And he debates for a living.
	Like, the idea that he's just frazzled, I'm sorry, that strikes me as ludicrous.
	This is a ludicrous, like, this is reaching into the future.
	Do you think the fact that he debates for a living means you can't make mistakes?
	I think the fact.
	Right, so he's talking about the debate with Count Dankula and Vorsch, which wasn't the debate.
	It was an Inquisition, right?
	Where Vorsch is like, you're a fascist.
	And Count Dankula's like, no.
	And so then they spend the next like two hours with Vosh trying to pin fascism on Candankula.
	The distributists did a really good breakdown of this, actually, which I do recommend watching.
	Because it's just one of those things where it's like, why did this even happen?
	You know, why did Dankula subject himself?
	And the thing is, Dankula came off very, very well from this, okay, well done, Dank.
	And Vorsch's defeat was mitigated by the fact that he played the optics game well.
	Again, it's just nothing good or bad.
	He didn't apologize and say, okay, I retract.
	He just, I managed to not look like a fucking idiot during that.
	It's like, yeah, well, only to people who aren't very smart.
	But look at how he's presenting this, right?
	So literally in the beginning, Vorsch and Dank have the same definition of white supremacist as Duma Politics observes in his video.
	Go into more detail on this.
	And then Vorsch just attacks Dankula's definition of white supremacy.
	It's like, well, it's almost identical to your own.
	You know, there's no meaningful difference between them.
	And so President Sunday's like, well, you know, you're saying he can't make a mistake because he's a professional debater?
	No, of course he's not.
	Doom of Politics is saying, well, look, he does debate professionally, pretty much.
	And so it's like, well, look, you would expect a higher caliber of effort from Vorsch, but it was such an obviously bad faith attack that you don't need much more to demonstrate this.
	And the worst, the best that President Sunday can come up with is just a bad faith defense.
	It's like, no, he's not saying he can't make mistakes.
	He's saying this is evidence, obvious evidence of bad faith.
	And if you can't agree with that, then you are also bad faith, right?
	You couldn't get a more classic example of bad faith.
	Let's carry on.
	The fact that that's your interpretation of this, that you present something that's that ridiculous, that's not a good critique.
	Like, he's frazzled in the first, in literally the first statement of a conversation so much that he attacks someone for saying something that he said 10 seconds earlier.
	Like, again, I have positions about things.
	I'm never going to be saying something that I just said.
	It will never happen.
	Slow down.
	Slow down, cowboy.
	These definitions are not the same.
	Okay, we're going to read the definitions that he's thankfully put on the screen for us, and we'll see if we can find any meaningful difference, right?
	Vorsh, when I say white supremacist, I'm referring to a person who believes that there is A, some sort of fundamental distinction between the races, and B, one who believes that either the white race is superior in some empirical sense, or B, in a way, B twice, that we need to engage in politics or other social actions to prioritize that group of people.
	Which is a fair definition, don't get me wrong.
	And Dankula's definition is: a person who feels that white people are superior to all of the races and all of the races should be subservient to whites, and things should be done for the benefit of whites.
	What is the fucking meaningful difference there?
	The answer is none.
	The answer is absolutely none.
	They are almost identical, like in the language that they're using, and the meaning that they are expressing is exactly the same.
	If you are trying to draw a significant and meaningful distinction there, you are in bad faith.
	But go ahead, President Sunday.
	He didn't attack something for something Vosch just said.
	He attacked Dankula for something that only Dankula said.
	Specifically, I don't think there's any meaningful difference between their definitions.
	And again, I can tell you the definition that he switches to.
	It is very different.
	Well, we have it here.
	Is the definition he switches to non-president?
	No, it's not present, though.
	It's completely different.
	Read it out for us.
	You have it in the notes, yes?
	okay so he doesn't he doesn't exactly define it he's referring to yeah i have i have a good definition from the study So what happens here is there's an obvious Mott and Bailey strategy that's going on here.
	So this is a, this is, I can't remember, is it the Mott or the Bailey?
	I'm pretty sure the Bailey is the defensible position.
	The Moss is the undefensible position.
	But off the top of my head, I might have those back to front.
	But the point is, this is the defensible definition of white supremacy.
	The person who is an active racial supremacist and thinks that other races should be subordinated and therefore policy should flow from that.
	But there's a motto definition that is often defaulted to by, well, sociologists, critical race theorists, people who are of extreme left-wing progressive politics.
	And that is that societies that are majority made up of white people are white supremacist societies.
	Now, that's not true, at least by any common sense definition of what white supremacy is.
	Because, I mean, if you had a society that was run by the Klan, you wouldn't see black people on TV.
	You wouldn't see black people in positions of power.
	You would never see a black president.
	You would never see advantages, affirmative action being given to black people.
	You would never see cultural deference being given to black culture.
	Indeed, blacks probably wouldn't be allowed their own culture.
	And in fact, there probably would be a, if not an outright genocide, a slow path of genocide that would head towards the inevitable whittling away of the black community.
	And so we can guarantee, we can categorically state that from those reasonable expectations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, these are not white supremacist societies by any sensible definition.
	But the critical race theorists view white society, what we are kind of forced to, using their language, term white society.
	But what they really mean is just European, English particularly, society, as being a form of whiteness and the preservation of the institutions and heritage that we have been passed down to us, the common law, the parliamentary democracies, things like that.
	They are all white supremacy as well in this much weaker and far less defensible definition of white supremacy.
	And so we're now going to play the game of jumping between the KKK and 90s Democrats and democracy.
	Both are being called white supremacy, but one is the defensible definition they use, and one is the expanded definition they use after they have successfully defended themselves.
	It's a dishonest, disingenuous debating tactic.
	And of course, President Sunday and Vosch do this all the time.
	From what?
	But it's completely different.
	It's from a sociology paper in the 80s before white supremacy.
	Hang on, is this a paper?
	Slow down.
	Is this a paper that Vosh cites?
	No, it's just.
	It's just a good example of the definition.
	Why are we?
	Well, hang on then.
	But then why are we saying that he's switching to a different definition?
	What are you saying?
	Because he, this is the definition that he implies is it's okay well can, can you, can you substantiate that?
	How does he explicitly uh, imply that definition and how does it?
	Could you get any more bad faith?
	How does he explicitly imply it?
	The fact that it's implicit means it's not explicit.
	You idiot.
	You're being dishonest.
	Duma politics has completely laid out his point.
	It's very understandable for someone who wants to understand it.
	And the only person who wouldn't understand it is someone who doesn't want to understand it.
	Stop being disingenuous.
	Not joining the definition that you just gave.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	He switches to that definition because of the way that he talks about this.
	It basically says, in the way that I said earlier, that anyone is a white supremacist.
	I mean, that's almost exactly what he says, which makes sense given the definition.
	It makes sense given his ideology.
	It makes sense given his background and sociology.
	It makes sense given what he believes.
	And that's correct by Duma politics, by the way.
	This is genuinely the sort of radical left critical race theory view of white supremacy.
	This is why they call the Republican Party, remember the Republican, the party against slavery, against Jim Crow, the party that had the first black congressman, I think it was, and were the party of black people in Democrats' propaganda.
	If you go back to sort of the turn of the century, literally they called it the party of the Negro, right?
	That's how that party, after not changing any of its core foundational values or principles, becomes the party of white supremacy, right?
	That's how that happens.
	This is the game that they're playing.
	Just to slow down, hang on.
	I'm not trying to catch you on this.
	I just want to slow down so I'm following you here.
	So your characterization of Vosh's actual position on white supremacy is that virtually anybody, presumably we're isolating it to white people, can be a white supremacist.
	Oh, no.
	We've got an article that I'm going to be going over on Monday on the podcast where CNN have said, well, the branding of America is happening.
	And they're all white supremacists because it's the structure of your country that they're calling white supremacy.
	And it's because it's not equal.
	We'll go into it in more detail another time.
	Okay, so...
	Or is.
	If you said actual position, I don't know that he expresses multiple distinct positions.
	This is like the sociological definition of white supremacy.
	And this isn't just his position.
	This is like a well-known definition.
	No, no, I understand that, but in the context of this exchange, we're not really concerned with what the actual or the academic or whatever definition of white supremacy is.
	We're trying to imply that Vosh is in some sense contradicting himself and showing his hand that he's not engaging honestly.
	I mean, Duma Politics made an hour and a half video showing this.
	Like the idea that this needs to be rehashed for the Vosh fans so we can try and pick out, oh, oh, actually, maybe not, maybe not.
	No, nonsense, right?
	Doom politicians pointed out that Vosh holds multiple contradictory positions.
	Like he is not being honest.
	And this guy is just like, if this is what a Vosh fan is like, the entire disgusting mass of Vosh internet is disingenuous, right?
	And honestly, after watching like an hour of this stream already until before I started this stream, I was just like, God, imagine being trapped within left-wing politics.
	There's no clarity of thought.
	There's no honesty.
	There's no directness.
	There's nothing concrete.
	Everything is just a mire of disingenuous, bad faith, ad hominem attacks.
	It's so gross.
	I can't understand why in the modern day anyone would call themselves left-wing.
	If this is what the left has become.
	Contradict himself because they gave nearly identical definitions and then he attacked Dinkle as that.
	Nearly means not identical.
	Nearly means not I can go over it.
	That's right.
	Nearly, well done.
	Nearly means not identical.
	But meaningfully, they've got exactly the same definition.
	Again, Duma politics points this out.
	And you can feel, honestly, I can feel the desp the despair in Duma politics.
	He was just like, but I said that.
	That's not what we're talking about.
	God.
	Anyway.
	This is some serious nitpick.
	Yeah, you can go over it.
	That doesn't change the fact that in the moment, nobody would have thought that their definitions were different.
	Except when they were giving it.
	But Dumer, as you just pointed out.
	And when he says, as you just pointed out, when he goes back on it, this was a moment later.
	And?
	This was a moment later.
	He immediately critiqued Dankula's position.
	Which was the same as his own.
	A specific objection to his definition, and namely...
	Which is an objection to his own fucking definition then, isn't it?
	Which means that he's not presenting an honest and good faith definition, which means he's fucking lying, which means Duma politics is right again.
	God damn it.
	Imagine being a Vosh stan.
	Again, Dankula did set the bar very high.
	He says a person who feels that white people are superior to all other races.
	Vosh's exact definition, yep.
	And all other races are or should be subservient to whites, and things should be done only for the benefit of whites.
	Someone like Richard Spencer has indeed fielded the defense that actually, no, they just care so much about racial diversity.
	They want them all to be able to keep their purity.
	Is there anything?
	Yes, Richard Spencer is a progressive.
	I agree.
	But that is deliberately specific and, as you say, high bar because you don't want to call everyone on earth a white supremacist, do you?
	And so you need a definition of what is a white supremacist that actually defines out of the mass of normal people those people who are racial supremacists.
	So that's actually a good definition of white supremacy.
	Unless, of course, white supremacy is a rhetorical tool that you use to win arguments rather than actually represent accurately the real world and try to have a meaningful conversation about politics.
	But as Duma politics here says, you know, is there a meaningful critique of this?
	Is there a meaningful critique of Dankula's definition that doesn't also apply to Vosh's definition?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I think Vosch packed some stuff in there that seemed to imply, again, something a little bit softer like prioritization and policies that can have the effects on some readings of prioritizing certain people.
	That's not meaningfully different from Dankula's definition.
	Things should be done only for the benefit of whites or social actions that prioritize a group of people.
	Oh, wow, there's a slight difference in tone.
	Oh, wow.
	Are we going to accept that?
	Are we?
	Would you accept that?
	If the Republicans came out and be like, right, okay, we were going to do things only for the benefit of whites, but we thought that'd be white supremacy.
	So what we're going to do is, as President Sunday has pointed out, if we soften that, then we're not white supremacists because we're actually taking ourselves out of that.
	So it's going to prioritize white people, and that's not white supremacy.
	Would you accept that?
	Of course you fucking wouldn't.
	You disingenuous hack.
	Someone who believes the white race is superior in some empirical sense.
	We could refer to, for example, 1350 crime statistics being cited as an example of that.
	The FBI are white supremacy.
	Okay.
	We could refer to people who may not have sort of a sense of some kind of metaphysical superiority to the white race, but nonetheless are perfectly willing to accept inherent racial disparities in IQ.
	Okay, here's a question.
	You're familiar with the broad academic.
	Just to be clear, people who accept data are now white supremacists, according to President Sunday.
	So if you reject data, you're a progressive.
	If you accept data, you're a white supremacist.
	Academic definition of white supremacy.
	I've referred to right to sociological patients.
	I don't think there is a single definition of white supremacy.
	There's not a golden plate saying white supremacy.
	Okay, so let me go.
	Let me go.
	Now, imagine being in President Sunday's position, right?
	He's just established that nothing can be defined as white supremacy.
	There is no standard.
	There is no definition.
	So why the fuck would you ever use the term?
	Why would you ever talk about white supremacists if you don't think there is such a thing that can be defined?
	Like, everything about Vorsch and his community is just bad faith.
	It's deliberately bad faith all the time.
	And it's when someone's like, well, look, you look unironically evil, he's like, well, when are you?
	I guess you don't know.
	I guess you could never see it, could you?
	That's where I went with Walter Backham's.
	To what end?
	What are we, what are we using this for?
	To demonstrate what it is that he's trying to change the definition to from his initial definition.
	What I want you to do is acknowledge that the definition that he is now proposing completely contradicts the definition that he initially proposed.
	Okay, well, what I'm asking you for, I'm willing to grant that, but I need something to substantiate that switch.
	I need the specific.
	He's literally cutting it.
	I'm getting annoyed just watching this because I think the point has been made, right?
	So we watched, what, six minutes of this debate, and I'm already just going off my fucking nut in Duma Politics Corner.
	I can't stand the way that these slimy liars, unironically evil people, actually like proto-fascists, just try and like not even win the debate.
	Just try and reduce all ideas and concepts to nothingness.
	I can't stand it.
	There's no point to it.
	This is just self-serving bullshit.
	Anyway, I'll tell you what, I'll have a chat to you for five minutes.
	Just trying to gain my equilibrium again.
	But in the description is a link to his Vorsch's unironically evil video.
	It's fantastic.
	You should go and watch it because he has done a very, very good job.
	It's obviously a labor of love, kind of.
	Well, maybe I shouldn't have framed it that way.
	It was obviously in this chat that he has with President Sunday, he explains that, look, that wasn't the point of the video initially.
	What he thought was going to be was just a general critique of online politics.
	But after making all of his notes, he was just like, wow.
	Look, if you look back on it and have a more meta-an analysis, he's like, wow, Vorsk just looks really evil.
	And it's interesting that a progressive would use a term like evil because evil is not a thin, narrow term.
	Evil is a very thick human term.
	And this, I think, might be something president that Doomer politics might want to think about because it kind of puts him outside of progressive politics.
	If you can use terms like this, it implies that, in fact, some people need to be punished for what they are and the way they behave.
	And that's not very inclusive.
	Inclusivity is everyone, everything, which is why Shoe on Head's tweeting, oh my god, I just found a map pride or map support discord that accepts map being minor attracted persons, a pedo discord, that accept 13 and up.
	And it's like, yep, yep, they do.
	Yeah, they do.
	That's your left-wing politics.
	Nothing new there either.
	You can look at all of the left's intellectual heroes, the French academics who signed the age of consent should be reduced to 13.
	Foucault himself is an accused paedophile, which is probably true.
	Then you have the German pedo experiment where they decided in literally in like the 80s and up until like 2003 that they would, for some reason, put orphan boys with paedophile men because progressivism.
	And of course in Britain you have the paedophile information exchange.
	In America you have Nambla.
	All of this is a consequence of left-wing politics because left-wing politics can't leave anyone on the margins because, and roll, fundamentally they believe that every human being is good.
	And that's not true.
	Some human beings are a total piece of shit.
	Anyway.
	Hey, who streams at this time of day?
	I'm just bloody wake, bloody anglers.
	You're right, Dank.
	Oh, guys, we're doing a live show, me and Dank and a couple of special guests.
	Doing a live show on the 24th and 25th of September.
	So you can go check that out.
	It's going to be great.
	It's going to be awesome.
	And yeah, right, who streams at this time of day?
	Me, because I've got my shit together now, man.
	Because I've, you know, like, I've got to be at the office for 9 o'clock in the morning.
	Well, I try to be in the office for 9 o'clock in the morning, normally about 9.15.
	Basically, I've got myself in a routine that means on a Sunday morning, I can't sleep.
	So I'm just like, right, okay.
	I may as well just get up and do something.
	And this was on my mind.
	I was just very interested in this.
	But how was AA's event?
	I really enjoyed it.
	I watched AA's stream about it yesterday, and I find it very interesting that the non-Anglos don't understand the Anglo mind.
	There's a champ called Columba, and just in case anyone wants to clip this and send it, Columba, read Burke's rejoinder to the French revolutionaries who are calling themselves, like, who are saying we should do what the English do.
	Because his point was, well, you're not doing what the English did.
	And so anyway, apparently I also Supreme Emperor Kizza of Brandy.
	So yeah, read that if you want to understand further what the distinction there is.
	But it was really good.
	It was really interesting.
	Although, you know, vanguardism, I think, is something that kind of has to be considered to be a democratic thing.
	Democratic vanguardism, perhaps.
	Did I sneak out to buy a suit?
	No, I'd already bought a suit, thankfully.
	One that fits as well.
	It was nice.
	I have become skinny.
	Well, I've still got a little bit of belly I need to get rid of, but I'm going to become like proper buff at some point.
	I'm working on it.
	Sending love from Australia.
	Thanks, guys.
	Go look at Mr. Reagan's new video.
	I haven't seen it yet, but I will look at it in a bit.
	I am painting.
	Hey, hey, don't tell me to paint my Space Marines.
	If you go check out my Instagram, you will see.
	I've only got one squad of Space Marines so far, but they're all painted now.
	And so now I'm going to be moving on to my bikes, which I've got an idea of what to do for their paint scheme, so I'm looking forward to it.
	I'm actually not looking forward to doing the Commander because there's loads of detail on there, and I want to do a good job of it.
	But, you know, I am.
	I am.
	Why can't I talk about the I-word on Lotus Eaters?
	And so I'm going to leave it off YouTube.
	Well, maybe.
	The thing is, I don't know much about the I medication.
	Capital I, not E-Y-E.
	But V is a doctor, and he looked into this.
	And can we see my full show?
	Yeah, sure.
	It means communist bandit in Chinese, because that's what the traditionalist faction called the communists.
	Oh, yeah, I'd love to get Razorfist on a stream as well.
	The problem with Razorfist is that he lives in Phoenix, which is like, I don't know, like eight hours behind me or something.
	So it's terrible, terrible timing.
	So, yeah, I mean, but I love Razorfist work, man.
	Love what he's been doing.
	And there are some content creators that I watch every one of their videos, and Razorfist is one of them.
	I love his rants.
	They're also the sort of exact perfect length that it takes for me to load the dish while, because that's the one household troy do.
	And so every day I'll like, you know, put a video on.
	And so when I've got racist, I'm happy.
	Yeah, I'd love to do a stream of sticks as well, actually.
	Yeah, I'll send him a message.
	I've just been really busy.
	And yes, congratulations to Matt Christensen for joining the Church of Daddism.
	He's become a father to a bouncing baby boy, as I understand it.
	And congratulations, Matt.
	Everyone's proud of you.
	And you're going to love it, man.
	You're going to love it.
	Especially in a couple of years' time.
	So what I find, right, is when you're a dad, I mean, it's different for mums, I think.
	When you're a dad, baby doesn't do anything, right?
	But when they start doing things, then things start getting really fun and you're going to really enjoy yourself.
	Do I think that any dancing boys were smuggled in with the Afghan child brized the US?
	God, I hope not.
	Well, I mean, maybe, do I hope not?
	Maybe that's the best thing for them.
	I don't know.
	But yeah, no, it's fucking awful.
	Have I heard of Dan Collins' hardcore history podcast?
	Yeah, I love Dan Carlin.
	He's one of my original influences to start doing stuff on the internet.
	He's the best.
	He's the best.
	But yeah, no, there's so much good stuff on there.
	And there are people who are sort of like trapped in the indistinct mire of left-wing politics at this point.
	It's like, no, this is awful.
	This is awful.
	Where do I fall on the political spectrum?
	Sort of libertarian right still.
	I mean, I've not changed my opinion on the sort of classically liberal structure of a political state.
	You know, I think we should have constitutional rights.
	I think that the law should be individualistic.
	We shouldn't have group laws.
	So I don't think that black people should have special laws and white people should have special laws.
	This is evil, in my opinion.
	Justice, I think Hayek is right.
	Justice is an individual conception.
	What a person deserves, not what a group deserves, because that ends up getting some awful territory, doesn't it, with social justice?
	What does that group deserve?
	I don't know.
	What does that mean?
	That means you have to have an idea of what each group of people deserves.
	Okay, Mr. Progressive, what do the Jews deserve?
	Oh, let me tell you about Israel.
	Okay, no, it's fine.
	No, no, thank you.
	Not interested in that.
	So yeah, no, I'm still classically liberal, although I guess you would call me a social conservative now, because I think that the left-wing arguments for everything have been shown to be bullshit.
	Let's take the one for abortion, for example.
	I was having a heated debate with this with Dev, Shofat Ataki, yesterday on my Discord.
	And Dev, we'll have to talk about you being wrong.
	But honestly, I think at this point, we can accept that elective abortion is moral wrong and shouldn't be legal.
	Abortion for things like, you know, incest, rape, medical necessity.
	And even I would even be open to severe genetic deformity.
	You know, I could even go that far so that sort of things outside of your control.
	But just because you want one, because you've been irresponsible and because you're just like, yeah, well, you know, I just can't bother to use birth control.
	No, get fucked, you monster, right?
	And it was a Michelle Wolf, you know, with an, if you want an abortion, get one.
	Celebrate abortions for all.
	No, you're a monster, right?
	Because that is murdering a baby, right?
	And if you're doing that because you have been personally responsible, no, I think you get the consequences of your actions.
	And basically, I had to persuade Dev that we're not being oppressed by nature.
	You know, the things that our bodies naturally do aren't a form of oppression because oppression requires intent, fundamentally.
	But yeah, no, I'm very much against much of what the left thinks is good for a human being.
	I don't think they've got the answers there.
	And I think that the more you take on responsibility, as Jordan Peterson might say, for the well-being of others, the more you realize that this is bad.
	So I think that they don't understand that they are relying on assumptions of a conservative upbringing when they come into their progressive politics.
	And so if they had a, I mean, I do agree that, you know, adults should essentially be able to do whatever it is they want, you know, as long as not harming others because they're adults.
	But I don't think that these same standards should apply to children.
	So.
	Did I watch Mr. Meska's stream?
	No, I'm afraid I didn't.
	Although V messaged me saying, hey, he said something nice about you.
	I was like, wow, I don't care.
	But no, I don't know.
	I haven't watched it.
	Sorry.
	Have you looked into the roots of modern gender science?
	If you haven't looked up a man named John Money, and perhaps keep a word, Chipper on Standby, I have read John Money's Wikipedia entry.
	It is monstrous.
	Absolutely monstrous that what's done.
	And the left is wrong about gender relations.
	The left is wrong about children.
	The left is wrong about, I mean, pretty much everything.
	The left is just wrong about their conception of morality and the idea that humans are good.
	They're not.
	They're made good through habit.
	Rousseau is wrong.
	Hobbes is right.
	And that's just the fundamentals of it.
	Socialism is just honest fascism?
	No, no, no.
	That's the wrong way around.
	Fascism is just honest socialism.
	That's the problem.
	The socialists may well have said, well, we don't want to do this, but we've got to do this.
	We don't want to do this, but we've got to do this.
	And the fascists are like, yeah, you do want to do this, really.
	And we're going to do it.
	And so you end up with the Nazis and the Soviets looking exactly the same, functioningly exactly the same.
	And the Italians functioning exactly the same.
	Early life check on money, wow, disavow.
	Disavow.
	Matt Christians said he would still do his Sunday stream this week and we all had a good laugh about that.
	No, no, no, no, look, that's not, that's entirely proper from Matt Christensen's perspective.
	And I tell you what, right?
	Propriety is something that I think the conservatives need to work on expressing more clearly because there are absolutely a proper role for men and women.
	And it's not just, you know, in the kitchen making babies.
	That's not what it is, right?
	It's about a particular kind of social relationship that women have to men.
	And I made a video about two years ago that was called The TERFs Will End Up Joining UKIP.
	And they kind of have the sort of UKIP position, sort of, you know, the populist conservative position.
	They essentially have come around to this position because their definition of what a woman is, an adult human female, is just the normal definition.
	And the progressive definition is anyone who identifies as a woman is no definition at all, but of course is directly antagonistic to their own position.
	But at least the conservatives agree that there are things called women and that they have a proper role in society.
	There's a proper place for them.
	You know, I'm fine with there being women's spaces, women-only spaces.
	I don't think that men have any right to access those.
	And I don't think by the same token it's wrong to have men-only spaces that women have no right to access.
	Like, you know, work in men's clubs and things like this.
	And I don't think that's unhealthy at all.
	Gender is biologically essential, yes, I think so.
	I think there's no getting around the fact that woman is connected to a biological essence of humanity.
	And so is man, obviously.
	There's just that's the case.
	The left is lost to socialists and commies.
	Enlightenment thinking is dead and nobody cares.
	Apparently, even you.
	Oh, dude, it breaks my heart, but you've got to accept the facts, right?
	It seems that communism is the final end phase of the Enlightenment because it's the supremacy of reason and the abnegation of the material aspect of a human being.
	And that's bullshit, right?
	Humans will always be biological creatures.
	And it's total folly to try and upend that natural order.
	So instead of being like, you know, instead of making nature a counter-revolutionary force, I think it's wiser for us to accept what our essential nature as human beings is and work within it.
	You know, we still have lots of, you know, things that we can do.
	We've got lots of freedom, but we're also something that is constrained.
	And it's okay to accept that, accept your limitations and move within them.
	and you'll be happier and more satisfied and have a better life.
	Communist-only spaces are woodchippers.
	Good point.
	Right.
	So I'm going to head off, go get some lunch, and probably read a book or paint some miniatures, or perhaps do both.
	I've been listening to Edmund Burke's reflections on the French Revolution recently, and it's really interesting.
	Burke is surprisingly, he's sort of, I guess you would call like a classical liberal in many ways.
	He is for the sort of glorious revolution, but he's looking at what the French have done and the French referring back to the English Revolution and saying, yeah, we should do that.
	And then they're doing something totally different.
	And Burke's just like, look, this is not what we want.
	You know, we didn't destroy the church.
	We're not murdering our king.
	We're not doing, well, we did kill a king.
	We're not like, you know, extirpating the aristocracy and all this because there are lots of good and virtuous people there who are being killed.
	And basically, the English are too slow-witted to do something so stupid.
	And I think that's a good place to be.
	And I'm really enjoying reading it.
	Anyway, what are my stanzas on gene tailoring?
	I think that Uncle Ted was right that the industrial society will create its own kind of man that can only exist within the industrial society.
	Not a good person, but I think that critique is correct.
	That's the problem.
	Anyway, I hope you all have a very good day.

▲