All Episodes
Previous Next
April 13, 2018 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
04:38:10
Richard Spencer Debates Sargon of Akkad (04/13/2018)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What is going on, everyone?
Welcome to yet another Warski Live.
How are you all doing?
I see we have a lot of people in the chat.
How are you all doing?
Good.
We got Sargon's going to be just four minutes, but we decided to start, so we're not too late.
Today is probably one of the most controversial episodes we've had because seeing how everyone's reacting on Twitter will be very interesting.
I got me, obviously, moderating with JF helping me.
What's up, JF?
Hello.
How are you doing, man?
I'm worried for you, Andy.
You've changed.
All these intellectuals, Andy, on the show, what is happening?
I remember a time where this show was a stepping stone between a trash can and the Drunken Peasants podcast.
Yeah, yeah.
A lot of people on Twitter had some opinions.
We got Richard Spencer.
What's up, man?
Hey, guys.
Thanks for having me on.
Yeah, thanks for being on the show.
I really appreciate it.
We got Styx here as well.
What's up, Styx?
Grand Nazi gatekeeper tuning in.
There it is.
And then Sargon will be representing...
The liberal side of things.
Yeah, pretty much.
If you haven't seen on Twitter, there are a lot of memes of me now on Nazis and stuff.
It's pretty funny.
I was fucking laughing.
I'm not going to lie.
Yeah, so why people are obviously talking about this show is a lot of people who I associated with.
Are really pissed at me for having you on, Richard.
I'm sure you've seen a lot of people complain at certain people who've had you on their shows, no?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
There were some people who gave me a fair shake and then they are viciously attacked by their colleagues and former friends for even allowing me on their program and even just having a conversation with me.
I think maybe they would allow me to be on if it were just a vitriolic attack and name-calling and screaming and so on.
Maybe that would have been acceptable.
But to have me on for a conversation is verboten.
Yeah, actually a lot of people were...
I had tweeted out that you'd be on the show and I tweeted that I'm looking for someone who has opposing viewpoints.
And this actually sparked an outrage on certain YouTubers who were mad like, "Wait, so you don't oppose him?" And I'm like, I'm not saying that.
I'm just not qualified, I think, to talk about certain subjects.
And I want people who can...
And first of all, I want to say real fast, this is not a debate.
We're all going to be talking about our ideas and discussing things because it'd be very easy to just make it like a moderate.
All right, you have five minutes.
You have five minutes.
But I prefer more conversations.
That's what I like on the show.
All right.
So can you tell everyone about yourself?
Sure.
My name is Richard Spencer.
I am a co-editor at altright.com.
I am the president of the National Policy Institute.
I'm actually the editor of the recently relaunched RaidexJournal.com.
Throughout my career, I have launched a number of intellectual sites like this.
I have spoken at conferences, some libertarian conferences, many racialist conferences as well.
I've hosted many of these conferences.
I have been on more podcasts than I can remember.
I've been publicly punched by Antifa.
I'm sure some people have heard about that one.
I've been in the news over the past year and a half or so.
It's been a really wild ride with the Trump phenomenon and just this general alt-right phenomenon as well.
So it has been a crazy 10 years since I dropped out of graduate school in 2007 and went off on my own.
I originally started working on the American Conservative, which is a small publication that was anti-war, I would say, but conservative.
And then I really went off on my own.
In 2010, I actually created a website called alternativeright.com.
And that was one of, if not the first time, that that term was used in a serious manner to...
To describe a version of the right which is coherently conservative in a deep sense but is a real alternative, a totally different starting point than the mainstream right of the United States which derives from William F. Buckley and whose great progenitors are the Ted Cruz's of the world and Bill O 'Reilly's and George W. Bush's and other people I...
Passionately loath.
So yeah, that's my story in a nutshell.
So if you were to compare the starting point between a traditional conservatism and your starting point, what would it be?
Yeah, I think conservatives are wrong from the beginning because their starting point, as they articulated it in the mid-1950s, Was the Cold War.
So it was an image of the United States as a counter-Soviet Union, as a capitalist global empire.
Their starting point was free market economics, capitalism, effectively.
And their starting point was individual liberty.
So it was a liberal starting point, you could say, and a Cold War starting point.
The starting point for the alt-right is identity.
And, you know, there's another term that I've certainly adopted that I did not invent that comes from France, actually, which is identitarian.
And it is that notion that before one thinks about foreign policy, before one thinks about economics, before one thinks about anything else, one has to answer that question, who am I and who are we?
What am I part of?
What is this extended family that I am at home with?
And that is identitarianism in a nutshell.
It's that you ask that question first.
American conservatives in the mid-50s with William F. Buckley and so on did never ask that question.
They never seriously inquired into race.
They vaguely inquired into religion, but they certainly never seriously inquired into what America is as a European nation and who they are as Europeans.
And I think we've basically seen the end result of this which is a conservative movement that just slowly floated leftward.
That was based in abstract values like free market capitalism, which could be used to justify things like the Iraq War or what have you.
That it was just this free-floating ideology that floated leftward, that floated this way and that, that floated over to Iraq in some cases, and just became a total disaster and didn't conserve anything.
A conservative has to conserve something.
A conservative is ultimately a collectivist in that sense.
A conservative is someone who is conserving his class, his people, the state itself.
He is an institutionalist in that sense.
It's actually the left that is individualistic.
Even when the left attempts to use collectivist economic means, it's still in the name of individualism.
It's still in an attempt to reach a...
You know, deracinated, pure individual who is not weighed down in the leftist mind by community, by history, by race, religion, the past, the one's duty to the future, etc.
So the left is fundamentally individualist.
This is the problem with American conservatives.
They get this fundamentally wrong.
Oh, we're individualists.
the ISI is a stupid fuddy-duddy group for closeted homosexual Catholics or conservatives, I guess.
And it used to be called the International or the Interpolis The individualist society institute or something.
Some nonsense like that.
Society of individualists.
They always wanted to base their belief system in the individual and individualism.
That is fundamentally wrong.
Man is, as a political animal, man is a social being.
He's part of a greater family.
He's part of a past and a future.
He is part of an identity that is bigger than any individual.
And so the starting point for the alt-right is that question.
Who are we?
Who am I?
Identity.
So that's very interesting, this interaction between individualism and the left and the opposition that you proposed there.
I remember Sargon of Akkad being surprised at me, stating that I'm a libertarian, but I'm not so much of an individualist, because I recognize that individuals can adhere to groups.
They can use their liberty to adhere to groups, and then the group can become a very important aspect of their identity.
Would you define as a libertarian, and do you see, just like me, that there's no transgression there between being a libertarian and not being an individualist?
Is that for me or Sargon?
Yeah, for you, Richard, and then I'd love to hear Sargon about this.
Sure, I'm not a libertarian.
I think a lot of libertarian energies in the United States were masked conservatism.
So many people who claim to be a libertarian simply wanted to get the welfare state off their back, thought that the welfare state was pro-black or anti-traditional values, and maybe they were right about that.
And so they were anti-government more than they were truly libertarian.
And their idea was that we would get rid of the state and then these communities would flourish.
This is a kind of right-wing libertarianism.
You could see this in a lot of the people who got behind Ron Paul and people in the Mises Institute or so on.
There is a left-wing libertarianism, which does not really come from that basis, that thinks that...
The individual is sacrosanct that we need to ever expand what individuality means.
But no, I am not a libertarian in the sense that, though I oppose many actions of the government, I think the state is an existential entity.
There will always be a state.
One entity will be sovereign.
One entity will be able to use violence.
And the question really is, what and who?
Who is in charge of this existential entity, the state?
And so I am not a libertarian in that sense, although, you know, maybe in a basic sense I'm a libertarian, you know, less government or whatever, but not in a crucial and fundamental sense.
Excellent.
I think we should do intros for Styx and Sargon as well.
Styx, do you want to do an intro for yourself, maybe your political views, so we know where everyone's standing on this right now?
Yes, as far as the most crucial issues that are being spoken of today, essentially I would consider myself to be basically a libertarian, which is to say I see the world slightly in the same sense, I think, that Richard Spencer does on one token, and I've spoken of this.
And that's that I think everyone at this point, unless they're really part of the totally mind-numbed establishment, they realize that there are problems in the world and that the sort of answers that have been given to us by the so-called conservatives and liberals of maybe the sort of dynastic systems of the last half century, that they don't work.
I think, though, that we're seeing different answers being given by different groups to what those problems are, different sort of threats being actually...
Sort of mentioned as mainly responsible for someone like Spencer.
It's the degradation of maybe the white and /or nuclear family.
The tribal side of it, I would say, too, or at least that's my understanding.
For the libertarian, it's the growth of government, not just government, but also bad government, specifically abusive government.
The far left, they have their own beliefs, too.
They see it as maybe the corporations or specifically the so-called right-wing portion of the government.
In that sense, I believe that most of the problems that are identified by all of these groups, the one fundamental overarching And I say, well, you know, what group primarily is responsible?
Don't look at the symptoms, like Spencer would say.
And this is where we would have a divergence of opinion.
He would say, well, you know, it's these other groups of people.
Are essentially causing the endangerment of a white ethnostate or a white group of people because they enable wedge issues or they're not part of that same cultural background.
I would say, though, I go a level beyond that and say fundamentally that never would have become a problem, nor would there be any other specific problems with many of the nations of today.
If you didn't have a government that had become over time, it had become cancerous, it grows larger, less efficient, more able to abuse because people, At first, they take a little bit of abuse.
And they say, okay, well, it's only a little bit.
And then it boils the frog, you know, pardon the Keck reference, maybe.
Over time, it continues to mount up and up and up.
And you get more and more abuse.
Like, people on your Twitter, Andy.
I know they were saying, well, Sticks can't provide a counterpoint dispenser.
He's not willing to go crazy and start saying...
Fuck Spencer, Nazi, evil, bigot, horrible person.
I look at the culture today, though, I don't identify the alt-right as a particular threat either, because it's never held power.
It simply doesn't have the ability to abuse anyone.
I'm perfectly willing to question, I will be tonight, I think, Spencer, on how would this idea of yours be implemented?
What's your thought on that?
And we can have all sorts of disagreements.
But I don't feel threatened by the alt-right.
I feel threatened by the neocons and the neoliberals who have started every war of the last hundred years, honestly.
So in that sense, I'd be libertarian, constitutionalist, classical liberal, libertarian nationalist.
You could put any of those labels in there.
I don't think there's any single label, though.
That really encompasses it all.
And I don't really like to use categories either.
It's like my religious views, pagan or whatever.
I kind of shy away from that because then other people that don't like me will try to transmogrify that label just as they do to everything else.
And really, it's really dishonest, but sometimes it sticks.
So I try to avoid that.
Perfect.
And hey, what's up, Sargon?
How are you doing, buddy?
Hello.
How's everyone today?
Yeah, man.
So you want to give yourself an introduction and what you feel like your political views are?
Okay, well, I would just call myself an English liberal.
I'm for Enlightenment individualistic liberalism, which I realize that in America that's a contentious term, liberalism, but in Europe it actually still means liberalism rather than progressivism.
And sort of far-left collectivism.
But I think most people listening would be pretty familiar with my political philosophy.
Yeah, for sure.
One aspect that I'd like to hear you on, Sargon, is you're basically rejecting identitarianism, right?
Yes, absolutely.
I'm actually really curious about your I'm a collectivist and an individualist statement, if I can derail things very quickly.
I would love to hear your explanation of that again, because I don't remember you telling me that.
I didn't say that.
You're talking about me?
Yeah, well, it was on the interview on my channel.
You can go re-watch it.
No, I believe you.
I just can't remember offhand.
Yeah, it was libertarianism.
I was talking about libertarianism.
And you said, well, you're a libertarian.
You should be individualist.
And I was like, oh, well, I'm a libertarian, but I'm a special type of libertarian.
I recognize levels of existence both below the individual, which are the genes that compose us, and above the individuals, which are the groups that we accept to join.
And we accept to enter in binding contracts with these groups so that our existence becomes embedded into So you believe in group rights?
No, no, I don't believe in group rights.
So I'm not in a binding contract with a group thing?
Because otherwise, if I was in a binding contract with a group, the group would have to have some necessary claim over me?
No, no, you can be in a binding contract that you've consented to.
When you enter an organization, this is exactly what you do.
Yeah, go ahead, Richard.
This is so autistic.
I mean, look, do you pay taxes?
I'm just curious.
Do you obey traffic laws?
I ask a very simple question.
Do you pay taxes?
Do you obey traffic laws?
Yeah, believe it or not, I do.
But wait, do you believe in group rights?
How is that group rights?
Because you're forced to do that by the state.
Did you sign a contract in order to be a citizen of the UK?
The United Kingdom, obviously.
Why is that funny?
Okay, so we want to talk about the nation-state.
Is that what you want to talk about?
Or do you want to talk about racial identity?
Is the nation-state a group or not?
Is racial identitarianism something I have no choice over?
Why don't you answer the question I ask you?
Why don't you answer my question?
Well, I ask you a question and you haven't answered it.
Obviously, the United Kingdom is a group that has power over you.
If you want to come out aggressive, we can do that.
But I was just happy to have a nice, normal conversation.
Okay, I'll tone down the animosity.
You obey traffic laws, and you pay your taxes, more or less.
I would assume you do.
You are effectively obeying a group right.
I mean, a corporate entity that is the United Kingdom or some province within it has power over you.
So this whole group rights question is, I think, rather autistic in the sense that it's dissociated from lived reality.
That is a massive sophistry there, Richard.
No, it's not.
I have to stop you there, right?
So the state is the political entity under which we are governed.
Individual people are governed.
The purpose of the state in, say, Britain, as conceived of by Locke, is the protection of the rights of the individual.
As conceived of by Locke, that state was not invented by Locke.
That state has a history far greater than Locke.
It's ridiculous.
Locke wrote this, therefore it's true.
This is exactly what I'm saying.
You're living in an autistic, dissociated reality where you ask moral questions like, shall a group have a right over an individual?
Oh, isn't this so sweet?
It's irrelevant because in reality, groups obviously have rights.
The government can arrest me.
The government taxes me.
The government forces me to do all sorts of things.
The United Kingdom prevents me from entering the country.
Obviously, corporate entities have rights.
Your family has a certain hold over you.
I don't know anything about you personally.
What your father says to you has more weight than what a complete stranger what I might say to you.
Obviously, groups have rights.
You need to think about these things existentially and phenomenologically, that is, in terms of lived reality.
You want to play these liberal games of like, well, Locke said the government was us.
Well, Jefferson said that a government was created to protect you.
That is irrelevant.
That is totally irrelevant.
What John Locke wrote is irrelevant to lived reality.
We'll get back to it.
This is very interesting, but let's hear Andy.
I just want Sargon a fair chance to respond.
Sure.
I would, but someone was busy bloviating, so I think...
Am I allowed to go now, Richard?
Is that okay with you?
Yes.
Please go.
I'm obviously quiet.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Wait a second.
Tell me about the lived reality of being a white person.
I'm really curious about your conception of white identitarianism.
We can get to that, but do you want to respond to what I just said?
Well, honestly, Richard, I kind of tuned out halfway because you were just going and going and going.
That's your problem, Sargon.
It is entirely my problem.
I would assume that most of our thousands of listeners actually followed exactly what I said.
I was trying to respond to you, but you just kept going.
Spencer, can you summarize what you asked him?
Sargon is asking these autistic moral questions, like, in my abstract realm, does a group have a right over an individual?
What I'm saying is those questions are ultimately irrelevant, because in the lived reality, in the world, groups do have rights.
You ultimately obey the government of the United Kingdom.
So do I obey my government.
I ultimately obey your government.
Your family has a certain right.
It has a certain power over you that strangers don't.
This is lived reality.
And we can actually learn much more from thinking phenomenologically in a sense or existentially than we can from saying something like, well, John Locke said the purpose of government is this.
Yippee yuck, hey, it's irrelevant.
Can I jump in?
Let me explain to you exactly what I mean.
Right, okay.
Right, then Sticks will also jump in right after.
What you are proposing is a system that necessarily subordinates the individual to the wills of a group, and therefore the individual's rights will always come second to what you have conceived of as group rights.
You follow me?
What are we talking about?
Are you ever going to address what I just said?
You do not follow what I'm saying.
I follow what you're saying.
You're not addressing what I just put forward because you don't want to talk about that.
But I'm asking you if you follow what I've just said there.
Do you follow yes or no?
I more or less follow this kind of cartoon version of what you think I believe.
Yes.
It's not what you believe.
Sargar, it does seem that you are adding stuff that Richard has not stated here.
I'm not stating Richard's...
You are assuming what I think happens in reality, that Richard seems to be conveniently ignoring.
Well, it's not the case that because you are part of a group and you would think of that group, for example, if you're part of a corporation, you can recognize that this corporation has rights.
It could be represented in courts, for example.
That wouldn't mean that the corporation would subordinate all of the individuals composing it.
It wouldn't be a subordination necessarily.
It could be a voluntary adhesion.
Could be, but it will necessarily, in a number of the cases, be...
Like, domineering.
I mean, for example...
Shut up for five minutes.
Hang on, hang on.
Let's have a chance to respond.
Thanks.
Go ahead.
And then Sticks will talk right after that.
A corporation does not have the legitimacy to violate an individual's rights.
Because the corporation's rights do not supersede the rights of the individuals that make it up.
And we all agree that that's how we should have a government working.
Like, that's how society should work.
Because if you don't agree with that, then what you're saying is it's okay for a group to violate the rights of other people, like the individual, for its own purposes.
You're not living in...
What state are you describing?
Because you are not describing the United Kingdom, which goes to war, which...
Arrest people, violates their rights left and right, goes to war.
You're talking from an abstract liberal position, and I am pointing out how vacuous this ultimately is.
You don't describe any state or organization that has ever existed.
Has there ever been a purely voluntary political order in world history?
I'm not even talking about things that are purely voluntary.
I'm talking...
Sorry.
Has there ever been a purely voluntary political order in world history?
Hey, Styx.
Let's hear what Styx has to say.
He's been listening, so go ahead, dude.
Yeah.
First, I would just point out that it isn't possible to create a fully anarchic order.
That would be true.
But it is possible to constrain all possible forms of abuse and keep things preferably at a minimum.
My question would be this.
If we're looking at a civic structure, and Spencer, you pointed this out, and you're right when you point this out, And I would agree.
That the government of, like, the United States, for example, it starts wars and kills people, murders, and does crazy things.
If you were to attempt, if you're looking at groups of people as having rights, how would you institute specifically, like, a white identitarian U.S. or a super state?
I think you've mentioned, like, North America becoming an ethnostate.
Let's just simplify the U.S. How would you implement that without then disabusing large groups of people who are already under the civic structure considered citizens but happen not to be white?
Or how would you disabuse them of that status and push them out physically or sort of make them be lepers within the state without abusing them under that civic structure?
And combined with that, how would you then, because you're talking about pragmatism, I take it, when you're talking about living reality.
How would you do that without causing so much untold bloodshed?
Like, one of the things you've spoken of is, A, I want identitarianism, but it's a kinder, gentler, it's not Hitler, we're not going to purge people.
We're trying to make this, you know, easy and not trying to hurt people.
How would you do it without hurting people who dissented, including a lot of white people and some of those people?
I've pointed this out even with regards to, like, MAGA populism.
Now, I support deporting.
Criminally legals.
But if you were to try to deport the so-called 30 million people, identitarians keep telling me, it would require the suspension of the Constitution.
It would cause a civil war.
Half of Texas alone would probably take up arms because you'd have to go door to door, suspend the Second Amendment, suspend the right to privacy.
How would you actually implement that without becoming so monumentally abusive that the U.S. or whatever ethnostate that was trying to prop up becomes a pariah?
And gets shut out by the entire rest of the world, falls into chaos and becomes basically a third world because then what's the point?
It's not a prosperous, white, happy utopia like I guess you envision.
It becomes basically a slum.
It becomes way worse than it was before in any possible sense of the word.
Okay.
Well, first I would say that the ethnostate is an ideal in the sense that the ethnostate, as I have defined it, does not exist right now.
There are many states around the world that are ethnostatish, you could say.
Poland is a kind of ethnostate.
There are plenty of ethnostates in the third world in which you have an ethnic group that has its own government, effectively.
And yes, they're citizens, and yes, there's a kind of abstract democratic element to it, but there's also a spiritual and racial element to the composition of the state.
So that kind of ethnostate is actually not terribly unusual.
We have plenty of existing examples.
Israel might be the most famous.
Israel actually is a kind of model for an ethno-state that I would want for the white race in the future in the sense that a Jew from around the world, even one that doesn't have any direct connection with the state of Israel, has a right of return to Israel.
He has a home.
And my concept, and it's not just mine, there are many predecessors to me in terms of thinking about this.
In terms of the concept of the ethno state, there would be a right of return for all whites.
So it would have a civic order, but citizenship would be ultimately racially defined.
I will go into all the things...
I'll go into all of this, I promise.
I would just have to remark, though, couldn't that be problematic?
Because one thing that we see in Israel is they have a problem with white nationalists who have a Jewish grandparent going there and nazifying things.
That's actually been something that's happened before.
What would you say?
You'll have to maintain a civic structure regardless, I would assume.
It can't just be racialists like, hey, we're a giant white tribe.
What about your fans?
And some of them do.
What about those who say, well, Italians aren't really white, so we're not going to let them in.
This Turk who's got, like, seven white grandparents, I mean, seven white great-grandparents, screw them.
This person's a Hapa.
That person, they have, like, their features are just too dark for some congenital reason.
How do you get into that?
I get what you're saying.
You're talking about autism, but you have to design this weird categorical system.
It's not so cut and dry as, hey, you're a citizen or, hey, you're not on a civic basis.
There's a core stock to the white race, and those are Celtic people, Latin people, German people, Anglo-Saxon people, Slavs, and so on.
We know a white person when we see one.
What's the point in getting DNA tests if you know white people when you see them?
I'm genuinely curious.
Or a white Jew.
What if someone's like...
Jews are a distinct people, obviously.
They define themselves.
Yeah, what if they infiltrate it?
Well, they just say that we're whites, which they do.
I don't understand.
You're saying, what's the point of a DNA test?
I never actually even suggested that.
I'm just saying that this concept of a core white race, I don't think it's a particularly contentious one.
If you don't benefit from affirmative action, you're white.
Let's just put it that way.
So the Japanese are white?
That is the dumbest categorization of what a white person is I have ever heard.
It's entirely contextual.
You're not going to have affirmative action, are you?
Because you're not going to have any non-white people.
That's such a silly thing to say.
I won't even comment upon that.
That's because you've got nothing, Richard.
This is really tedious.
This is my problem with a lot of people online.
I'm basically saying that the core of the white race is not really a matter of great debate.
One can ask these prickly questions.
Some questions that are going to come up necessarily in the establishment of a white ethnostate.
Go on.
Sure.
They came up in the establishment of an Israeli state.
Israel exists.
It's a flourishing society.
It has a national order.
These are practical questions that can be answered.
I really find you to be a very tedious and annoying person.
Sargon, I am going to say something that might be the most insulting thing we've ever heard.
You think that you are more intelligent than you are.
And that's actually a really tricky place to be.
I don't think you're very intelligent.
I'm sorry, Sargon.
Well, that's a personal attack, because your opinion's very important to me.
Sargon, I have debated people who have addressed what I'm actually saying in the core.
You're nibbling around the edges in a way that's just tedious and annoying.
You can't seem to understand what I'm actually saying when I talk to you about your first principle.
Oh, I can't understand.
Oh, really, Sargon.
I can't understand, Sargon.
This is all autistic.
I don't understand what you're saying.
This is what you just said to me.
What is your critique of there's clearly a core white stock that is not debatable?
What is your critique of them?
How do you identify them?
I'm saying, how do I identify them?
You could do it in a myriad of different ways, one of which is a 23andMe test, one of which is a simple eyeball test.
Right, so DNA testing is going to be required for the ethnostate.
There are going to be people, though, that you might not qualify as white under your opinion, though, that are going to look white.
I agree with you.
I agree with what Styx is saying.
There is always going to be some tricky, blurry areas to anything.
But just because there's a fuzzy border doesn't mean that a concept doesn't exist.
I mean, there's a fuzzy border between colors.
You're going to see a lot of people using this for their own advantage and saying, I'm sure we would.
we would that's a purely pragmatic issue that you're raising that doesn't logical and based it's not actually sarga because you don't understand argumentation i don't understand this is some great reputation but it's I'm trying to explain to you what you're saying.
You don't even understand it.
You just really need to be quiet.
I would rather talk with Styx because Styx is actually addressing them.
Can I jump in?
Can I jump in with a quick point here?
I can only roll my eyes at you, sir.
Hey, Richard, Richard, let's get sticks.
I would say the complication over this in the sense of the Americas is perhaps more important.
And this is what I've tried to make this point to people, and they think it makes me like a Nazi gatekeeper.
I've said before, if you're talking about maybe Europe raising up through tribalism, yeah, you've got basically de facto ethnostates throughout time.
You've also got empires that are like multicultural so-called or diverse or whatever.
But on this side of the pond, things are already mixed.
The fundamental problem...
As you keep pointing out, is pragmatism.
It's the same problem that plagues people who want to deport however many millions of people.
It's the same problem that plagues communism.
Communism on paper, okay, it's great, it's hallelujah, everyone's equal, we've all got enough food, you can do whatever you want, you know, as long as you're not abusing others.
It's almost like a libertarian utopia when you think of communism taken to its ultimate utopian goal, but it's never worked.
It's not pragmatic.
It can't be implemented without so much abuse, it cripples itself.
My problem with identitarianism as it overlaps in a country where it's already not an ethnostate, there's already a strong civic sense or structure, whether it's flawed or works better or worse, doesn't really matter.
By trying to displace it with the ethnostate, it will become abusive.
And so that sets certain countries apart from others.
Now, you may say, oh, well, haha, we've discovered the Marxist plot because now it's obvious the EU people, they want to pump.
Maybe European countries that were homogenous before full of migrants in order to cause the same issue for future identitarians.
But, like, I don't really care if some other country, because I have a national identity, chooses to be an ethnosate.
There are white nations that are almost homogenous.
Think of Poland.
There are black nations that are almost homogenous.
But, like, what would you...
What do you even say, for instance?
Let me ask this.
The United States is an ethnostate.
I mean, originally.
Absolutely.
The 1790 Immigration Act effectively said that immigrants to the United States should be white men and women of good character.
No one had any dispute with this.
Like, oh, what do we do with a white Turk with an Austrian grandmother?
Look, those are questions that can be answered.
And they considered the Irish to be non-white.
No, no, no.
When were Irish excluded in 1790?
Have you seen some of the stuff from the 1800s?
What about Latin Americans?
What about a white Mexican?
They interestingly did not address many of these issues because that wasn't a pragmatic concern.
The 1924 Immigration Act did not even address Mexico, even though now Mexican immigration is the most important thing we think about.
It was not.
In what is effectively a racially defined ethnostate immigration act, 1924, as well as 1790.
So America is a kind of ethnostate.
But that's the past, though.
Well, you know, sometimes the past is the future, and sometimes the past has to be renewed.
And sometimes we can look to the past for answers.
In terms of the creation of a concept of whiteness, America actually has a very important role to play in this process.
Europeans have often defined themselves purely ethnically, and they've been at war with one another.
This is another kind of fallacious argument against identitarianism, or you could say white nationalism.
It's like, oh, but the Germans hate the French, and the French hate the English, and the English hate the Irish, blah, blah, blah.
All of that's true.
America actually has something to teach Europeans in the sense that so many of those ethnic disputes, which were real at a time, were ultimately dissolved and there is a concept of a mostly English, mostly Nordic, but still white America.
That is something that America actually brought to this whole question.
How will they dissolve?
I really want to know how they dissolve.
What dissolved the national tensions in America?
A lot of the resolution was actually intermarriage and other things.
It was a national identity.
That's also a major as well.
One thing.
Just one thing.
Thank you everyone for the Super Chats.
I'm collecting the questions on Notepad right now.
And I will read the other Super Chats after the show.
I'll only gather the questions that are being asked right now.
By the way, National Socialist, thank you for that hundred bucks.
Holy fuck.
And he says it's okay to be a Nazi.
Appreciate that.
But I have all the questions being collected right now.
And I'm going to do all the other ones at the end of the show.
So yeah, you guys can go.
So, I'd like to move on with the question which actually refers to what we've been talking about.
It seems that a lot of what I heard here is nitpicking on the details of the precision of the identity of race, precisely identifying what's white, what's Asian, what's black.
In the end, Sargon, given that we can look at someone and have some sort of information...
That is more than random.
Like, when we look at someone's face and skin color, we have more than random genetic information about where they come from.
And in fact, if you look at a black person in the U.S., you can say with a somewhat very high percentage of chance of being right that they have most of their ancestors come from Africa.
And given that this is true and that there is information...
Why would it be a problem if the information is imperfect?
Why would it be a problem if some of those are misclassified in a racial classification if the majority can't be properly classified?
Okay, as Styx pointed out earlier and Richard assented to, this is going to not only be a very messy process but lead into purity spiraling.
Where whatever it is, whatever the group, the movement, the nation, will start self-consuming on the basis that power will be achieved through racial purity.
And that just leads you down a road that you don't really want to go down because if it sticks points out correctly, it's going to end in blood.
I think it's a much worse solution to the problem of, well, anything, really.
What is that going to be a solution to?
Can I fund purity spiraling into anti-gigital?
Anyone who's not a pure Pole must be killed.
Is that a problem in Poland right now?
Did I say that anyone who's not a pure Pole would be killed?
Well, you talked about violence.
And I don't see the nationalists talking about purity spiraling.
I mean, sure, I can imagine a purity spiral.
Sure, that's one possibility.
I can imagine all host of other things.
Yeah, but do you not think that's a problem?
Setting up a system that's apparently going to fail?
It could be a problem, sure.
A purity spiral?
I don't think so.
You're already having these problems.
Thank you for your poor knowledge of history.
You're welcome.
You're already having these problems in the alt-rise.
That's the thing.
You arrive at a point at which purity spiraling would be meaningless for anyone.
You would arrive at a point where you would be unsatisfied that Richard Spencer is really white, and you'd be like, to what extent does that information serve me?
And I think that what ethno-nationalists are proposing, and I hear that from Tara McCarthy, I hear that from Richard, it's that...
They will not engage into a purity spiral.
In fact, I hear a lot of openness about having borders of diversity that are not super pure.
They are very open at the idea that there would be mixed race people in the state and they would be tolerated.
I don't want to destroy the natural diversity within the white race.
The fact is, there is major differences between a Russian and a Scotsman, or a Scotsman and an Italian, an Italian and an Estonian.
I think these differences are beautiful.
I actually don't really have a problem, to be honest, when you have a mix of a German and an Italian.
I think sometimes that kind of mixing of different types within the white race can...
Produced something beautiful, actually.
I don't believe in purity spirals.
In terms of...
I've met people who are mixed race.
Whether you believe in them or not is kind of irrelevant.
They're already happening in the alt-right.
You're describing the alt-right.
We're talking about the ethnostate.
You're describing, yes, are there people purity spiraling?
You're literally making this argument.
People are purity spiraling on Twitter, therefore the ethnostate will inherently purity spiral into a bloodbath.
That just simply does not follow.
It does not follow, Sarko.
It absolutely follows.
The idea that you think a political purity spiral of control of the country won't end up in people getting shot is absolutely hilarious to me.
And no matter how, like...
How much do you try to brush this off?
It's not something that's going away.
May I ask a question?
It absolutely does.
Do you understand anything that I've said?
Do you understand a word I've said?
Because you've literally said, I don't understand what you're saying.
It's all autistic as far as I can see.
It's not very powerful.
Let me ask a question.
Spencer, how would you implement the ethnostate without people getting killed?
People came here peacefully, therefore they could potentially leave peacefully.
Potentially, but what about the people who wouldn't want to leave peacefully?
Look, first off, there are many ways that this could be implemented completely peacefully.
And actually, there are historical precedents for the creation of ethnostates.
The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 following the First World War was a redrawing of the map according to ethno-determinism.
So there was a reinvention of Poland.
There was a creation of new states like Yugoslavia.
There was population transfers that were done by force but were actually peaceful.
So this can be done.
It has been done in the past.
There's been massive amounts of migration.
Through planes, trains, and automobiles and ships.
And this could be done peacefully.
Could people be enticed to leave?
But the political state right now, in the states right now, everything's really heated.
Do you really think most people would leave peacefully?
Especially seeing how just people get heated over politics as it is right now?
Like Trump, for example?
I recognize the degree to which my concept of an ethnostate is way out in front.
It's on the crest of the wave.
It's way out in front.
Is this politically possible, right?
This instance?
Absolutely not.
Is this going to happen next election cycle?
No.
This is something that we have to be thinking about theologically in the sense of an ultimate goal that is possible and that we want to channel our energies towards.
It is an ideal in that sense.
So in the sense of, look, can people be enticed to leave?
Yes, absolutely.
Recent immigrants can be paid, given cash handouts to return to their countries.
Could we, through imperialism, Could we create new ethnostates for people?
Could we therefore create an African-American homeland that would actually have sovereignty?
It's kind of similar, although fundamentally different, than the reservation system of creating homelands for the American Indians.
Could we create these ethnostates for other races through imperialism?
We absolutely could.
At the end of the day...
Might the government have to use some kind of force?
Could it use this humanely?
I think the answer is yes.
All of these things are possible.
It's really a question of will.
The government uses force all the time.
That's the real problem.
It's really probable that none of this will go the way you think it will go.
Really probable.
In fact, it's really probable that this will completely collapse before you even finish what you're trying to achieve.
Even Hitler himself, you'll probably understand this, referred to the idea of an eternal camp or an eternal struggle.
So even if you were to achieve white imperialistic ethnostate, carve the world up in such a way, you wouldn't have stability.
So you just end up going through the whole friggin' thing again.
Well, I do agree.
In many ways, you sound like a right-wing version of Peter Kropotkin.
You sound like you've got this utopian dream that you want to achieve without any violence, but you are aware that there are probably going to be other political actors within your movement, like the sort of Daily Stormer types, who are more than happy to use violence.
Who's putting a bullet in the back of who at that point, do you think?
You know?
And Kropotkin could at least acknowledge.
I can acknowledge that history can become very difficult.
History itself is a slaughter bench.
I mean, I can acknowledge the fact that history is not pretty.
And I can acknowledge that it's not just the ethnostate ideal.
They're going to be competing versions of the world for who is going to rule the planet after the fall of the American empire.
Muslims have an idea.
They have an idea of what they want to see.
I don't want to see that.
The Chinese have an idea, which has certain advantages and many disadvantages, to say the least.
There are going to be competing visions of who will rule the planet after the fall of the American unipolar world.
And what I am saying is that we need our vision.
That those who have a passion and a will to implement a vision...
Are going to be the winners in this.
If we decide to all be individualistic liberals and say, oh, we don't want to play that game.
We're so afraid of the state.
We're so afraid of violence that we don't want to play that game.
Those people will ultimately be slaves.
Those people will ultimately be subjugated to those who are willing to use the state, willing to use force, and who have a bold vision of the future and the will to enact it.
Right.
So you're willing to use the state, you're willing to use force, and you're pretty sure you're going to get shot in the back by one of your more violent comrades.
Why would anyone take your path anyway?
Well, I did answer this in a way, and what I'm saying is that we live at the end of an American unipolar empire, and an inheritance of the British Empire to a degree, to a degree now.
That's an opinion, though.
Okay, let's not get caught up on that opinion.
But I think we would all actually agree that we're in a late stage of this American unipolar world.
What I am saying is that if you simply don't want to play this game in favor of liberalism or individualism, all that means is that you're going to be someone else's subject.
That the people who are willing to act collectively...
Who have boldness and a vision are going to ultimately win.
And so this is a Machiavellian point in the sense that one must be a little bit evil in order to combat evil.
But that's the whole point of, I think, why some would oppose identitarianism.
They're worried that it will be in the process of implementing it and perhaps thereafter will be abusive.
In fact...
If people aren't, oddly enough, a strange point to make because I hate wedge issues, if people aren't broken up by things like that within the context of a civic structure and they feel racially homogenous, wouldn't a person simply, in order to abuse that population, simply happen to be well-spoken and a member of that race?
And Sargon's point, I think, still stands, which is you and McCarthy and others may not have a problem with, like, you know, some Italian person.
One Arabic great-grandparent, but they're still, they're going to look white.
You don't care.
Others will care.
The problem is that those people, if they manage to seize power, which will happen within a civic structure from time to time, it has throughout human history.
They can then exploit that for their own gain.
The fact is power corrupts.
It's not going to stop corrupting because it's a white person governing other white people.
So if you had a libertarian, identitarian state, maybe you could survive that fact.
But there's always still going to be that tendency towards growth of government.
Look, in your idealistic libertarian order, there's going to be some fanatical libertarians who want to stamp out collectivism.
You're the one with the idealistic position here.
We live in a liberal order that has universal rights at the moment, Richard.
A fanatic libertarian becomes an anarchist.
I have a challenge here.
I have a challenge to give to Sargon and Stick.
Because what Richard says here makes sense...
I thought you were memorizing the rock from a participant in the debate.
No, what I do is that I make the discussion advance in the way I believe intellectually is the most interesting.
You seem to be defending Richard.
It's always a question for me.
You can remove me as a moderator and count me in as an interested agent.
I do not care.
I'm interested in making this discussion the most intellectually enriching ever.
That we've had on this stream.
So I'm working on that.
Now, my challenge to Sargon and Styx is the critique that you make of Richard's racial views to say, well, okay, you want an ethno-state, it's going to lead to people eventually stabbing you in the back.
Can't the same critique be given to the current state of Western societies?
Can't the same critique be given to multiculturalism?
Maybe, Sargon, one day you'll get Muslims.
Stabbing you in the back, don't you think?
Yeah, but it'll never be sanctioned by the state.
I don't know about that one.
If a Muslim stabbed you in the back, that Muslim will be punished for it.
Oh yeah, but what happens if there's a Muslim majority in the UK or Canada in 100 years or 500 years?
Oh, right, okay, so what we're saying is it's not how we live now then.
I mean, that's fine.
If you want to accept that what I'm saying is the most moral position to take on this and change the discourse, the context in which we're talking, then fine.
We're talking about the future.
The ethnostate as I've described it does not exist right now.
It has certain precedents, but we're talking about the future.
You were talking about the future saying, oh, you'll inherently purity spiral and people will say that Richard Spencer is not white.
Yeah, but this is an inevitable consequence of the principles you're laying out, as you have admitted.
It's called Robert Mugabe runs one and kicked the last few white people out and inherited a famine.
The problem is that it's abusive and leads to you becoming a pariah.
Well, see, there you go then.
You're bringing up the inequality thing.
The thing that I've already said is this, and I've said this for years.
I don't believe in censoring identitarians.
I don't believe in abusing identitarians.
And if someone wants to associate with members of their own race only, so be it.
If they want to make it a cultural movement, so be it.
But when you bring it to the level of an actual nation state, which simply has race overlapping, it still is going to suffer from the same excesses.
But in implementing it in a state that wasn't already basically an ethnostate to begin with, you're going to get a purge.
And it could collapse.
Communists could take over and force diversity down your throat at the peril of a gun.
Then you'd be a slave.
I agree to the extent that there was always that chance of corruption.
All I would say is that even in the state that Styx was describing, I think Styx, correct me if I'm wrong, you would want to live in a...
In a kind of nationalist libertarian order, a constitutional order, but a live and let live kind of thing.
Even in that kind of order, you're describing America to a very large degree.
Even in that type of order, there is a chance for corruption.
There's a chance for abuse.
There's a chance for fanatics to get in charge.
Fanatical libertarians.
It's the inevitability.
It's not a chance.
It's inevitable.
Look at Sarkeesian leading the feminists or something.
It's people who project.
They're opportunists.
They're attracted to power because they want money and they want cars and sex and all these things.
It's a human nature.
They're the ones that will inevitably end up in control.
Only if you properly constrain the state does that stop being so much of a problem.
I don't think you can properly constrain the state.
What, are you going to constrain it with a paper document like the Constitution?
You constrain it with that, plus a strong civic order, which we had in the United States before Marxists influenced things.
But you don't fight them by saying, hey, we're going to be white.
There are white Marxists.
America's been corrupted as well.
You argue for single-payer...
Rich, what would you constrain it with?
I really want to know.
Would you constrain it with men in jack boots with guns?
How would you constrain it?
And you argue for things like a single pair.
Other than the Constitution, which is what every state has had since the dawn of time, gone.
Would it constrain what?
You were literally just saying that you can't constrain government power with a piece of paper.
You were mocking the idea.
Okay, how do you do it?
Government power is constrained by, as Styx said, a strong civic order and people who want to push back against government power.
It's ultimately not constrained by the law.
The law is an articulation of state power.
The law does not constrain the state.
So yes, it's basically a civic order of a sense of uprightness.
The law does not constrain the state.
Did you just say that?
No.
Yes, I did.
It's constrained so long as that legal architecture is supported by the people within that civic state.
Wow, you're thinking thoughts that you've never thought before.
The law is an articulation of power.
It's an articulation of the state.
It does not constrain the state, yes.
I believe that, so do many other legal theorists you've never read.
The functions of the various institutions of the states to uphold their own rules, laws, and norms.
But do you not think that people will do that?
In a liberal state, sorry.
I think in an ethno-state, there will be a strong sense among white people.
White people are attracted to, for better and for worse, they're attracted to a sense of uprightness and individualism, of their own personal rights, their own duties, their own plot of land.
That there will be a strong social pushback against any kind of...
Encroachment on all these wonderful things about society by an overweening state.
But I would agree.
I'm basically granting, because I'm an honest person, I'm granting Styx a point in the sense that, yes, life is a struggle.
Everything's going to be born and flourish and then go into decadence and decay and die and you have to rebuild it again.
This is what life's about.
Every state will reach a state of corruption and decadence.
That's built in.
But the question is, can there be a new order that will safeguard the white race that will lead to greater flourishing for European people than ever before, where we could reach the stars?
Yes.
Can we create that kind of order?
Listen, yes.
It already existed.
It was called the United States.
The problem is the United States has been degraded by collectivism.
By increasing bureaucracy.
Individualism didn't kill the US.
It wasn't killed by capitalism.
We're not in late capitalism.
We're in late socialism.
If we have problems, it's because the government right now taxes half of what people make.
It tells people what they can do from the moment that they're born to the moment they die.
It levies every possible fee, creates every possible bureaucracy, and strangles itself.
That's why we're having problems in this world.
That's why a bunch of opportunists can play craptivist and say, hey, we need to censor all these other groups because we need to maintain the retarded status quo, which is exactly what it is.
But the thing is, that was formed by white people when the United States was overwhelmingly right.
One of the things that you push for a single...
Which is like the god of all bureaucratic programs.
We tried that in our homogeneously white.
It's like 98% white state.
And our far left government ended up not wanting it because they couldn't even pay for it.
I just don't understand.
You're relegating the civic structure, the fiscal structure, everything to the back burner in favor of the racial argument.
That's all well and good and fine, but the thing is that having that racial homogeneity doesn't make things magically better.
It doesn't make things all rainbows anyway.
How are you going to convince people, therefore, the average person?
And this is just an honest question, no moral entanglement at all.
How do you convince people then that that's something that they would want to pledge themselves to at the hazard of a possible civil war, literally collapse of their entire culture?
Okay, there's a lot here, but let me try to pick up some of these pieces.
The United States did reach the stars.
We at least reached the moon in 1969.
And I would say between the First World War and the, say, 1965 Civil Rights and Immigration Acts, the Great Society, America...
We achieved things that were seemingly impossible, that were almost unimaginable previously.
Within a half century, we went from the creation of the airplane to sending a man to the moon.
This is remarkable.
This coincided, and I don't think it just coincided, I think it was caused to a great degree, with a racialist ethnostate immigration policy that began in 1924, that was a specifically Not only racialist, but Nordicist immigration policy that was inspired by Madison Grant and similar people who were interested in the conservationist and eugenics movement.
America's immigration policy put a man on the moon.
That's your argument.
I just said that, no.
Sargon, I'm not as dumb as you are, actually.
That's a little bit of a stretch, Sargon.
Sargon, I just said that it coincided and I actually think that it wasn't...
I don't think, obviously, I don't think an immigration act put a man on the moon.
Are you this moronic, Sargon?
I expected a lot better.
I'm not going to address any more of these nitpicking.
It's just stupid.
You think about the internal consistency of your own words.
So why didn't Ghana reach the stars, Sargon?
Why didn't Liberia reach the stars?
Why have to?
They had a liberal constitution.
I guess it was just because they were black.
They didn't have enough Nazi scientists.
Yeah, right?
No, but think about it.
Since that period where we went to the moon, we've also accomplished great things despite being in the early stage, of course, not really multicultural.
Everyone's at each other's throats on a racial basis, no less.
We've done plenty of stuff since then.
If you look at the tech that they had like in the 50s or 60s compared to all of human endeavor being encompassed on a few supercomputers, I mean, my goodness, there's basically no comparison.
We can do great things now.
And I'll say this again.
It's not about what was, and it's not about...
If you were arguing, Richard, for saying, hey, we're going to ban everyone who's not white from immigrating to the U.S., ha ha.
I wouldn't, by the way, even care, because that's not abusing anybody who's already part of our civic structure.
Go ahead, build the wall, preclude them all from coming, kick out any anchor babies, whatever.
But what about people who are already here?
And what, let's say...
Because this is what would happen.
Let's say that most of them don't want to take your money or don't want to just listen to you when you say, well, leave, because we're white only now, you know, blacks in the back.
You know, it's no colored only signs anymore.
What about those some tens of millions of people who wouldn't want to leave?
And what about those who are friends with them, family with them who are white, who would take up arms to defend them?
You're looking at more than half the population probably there.
You wouldn't even have a majority of the population on your side.
You'd have probably a slim majority at most of just whites within the country.
And you'd get your asses handed to you and hand this country to a bunch of communists in the process.
Look, this is a legitimate, pragmatic critique of how would the ethnostate arise in, say, the coming decade.
I don't think that this is going to happen.
The United States is sovereign at this point.
We haven't seen this massive paradigm shift.
I would just add this into the mix, though.
When white people are allowed to vote with their feet...
They ultimately want to be in what are approximations of white society.
Martin Luther King complained about the fact that 11am on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week.
The fact is, white people are inherently attracted to themselves, to that kind of lifestyle that only we can bring.
I would say the entire world is, actually.
I would agree with most people.
The refugee crisis is flowing in one direction.
It is flowing into Berlin and Munich, and it is not flowing into Ghana.
That's because of your idiots, though, to be fair.
This is not going to be a subject we're in opposition on, the American crisis.
But they're not flowing to the East because they're not going to get free money from the East.
It's not because we're white.
It's stupid enough to give them money.
It's not just free money.
I'm just speaking for one quick second.
What is Baffel on from their perspective?
A JF check DMs for a sec, dude, if you may.
Okay, well, that being said, I'd like to introduce a questioning here on the concept that Stick has introduced and that I think it also corresponds to Sargon's Orshu theory.
So it seems that...
It's not Orshu theory.
This is something that is described to me all the time.
It's you guys saying it, because you don't understand what I'm saying, because you guys never seem to want to talk about your first principles.
I'll gladly refute horseshoe theory while holding up part of its main principles, by the way.
I'm sorry I've initiated this huge parenthesis.
I just have a small question.
Is it possible that when you guys talk of collectivism...
And when you talk of collectivism, looking at the past of America and the current state of America, you are looking at SJWs, you're looking at socialism, you're looking at the socialistic tendencies that are developing within America, you're looking at the left, you're looking at authoritarian control of government over I
would say...
Well, go ahead.
I was going to say, I'm going to send all the questions I've been collecting from Super Chat to JF.
And then when we have time, I only pick the ones that were actual questions.
After the show is done, I'll read all the in-between Super Chats.
Thank you very much, everyone.
It's really overwhelming right now.
And JF, if you can just hold the floor for one second, I have to use the washroom.
All right, bud?
All right.
Okay, let me address the collectivism, individualism, dichotomy.
This is something that I get the feeling that a lot of collectivists don't really understand.
It's just about the primary value.
So are the rights of the individual superseding the rights of the collective?
It's that simple.
I'm sure even you can understand this, Richard.
Like what I'm saying is at some point you will, despite the lack of any sort of existential threat or any real need on point of principle, you will find yourself violating the rights of individuals for your ideological conception.
Do you agree with that?
Obviously, the rights of the collective supersede the rights of the individual.
An individual receives his individual rights by being part of a collective.
I have rights as if the collective has rights.
That's what I'm saying.
That's obviously nonsense.
I have rights as an American citizen because I am part of this collective.
America is an individualistic nation.
That's why you have rights.
It is and it isn't.
Individualism is a value.
Right.
I mean, it's a value within it, but it's obviously a collective entity.
Not every single human being is an American citizen or can benefit from the rights of being an American.
But Richard, there's something important here to say about collectivism, which is that when we see videos of you getting punched in the face and people don't want to do anything about it, you are being yourself abused by a collective.
Individuals aren't abusing you.
No individual is capable of censoring you unless they're crazy and they shoot you in the head.
But a government can say, well, that Richard Spencer is sure full of hate.
We've got to keep him from speaking.
Or a collective, like a tech site can say, well, no, no, Richard.
You can't have a Twitter.
You can't be on YouTube.
You can't have this podcast on our domain registrar.
It requires a group to truly abuse.
Like when people are worried about some random, like people are worried about you.
They're like, oh, that evil, scary Richard Spencer.
I'm like, what are you so worried about?
It's one fucking person.
If there were millions and millions of people gathering into such a state, they could do the same thing.
What fundamentally makes your collective, I guess, more stable?
Unless it's true, central core values, individualism.
And if it is, how then do you justify the purge that you will need in order to create your effort?
I agree with you that collectives have more power than the individual, which is basically what you're saying.
This is my...
Critique of a lot of the libertarianism that I've heard tonight is that it seems to exist in an abstract plane in which we want to ask moral questions about should a group have a right over an individual?
The fact is, in lived reality, obviously groups have more power than individuals and obviously corporate entities, whether they be governments or even You know, Silicon Valley companies or what have you, have power over the individual.
Obviously, these rights, in terms of having more power, supersede them.
The whole point of rights, so then you're admitting that their rights supersede the individual.
It's because of the disproportionate power of entities that don't have any legitimate claim to control an individual.
Why does an individual have a claim to this sanctity of not being controlled?
Why does an individual have a claim to some kind of sanctity of not being controlled by a collective?
Because if you don't think that they do, then you don't think the SJWs have done anything wrong.
Oh, that's ridiculous.
You can't answer that question because we're getting to the ultimate theology of libertarianism.
Because you're a white man.
You don't care.
You just think, oh, it's bad because it's happening to me.
That's the only argument you've got here.
Your argument boils down to might makes right, Richard.
Ultimately, these collective entities are going to have power over individuals.
That's the point of a human right.
That's the point of an individual system.
To constrain the power of groups, Richard.
It's a value that you want to live in such a society in which we grant individuals rights.
That's what you're effectively saying.
It's not like there's an actual human right that exists in some form.
Let's hear what Sticks has to say.
I just have a quick yes or no question for you, Richard, and then I've got to extrapolate a small bit from that.
Do you believe that it's important to create a state that ultimately is stable and prosperous?
Absolutely.
And I think it's absolutely important to create a state in which citizens have clearly defined rights which they enjoy and defend.
Okay.
The only way to create such a state is for individuality to be, if not the most important core value, at least a superseding core value.
Individuality...
I'll answer that quickly.
No, no, no.
Individuality, guys.
Just to be autistic for a second.
Individuality is what you mean.
Let's have one at a time.
The right of the individual will be a core concept in the ethnostate, as will the right of families and so on.
But it will not be the right.
It will not be the core of the formation of this political order.
It simply won't.
The core of the formation of the political order will be those collectives.
It will be being part of something bigger than oneself.
But I want to live in a society that allows me to...
Have my say of what I want to do, the path I want to tread in this world.
Of course, that's what everyone here wants.
A white person sits there going, okay, I want to miscegenate for a minute.
Is that okay?
And then you suddenly, no, you can't do that.
It becomes so much more difficult in the internet era because unless you have censorship at a Chinese or post-Chinese level, some of those white individuals will say, well, you know, I don't fucking see the need to have...
Just whites.
Why don't we start a reform movement?
We'll get some East Asians in there.
You know, they're smart, they're hardworking, they're lawful, and they're kind of light-skinned.
Why not have some Japanese immigrants?
And then over time, you'll have these movements.
There will be a point in which pure individual rights will come into conflict with the collective.
There will be that point, and the state will side with it.
So you could say that statement about effectively every other political order, the political order you live in.
There are limits to your individuality.
We enjoy the right to bear arms in the United States.
We can have guns.
We cannot have rocket launchers.
I mean, a lot of this, like, I'm a Second Amendment fundamentalist is a little bit ridiculous, to be honest.
I'm not talking about any of that sort of thing, so you can carry on on this tangent if you want, but it's not relevant to what I was saying.
Can you not extrapolate from a specific to a general?
Is that kind of too difficult for you, sir?
I mean, do you even know what the tyranny of the majority is?
Because that's all you're proposing.
Yes, I know with that phrase.
It wouldn't even be that, though, because you wouldn't have the majority forming the ethnostate.
The problem is number one pragmatism.
There would be an elite class that would enforce an ideology that would be part of the state.
What if you end up being one of the untermensch, though?
Of course, every society has an aristocracy.
We have an aristocracy in this class, in the modern America.
It is basically, obviously, people of extreme wealth who are connected with finance, but it's also a class of mandarins who are produced by the Ivy Leagues and related colleges who basically have an ideology instilled in them.
They want to reproduce the ideology of the state.
They want to ultimately reproduce the order in which they govern.
Yes, that is a natural state of...
It's a form of oligarchic authoritarianism, yeah.
Which is what we live in right now and which is a natural state for mankind.
The state would obviously have a say in education.
We would want to continue the existence of the ethnostate.
We'd want to create an elite class of highly educated, a kind of warrior guardian class of people who would maintain this order.
This is what we have now.
The fact that you are laughing is because you cannot see what is right before your eyes.
Richard, Richard, Richard, Richard.
I'm not chuckling because I see that as necessarily untrue in the current state.
What I'm saying is that's a bad thing, though.
It's just oligarchy.
It's a form of degeneration.
It's a form of degeneration.
It's not feudalism.
You don't know what feudalism is.
It's a degeneration.
It's a degeneration away from the concept of the godlike or ascendant human being able to accomplish things as an individual and be upright into their reliance on a collective.
And therein lies the problem.
It doesn't matter whether it's monarchism, okay, a royalty is your collective and your abusive force, or an oligarchy, as you're pointing out, we have a fusion model right now.
It's because we've fallen away from the concept of individualism.
Again, it's not even so much...
There was an oligarchic class in previous generations of the United States.
Of course there was, but there was also an extremely deep Golden Age era style appreciation during the Enlightenment.
It wasn't just in the U.S. for the concept of individuality.
Towards the concept, people should try to educate themselves.
They should try to work hard.
It falls in line with the Protestant work ethic a little bit.
In fact, Enlightenment ideology developed in a context of absolute monarchy.
Yeah, so opposition to absolute monarchy, exactly.
Opposition to abuse by authority.
You can find certain kind of radical egalitarians who were opposed to it.
You can find plenty of enlightened thinkers who weren't opposed to it at all.
The fact is, that is the historical context.
Yeah, our country was founded by radical individuals.
Who were slave-owning plantation men.
Yeah, of course.
And that's what you're for.
Can you really separate Jefferson's ideas from the fact that he was part of an aristocratic leisure class that owned Negro slaves?
Yes, I can.
It's quite easy.
Because back then, their understanding of science was, hey, these are basically the missing link.
So, I mean, they had never attempted to actually take someone who was black at the time and say, hey, here, Kuntel, why don't you start reading?
Therein lies that you're trying to look at the past and you're kind of doing what a social justice warrior would do with maybe a Confederate statue, honestly.
Oh, well, so we've got to judge it by modern objective moral standards.
You can't do that either.
This is the inherent contradiction in the founding of the United States, Richard.
You know, that's like...
I don't even know where to begin.
These ideas are completely separate from the people that uttered them.
They're true on their own merits, regardless of who said it.
I mean, I'm amazed at how much ad hominem...
You come out with in this, and how much pathos you've been arguing with.
Very little logos, very little ethos, but so much to do with your feelings.
It's so weird.
Let's talk about the white identity.
It's almost like I'm a human being existing in the real world, and I'm not a computer program.
That's the thing, right?
You talk with deliberate lack of specificity.
No, I don't.
I'm the one who actually brings up the historical context for these ideas.
You are just arguing for brute force because you can do it, or at least you want to be able to do it.
Which means that you don't do anything other than legitimize people who do brute force against you.
You're not talking about justice.
You're not talking about morality.
You've specifically avoided these subjects.
So, let's talk about the white identity.
I'm genuinely curious.
What exactly do you plan on doing with it?
Are you going to say, I want you to understand my whiteness in the same way a far leftist will say, understand my blackness?
Everyone has an identity.
Everyone has one, whether one likes it or not.
I want to know about that one particular.
Race is the foundation of identity.
Identity itself is a very rich concept.
There are many layers to it, many of which are elective, many of which aren't elective.
Don't just think in terms of ethnicity or race, but your family.
Your region, where you were born, those are things that you can't choose.
I understand all that, but what I'm saying is I want to know what prescriptive nature it's going to have.
My vision of the white race is not merely white people continuing to exist.
I can imagine a world in which white people continue to exist as Humiliated morons wearing VR helmets given to them by their Zuckerbergian overlords.
That is not my ideal for the white race.
My ideal for the white race is to revive the past in a way rival the past.
By shooting for the stars, by reigniting this Faustian fire within us, by becoming who we are.
I've heard the romantic spiel, but I want to know the details.
I have an idealistic conception of what the white race can accomplish, whether it is in terms of space travel, whether it's in terms of scholarship, whether it's in terms of art and music.
All of these things are potential within us that are getting bogged down.
And our quest for equality and our quest to redeem the world or bring democracy to the Middle East.
I'm actually anti-equality.
But what I want are the specific details, prescriptive details on what you think whiteness means.
And the reason I ask this, and I want to explain this before you interrupt again, it seems that what you're talking about is a form of, effectively, racial socialism.
That seems to be what you're kind of arguing for.
And that's not growth.
That's not expansion.
That's not prosperity.
Ben Shapiro is completely right when he says this is like locking down the system and then trying to micromanage and control it from all aspects as much as your power dictates.
So all I was talking about in terms of human flourishing...
Are you not...
Do you not believe me when I say that I want us to achieve...
Greatness in the arts.
And that is not going to be a socialist program.
I totally believe that that's what you want.
But what I'm saying is this is not a method to achieve it.
And I'm trying to explain why, but you're not really thinking about the details.
Okay.
In your opinion, a white ethnostate is not the best method to achieve greatness in the arts.
Absolutely not, no.
Okay.
That's your opinion.
I'm just using historical...
Like, tradition for this.
As opposed to an Austrian-Nagarian empire that actually did give birth to Beethoven and Mozart and many others.
Can I weigh in briefly here?
Have the Germans spread white people around the world, or was it some other individualistic nation that did that?
The Germans traveled all around the world, of course.
The Germans traveled to the east as well.
The Germans gave tremendous value to Russian culture.
That explains why in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand they all speak German, right?
What you're asking for is an insular ideological position that ends up focusing on the English sphere rather than the outside world.
I mean, this is why I'm asking you for the details on what you view whiteness as.
I have...
Just been talking about this at length.
I don't know what you want.
The details, Richard.
Not your idealistic, imaginary, religious conception.
I want to know what, in a prescriptive manner, you require white people to do.
What?
I don't understand.
It doesn't seem that Richard here is being a moral authority on white people.
I'm not asking him to be a moral authority on anything.
I'm asking him how white people are going to get to the stars using his idea of whiteness.
It seems that what he's saying, and you can correct me on this, but let me try to phrase it for you.
It seems that what he's saying is, I look at the history of white people, I'm proud of it, and I want to pursue that.
I want to do it again.
We was Kangs.
We was Kangs.
Look at our beautiful artworks.
We was also slaves in Egypt.
Is it not okay to be proud of your ancestry?
Pathetic to be proud of your history.
You're claiming credit for something else did.
You've done nothing.
Oh, that's ridiculous.
I'm not taking away the credit of Leonardo da Vinci.
That's a ridiculous argument.
You're not making arguments, Richard.
You're saying idealistic nonsense that's not going to translate into reality.
And as soon as I ask you to translate any of it into reality, you're like, what?
I genuinely don't understand what you want from it.
Why don't you just tell me what you want me to say, as opposed to asking me, like, what number am I thinking?
The prescriptive requirements of whiteness, Richard.
The requirements of what one requires to be white?
Yes.
Is that what you're asking?
There is a racial basis to that that is measurable to a large degree.
That is a genetic basis.
But there is also a spiritual and, you could say, mental being to whiteness that is something that is very difficult to measure.
It is a worldview, a way of being, a way of doing things, a concept of the family, which is a deeply white concept.
The concept of community, that we have a particular concept of community which is very different from a concept of a community in, say, the Middle Eastern world, which is fundamentally different in tribal and other things.
The fact is, there is a being to whiteness that reproduces itself wherever white people are.
There are differences between Russia and the United States, but there is still actually a kind of common ground for white societies that is recognizable, that other people recognize it.
Other races easily recognize a white society for what it is.
May I ask a question here?
They're all different.
Okay, I'm going to send JF the list of questions too, but I have one particular one I want to ask from Tim actually on Twitter.
Question from Richard Spencer.
Are Jews white?
Why or why not?
If they are white, are they the best white people due to their high IQs?
If so, why does the alt-right attack the Jews so much?
Is it jealous?
Sure, I can answer all these questions.
Jews, very many Jews, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, have white skin, but Jews are not white in the sense that Jews are a particular defined people.
With a different mentality, certainly a different history, certainly a different conception of themselves.
And actually, Jews are recognizably ethnically different in measurable ways.
Jews are not European.
No, they have a different story.
Now, obviously, Jews and Europeans have interacted in a host of ways.
There's a lot of common ground, but they are fundamentally not European.
Yeah, but don't you recall that we were talking about how you're going to identify a white person, and so now you're saying that there are going to be a bunch of non-European infiltrators who just look white.
I mean, you're not going to know they're Jewish unless they tell you.
That's true, actually.
I know that's true, Richard.
There are many highly assimilated Jews, but in the sense, who still nevertheless understand themselves as Jews.
If Jews understand themselves as Jews, if you ask a Jew, are you Jewish?
They will say yes, regardless of whether they believe in God or not.
And that's an ethnic or national thing.
That's not...
Jew isn't a race, but it is like ethnic and national.
That's certainly a sub-identity.
Well, no, it's an ethnicity.
There are different ethnicities within the Jewish people.
There are three large ethnicities of the Jews.
There's the Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi.
I know.
We've established the Jewish infiltrators into the white ethnostate.
How are you going to keep them out?
They can be recognized.
I mean, I don't mean to say.
You're saying they can be recognized, but we've already established that a lot of them look really white.
So, if you can't actually recognize them, and they're lying to you, they're doing like a Jewish form of takir and saying, well, I'm not a Jew, I'm a fellow white person.
Now the stream is illegal in Germany.
I just learned that the stream was blocked in Germany.
Fuck yeah!
I did it!
That was what I was trying to do.
I just want to point out that it's actually probably my fault.
I had a chat with Millennial Woes and that was blocked in Germany.
And if so, I got him.
All those other ones are fine.
Hey look guys, I have a bunch of questions here, so let's just try and go through a few of them.
These are the ones I selected from the super chat.
So, a Konstantin's commentary, five bucks.
Thank you very much.
How does Richard justify his pan-European identitarian views when there's conflicts like the Yugoslav Wars and several other inter-European conflicts?
Right.
I am idealistic as a pan-European.
I do believe that between these ethnicities, these broad ethnicities, I think the answer is yes.
There are many precedents of imperial orders that are pan-European, you could say.
The Catholic world, the world of Erasmus, was a glimpse at a pan-European world.
America is, to a very large extent, a pan-European society.
Although it's a predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant society, it has nevertheless absorbed many other European ethnicities.
So there are precedents to this.
But yeah, there is a bit of idealism to pan-Europeanism.
In the sense that when you look at the 20th century, there are more than enough examples of inter-ethnic hatred.
I think we have to, as white people, this is our problem.
We have to overcome our own internecine intramural hatreds.
All right.
That guy T, what's up, buddy?
Ten bucks.
Thank you very much.
Should future ethnostate concepts mirror modern ethnic demographics?
So black Americans, southern whites, et cetera.
Or should we seek a genetic origin?
Africans back to Africa, Europeans back to Europe, et cetera.
I think probably more of the former than the latter.
I think sending all African Americans back to Africa is a bit much.
First off, there has been...
A significant, a small but significant amount of intermixture between Europeans and Africans, where African Americans, we've measured this, are generally roughly somewhere in the 10, 20, maybe 25% European.
And so I think they are, and obviously they speak English, they're Christians, Protestant Christians to a large extent.
They do have a different being than Africans.
So in a future ethnostate, I probably think the most reasonable thing would be an African-American ethnostate somewhere.
So you plan to balkanize the United States?
Sure.
I actually already answered this.
I would be willing to engage in imperialism if we need to create an African-American homeland somewhere for them.
Obviously white people would do this.
I don't know.
There is land available.
We could create an African-American homeland for them.
I would be certainly willing to do that.
In the middle of the ocean, I take it.
No, in green, I'm not that cool.
Perfect for Africans.
I was making a joke, Rich.
I know.
I know your number.
Okay, this one is particularly for Sargon.
Braving Rune, what's up, buddy?
Five bucks.
Israel required authorian intervention and redrawing of the map to establish.
Why doesn't Sargon criticize the existence of Israel?
Because Israel already exists.
If this was a plan on a table saying, why don't we do this?
I would say, no, that's a bad idea.
But unfortunately, there's no point in me going back to, what is it, 1947 or something.
This is something that's been in existence for, what, 80 years or whatever it is.
I just don't see the point in...
It's not a relevant political issue, is it?
Right.
Can I weigh in on that really, really quick?
Yeah, for sure, man.
I would stand aside from Sargon on this.
I would criticize the state of Israel myself.
Hang on, hang on.
Sticks, sticks, don't care.
I'm not saying that Israel is above criticism.
No, no, I know that.
Israel should be criticized.
No, I know, but I think establishing Israel at this point is irrelevant.
I don't think it's going to happen.
No, I'm not saying you wouldn't criticize the Israeli government.
That's not what I'm saying.
No, I'm saying what the Israeli state has been doing.
Oddly enough, it is imperialistic in nature, abusing its neighbors.
I do happen to think that, man, maybe a one-state solution is the actual final solution there.
Not to use a loaded term, but, you know.
Sorry, yeah, maybe I should have been more clear, because I realize this is a hot-button issue.
But, yeah, I'm not happy with the expansion of the State of Israel, if you see the border expansion.
To me, that's distinctly imperialistic, and, you know.
But unfortunately, this happened decades ago.
It's not something that's going to get any political traction.
You're not going to roll it back.
I don't see the point of it.
I don't know.
Maybe.
So if you want to pass under the Sargon radar, just act fast, and he's going to acknowledge your state if you built it fast enough before you could criticize it.
What do you mean if it happens before I'm born?
If you want to get away with something, do it before I was born.
There's no point in criticizing Richard Spencer's ethno state.
This thing is like two weeks old at this point.
We have a very serious question.
Actually, two people asked this question.
It was Mr. Medeker and Anderson Paladin, five bucks.
How many ball pits in the ethnostate?
That's a good question.
Ball pits?
It's a meme.
It's a meme that's been happening all week, dude.
P-Dog Knight, five dollars.
How can Israel be a model for an ethnostate?
When it is multicultural.
Yeah, it's a cultural Arab, isn't it?
Yes, it's interesting, though.
It is a modern, multiracial state to a degree, but it is fundamentally a Jewish state.
It's very interesting.
Land is actually owned by the government or a kind of entity connected to the government.
What I've read, effectively 90% of land that can be owned is owned by an entity, and therefore it is effectively rented to Jews.
It is a state that has Arabs in it, that has other ethnicities in it, but it is a state that is fundamentally for the Jews.
I, without...
Venturing an opinion on Israel, I have many criticisms of Israel.
I don't want American foreign policy to conform to Israeli designs in the Middle East.
However, I ultimately understand the Jewish desire to have a homeland, to have a place that has a right of return for all Jews, and that is a Jewish state.
If we had an ethno-state that was similar to Israel, that it is a white state, But there might be other races within it, but it is fundamentally for white people and the ultimate survival and flourishing the white race.
I would certainly accept that.
So Israel is a model for the ethnostate, as I imagine it.
Obviously, it would be very different.
Population differences between the white race and the Jewish people are tremendous.
A white ethnostate, as I imagine, would have to be much bigger.
But certainly there are things that we can learn from Israel.
See, I wouldn't want to be part of any state that was modeled on Israel, you know, shooting at your neighbors, getting hit by rockets constantly, have to rely upon a more powerful foreign state to prop you up with basically handouts, like they're trying to end them to Pakistan, thankfully, now RAND's on board.
That doesn't sound like a great idea to me, but if you want to, yeah.
I think you would actually be happy in the ethnostate sticks.
You would have a little Vermont redoubt.
And you could YouTube from there.
There'd be Green Hills.
But I would be censored.
Craft beer and marijuana and all that kind of stuff.
He'd be great if he was being told he wasn't being white well enough, and then he couldn't change, wouldn't he?
But you can't see what the perspective nature of whiteness is, though, can you?
I'm genuinely curious about this.
I mean, if you want to write an article or something, I would love to know.
I genuinely want to know what it is someone has to do to be white in your conception of white.
I've actually already addressed this.
You've obfuscated.
Let's move on to the next question here.
Faisal N, 50 bucks.
Thank you very much.
You always compare yourself to the rest of the world having an ethnostate, but none of them are like you.
They don't have laws that say only one race is allowed.
They just don't accept mass immigration and don't create government programs for illegals.
Well, that's effectively the same thing.
I mean, there is no law in Japan, at least to the extent that I understand Japanese law, that says only Japanese It's
possible, but exceedingly difficult.
There are similar situations.
At least in the past, in places like Switzerland and other places like that.
Most governments on Earth, whether they have this written in law or not, they are effectively places for those people.
India is for Indian people, the many ethnicities.
It is only these white countries that over the past say...
Half century have redefined themselves as platforms for the world.
And so America was on the vanguard of this.
But you see this even now in Germany, where there used to be that question, you know, where is Deutsch?
Who is German?
What is German?
There was a concept of Deutsch's Blut that is a German bloodline and so on.
Now you have these Germans parroting their American NATO masters and saying, well, what it means to be German has always been multicultural.
It's always been, you know, individual kumbayana.
So it's only advanced white societies that don't want to define their state, whether explicitly or implicitly, in terms of race or ethnicity.
Hang on, hang on.
Switzerland has always been multi-ethnic.
It has been multi-ethnic.
The cantons have actually been ethnically defined, yes.
Those are individual provinces within...
I mean, I suppose that given your concept of whiteness that you refuse to really tell me about, there's no difference between French and Germans?
Obviously, there are differences between French and Germans.
You're putting for Switzerland, which has four language groups, Italian, French, Romanish, and Swiss-German.
And basically, you're saying, oh, this contradicts ethnicity.
It's the opposite.
It is a federal order in which there were ethnically and linguistically defined cantons.
Those are individual ethnostates within a broader...
So would you be happy in the United States giving Florida to black people or something?
Sure, let's do it.
Let's do it.
There's a lot of time that Sargon has commented on this and so I want to solve this for good.
It's the story of did Richard define what you call the prescriptive requirement for whiteness?
So first I'd like Sargon to define By prescriptive, because prescriptive, here I'm not sure you mean prescriptive.
Do you mean the minimal requirement to be white?
Or do you mean what it entails for Richard in his emotion and his perception of whiteness, what it entails to be white?
Because that's two separate things.
I've asked it several times.
I said, you have a conception of what whiteness is, and you give...
Really, really vague sort of whiteness is, you know, just really broad statements.
Okay, but when a white person is going against that, I mean, you know, how are you going to know?
Well, it seems that his answer to this is these are the Caucasians who self-identify as Caucasian, who can be genetically identified as such, if you want to go into the...
It seems that that's what he's talking about, and that's his answer.
Are you satisfied or not by this answer?
No, not at all, because this is going to set the tone and tenor of any kind of larger cultural requirements.
And so people like Styx, who might want to go against the grain, are going to find themselves necessarily censored by the larger government, who isn't going to consider him white enough.
But no, you can have opposition in a country.
It doesn't seem that Richard is saying we should make white people all adhere to the same moral principles.
Exactly.
Look, within a country, there are going to be inter-familial disputes.
Within the ethnostate, there would be a left and a right.
There would be libertarians within the ethnostate.
There would be socialists, democratic socialists within the ethnostate.
We would have lots and lots of battles.
Jesus Christ, are you going to let socialists in?
May I bring something up, just real fast?
I'll go through some more questions, but Rachel Cooper...
Can I get to this?
Because this is the thing, right?
Let me just say one thing.
Hold your thought.
Rachel Cooper just threw five pounds.
We are number two worldwide trending on YouTube right now with 11,200 viewers.
Guys, two worldwide.
Come on.
Hit like, by the way.
This is a great conversation.
I'm really enjoying this.
Go ahead, Sargon, with what you wrote.
I mean, how is it you define whiteness?
I'm not specifying genetically either.
You definitely think there is a cultural component to being white.
Is that correct?
There is a very broad cultural component to being white, no question.
One can define whiteness.
One can measure whiteness in terms of genetics.
That is a real thing.
That is a tangible thing.
Identity is a much richer concept and it includes things that are very difficult to describe and that you can actually, you can only describe by using terms like ways of life and mentality.
And you might not like those terms, but that's all I've got.
Because identity is a liberal art.
It's not a hard science.
There's actually a whole host of academic literature and terminology that's ready to deal with what you want.
What you're talking about, or what I'm talking about, really, is the performative aspect of whiteness.
Could you explain what white people...
And you did.
You said...
There are certain norms that have evolved over millennia among white people that are fundamentally different than norms for Africa.
The concept of the family is a European concept?
Yes!
Family has a very different meaning in the Middle East than it does for Germans.
I think you mean monogamous nuclear family.
Yes, obviously.
You mean the sort of 1950s America?
That's one expression, but that is certainly not the only one.
There are precedents for that nuclear American family from the 1950s within European society.
Obviously, things change, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a continuity between the past and the future, with the present being that link.
The concept of what a family is is fundamentally different in the African world.
The idea that we want to project monogamous...
You're not really accurate here at all, Richard, because, I mean, like, there are Amazon tribes that are monogamous.
You do not understand about this.
But there are also white groups, even within the same country, that don't have, like, look at Mormonism.
Mormonism by doctrine is polygamous.
Now, they don't practice it because malegalism, and they wanted to bow before, like, pressure from the U.S. government not get shot at.
But certainly they don't believe in the same nuclear family.
And they're, like, what?
99.9% of white people.
Exceptions prove the rule.
The other thing is the Mormon practice of polygamy was a kind of evolutionary strategy for surviving this treacherous environment.
No, it was part of Joseph Smith's dogma based on what he conceived of as Elohim and his polygamous star family and all that weird shit.
Okay, well, I'll...
Monogamy is not a European concept.
That is an exception that proves the rule.
It certainly did in the Mormon traverse of the continent.
It also, you're actually mentioning this, that is a monotheistic kind of Semitic concept that shows that Semites have a very different concept of what a family is than Europeans.
And what is their concept?
Semites are obviously far more polygamous in the sense of biblical figures.
Yes, because they evolved in a different climate.
And in order to survive...
The unit of survival expressed itself in a different fashion.
No question.
The idea that you can find a nuclear family among the Jewish patriarchs is ridiculous.
They obviously didn't practice that kind of thing.
You're talking about people who don't live in the usual circumstances of a human being.
What do you mean?
2017 or 2018?
Richard, do me a favor.
Shut up for a second.
When you argue that the life of someone like Muhammad or the other Like, aristocratic people surrounding him after the conquest and all this is representative of the average person.
It's bafflingly out of touch, in my opinion.
So the average person in the Middle East was practicing a nuclear family, but we only learn about polygamous patriarchs.
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that the average person's experience was a monogamous nuclear family.
Like, it's not a European innovation.
It's such a weird thing to say.
It's so obviously disprovable.
You admitted it just now.
Europeans early on, like Europeans in the sort of tribal period, they were almost all polygamous.
They had sacred prostitutes.
All you've got to do is read some ancient literature.
They're like, oh, this...
Even if you look at Pompeii, you look at the graffiti there, half of them are about somebody enjoying somebody else's wife or a hooker.
When the Celts were taken to Rome, there was a Celtic woman who literally bitched out one of the Roman women, saying that, you know, we consort with the best men in public, whereas you get yourselves debauched in secret by the violist.
They were completely open about their polyamorous relationships.
I think you've got a poor narrative here, Richard, and I don't think it holds up to you.
There is a deep continuity.
Between a European conception of the family and matrimony that actually does stretch back centuries.
That is what I'm arguing.
A different...
No, it didn't happen everywhere.
You're taking the examples, the exceptions, and saying that they're the rule.
Do you acknowledge differences between different races and cultures, Sargon?
That doesn't change the fact that the economy isn't European innovation, Richard.
Whether I do or don't, it won't make it different.
May I just say two things?
Sorry about that.
My internet just went down.
Luckily, there's a five-minute buffer.
Just real fast.
EnglandDG just threw in a hundred bucks.
Holy fuck.
Thank you so much, Spencer.
And then I'll...
I'll acknowledge.
I see Millennial Wolves just jumped in.
What's up, buddy?
One second.
What's up, man?
It's real fast.
Spencer, where would you propose your new ethnostate?
How would you deal with those of mixed backgrounds?
And lastly, if you plan to place it within the Americas, how would you deal with the treaty concerns of the Native Americans?
Interesting questions.
North America certainly would be a wonderful place for the kind of ethnostate as I've described it.
There is a tremendous amount of land, much of which is unbelievably beautiful, much of which is arable, much of there are access to the seas, and so on.
North America has certainly led to the flourishing of the United States, the fact that we were separated.
By oceans from Europe and so on has greatly benefited the United States.
And the fact is the European continent as well could obviously be a place.
I'm tempted to say that it could be anywhere.
I could imagine an ethnostate in space.
The fact is that the question is obviously where is an important consideration.
But the question of who is the primary consideration.
In terms of North America.
I'd like to come out as an Antarctica...
I'm an Antarctica status.
Yeah, Antarctica, that's a fascinating idea.
No, no, the thing is, that's actually a good point, because what you're suggesting, Richard, I mean, that's why the white race is failing in America, isn't it?
It's because America is such a bountiful land.
Obviously, everyone wants to go there.
I mean, Iceland isn't in any danger of seeing the white race eradicated there.
Iceland is practically an ethnostate.
That's not true.
Iceland does have a lot of immigrants nowadays.
Really?
What percentage?
I don't know.
I can't remember now.
It's something like 5%.
That's not a lot, is it?
All of the Western world is being transformed in a way very similar to the United States and Germany and France and all over the place.
So why would you suggest that there is a good idea?
I mean, it seems to be the weakest.
You're just not making it.
You're just constantly making it.
It doesn't even matter.
There's going to be a change of consciousness.
Look, look, look.
Your points are just so...
What you're going to be is a fundamental change of consciousness.
I'm going to stop meeting you all, alright?
Look, if...
If Millennium Wolves is going to be in here, you guys can't dogpile Sargon.
You have to let him respond to your questions because that's really unfair.
If I do that, then they're in trouble, though.
That's the thing.
Let me quickly address the Native American question.
Awesome.
One at a time.
Please and thank you.
I actually spend a lot of time still, and I've certainly spent a lot of time over the past 10 years in Montana.
I have actually spent time in Indian reservations.
They're nice places, but they're actually tragic places as well.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the American Indians, and I hope that they stick around.
I think that they have a culture, they have a heritage, they have something to give to the world.
I definitely wish them the best, and I would be fine with creating a real ethnic state for them.
Not this pale counterfeit of America, which is what reservations have become.
That is, they've taken the worst aspects of America.
They've taken the gambling, the alcoholism, which they can't process alcohol.
It's a very tragic situation as mongoloids.
They've taken the worst aspects of America, and they've lost many of the great aspects of themselves.
I hope that they maintain the great aspects of themselves and that they really have a true...
A place that is truly Indian.
Are you suggesting we release them back into the wild?
That's a really...
I have to say, that's a shockingly insulting thing to say.
We're going to release them to the wild.
Yes!
I think that there are parts of North America that should be wild.
I think that's a great thing.
And I think it would be a great place if there was a part of this world that still the white man would fear to tread.
I think that's a good thing.
I just asked Millennial Wolves, how do you weigh in?
Why is that funny?
Because you are literally saying release them back into the wild, Richard.
Release them back into the wild?
You are saying that.
That is actually a shockingly insulting thing to say, Sargon.
I'm not trolling when I say that.
Richard, let's stick speak, and then we'll talk to Millennial Wolves right after.
Okay, I would say, Richard, that's fine.
But what about when they start, like, raiding the convoys and stuff on the borderlands?
That could become a little problem.
We'll fight back.
Okay.
All right.
And, Amalia Wolves, how do you weigh into the conversation that is happening right now?
Oh, well, I've just been listening in, and it's been very entertaining.
I think that there's a lot of pedantry going on about what is white and all that.
I think it's absolutely retarded.
Everyone knows what is white.
If everyone is, why can't you just tell me?
Yeah, I'll ask you.
Is Laurence Fishburne white?
I don't know.
Does he act white?
He gets called white a lot.
No, he doesn't.
That's ridiculous.
Just to answer the question, is Laurence Fishburne white?
It is.
You are the ones who are saying, you're genetically white, but you're also culturally white.
That's not contradictory at all.
Is Lawrence Fishburne white?
Did you stop beating your wife yet?
Because that's what you're doing.
That's not the equivalent question.
You're not going to insult Lawrence Fishburne by answering that question?
Listen, can you answer a single question?
And I've asked this many times.
There's a genetic component and a cultural component.
And you require white people to live in a certain kind of way to fulfill the cultural component.
Are you disagreeing with that in any way, shape, or form?
I disagree.
I am describing white people.
White people exist in a certain way that is defined genetically to a large degree.
White people have a being.
In a certain way, culturally, they'll have to live.
I'm saying that they do.
Inherently.
I know that they do, Richard.
I want you to describe it.
Guys, guys.
Jeff, Jeff.
I do not.
I do not want a three-on-one dogpile.
This is really unfair.
So one person asked the question.
Sargon or Styx answers it.
Because if there's Richard, a Millennial Woes, and JF jumping in, that's not fair.
And I'll have to start kicking people if this happens.
So Styx, is Lawrence Fishburne white?
I don't know who that is.
Oh, okay.
Is Samuel Jackson white?
Is Samuel Jackson white?
I agree with you.
I agree that there are people who aren't white woes.
I agree.
But I'm talking about the ones who aren't white, if we can talk about them for a minute.
Wouldn't it be more worth your time to talk about people who are actually disagreed upon as to their classification?
It doesn't really matter, even necessarily if they're an identitarian.
What about someone who's like a deeply tanned Italian or a marginally white Turk or a white Mexican?
There are so many people that I see within the identity.
No, no, no.
If they're merely deeply tanned, then I think they're still white no matter how long they've laid.
Hey, wait, wait, Spencer, please let sticks finish.
There are people within the identitarian.
You may say, well, you know, it's self-evident because of genetics or something.
What about other people who don't agree?
Like Spence, you're talking about creating an elite core of people to rule society.
That's fine.
Even they're going to have disagreements.
You're going to put it up before a vote, and what if they vote in what some other group thinks is the wrong way, and they take up arms and say, no, this is getting on towards social justice warriordom, like this Irish person.
isn't white or that person, they're just a shade, too much melanin in there.
Can I just make a point?
Does anyone seriously believe that one day Africans, sub-Saharan Africans, are going to be regarded as white?
That's a pointless question.
That misses the point, though.
The point is people who are not agreed upon at any given time.
It doesn't matter if we retrospectively say, well, you know, it was obvious at the time they were just dumb.
It doesn't really matter.
Look, in the 1790 immigration...
But I'm asking whether that is true.
Sorry, you go.
I didn't hear that?
I'll actually give it back to Colin there.
He was asking a good question.
Yeah.
Well, the point is, of course, we can talk about the edge cases, the Turks and all that.
But I think the crucial thing is, you know, Sargon is asking us to define white people, and I'm saying this is self-evident.
No, I'm not.
I said this to Sargon two years ago.
Oh, really?
What I've said.
Well, do it then.
Be clear.
I've literally said this multiple times, but you guys, as soon as I start making a specific argument, a specific distinction, you turn off your brains.
Okay, well, calm down and listen.
You have white people as a genetic distinct group, right?
And then you have the culture that you envisage them producing.
So do you think that we think that white people...
No, don't ask me questions.
I'm still getting to this.
No, I'm going to ask you a question.
I'm representing your beliefs.
Am I representing your beliefs accurately, yes or no?
Answer.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Do you think...
Oh, God!
Do you think, Sargon, that I think that white people...
Don't ask me a question.
Just answer my question.
No, I am going to ask you a question.
You always do this, and it's not right.
Because I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you actually believe.
You seem afraid of your own principles.
No, you're not.
No, you're not.
Yes, I actually am.
I absolutely am.
I absolutely am, but you guys are going to be answering these questions because you know...
Wait, wait, guys, guys, this is turning into a fucking shitshow, so we need to find where...
Okay, let's get more of those questions in the crowd.
Yeah, you know what, fuck this thing, let's just move on.
Some of these people have paid money in the super chat and I think we should get to their questions.
I will simply answer to Sargon because he did ask a question and no one really answered but I understood Sargon's question.
No, you do not represent their belief correctly because you mix the prescriptive with the descriptive.
What Richard has been saying for more than two hours now is that first there is a race.
That race is defined by facial characteristics, skin color, genetics, etc.
Whatever criteria you want to use, it's a set of embedded criteria and some of them are better if you have the data, but some of them are also more accessible.
On the other end, he says, I see this group of people and I can describe it.
He's not prescribing a form of culture.
He's saying, I see something in these people.
Okay, and this is the crucial thing that I'm trying to drive at.
And thank you for being able to actually answer that.
Because as soon as you characterize and codify this group of people, and then you make this group of people, you give them rights, you imbue them with an existence beyond the actual group themselves, then you do become prescriptive.
Then you're going to end up getting people going, you're not being white enough, you're not acting white, you're whatever the white equivalent of an Uncle Tom's going to be.
That's exactly what we see in the black community.
That's entirely my problem with identitarianism.
It becomes just like this.
So then, we should just race mix.
See, exactly!
That is not the alternative to what I'm saying.
That is absolutely not what I'm saying, Colin.
It actually is, and you've said several times that you wouldn't care if the white race disappeared, so I think this is going to be what you're getting towards.
I'm not offended.
I'm not offended.
Are you being serious?
What now?
Are you being serious?
You're being childish.
No.
Let's go to the crowd.
The white race needs to die, then.
That's not what I'm saying.
Obviously, on this point, you guys won't agree, so let's just move on to the next thing.
Nicholas Craft, 50 bucks, thank you.
Question for Spencer.
Why are you so reluctant?
Reluctant to discuss how your ethnostate and ideology match up to the political theories and writing, you dismiss Sargon when he brings up Loki's writing.
Why can't your views be challenged by principles?
I actually like the writings of Loki.
He was a great philosopher.
John Locke, I'm not a great fan.
Don't be a dick.
Oh shit, I fucked that up.
I was making a joke.
My bad, my bad.
Sorry, sorry.
The E always fucks me up.
Give him a break.
He's not the one making the argument.
Hey, hey, look.
It's a lot of take-in right now, okay?
And you are talking to a slightly retarded moderator here, okay?
You're not retarded.
Oh, thanks, Spencer.
Tune in, drop out, $25.
Increased complexity, higher consciousness in a group out.
A group preferences prioritized on race is a lower-ordered consciousness.
Jesus Christ, this is a weird question.
Evolution, converging, and what will emerge?
We'll see racially diverse.
I'm sorry, this question.
Tune in, drop out.
There's a lot going on there, but thank you for donating.
Nicholas, sorry.
Face out N, 50 bucks.
Holy shit, thank you.
You always compare yourself to the rest of the world having an ethnostate, but none of them are like you.
You've already asked that one.
Sorry, sorry.
I want to know the answer to that one.
Yeah, all right.
So that one was a question for Spencer.
Why are you reluctant to discuss how your ethnostate and ideology match up to political theories and writing?
You dismiss Sargon when he brings up Locke's writing.
Why can't your views be challenged by principles?
What I was saying is that Sargon was living in an abstract realm where he was saying, oh, this state in Locke's conception should be created in order to protect the inalienable rights of each individual.
What I'm living in an abstract realm, I want to think descriptively and phenomenologically.
No state has ever arisen.
In order to protect the rights of individuals.
Your state arose for that.
So described by Thomas Jefferson, it actually did not arise in that way at all.
It arose due to blood and iron and amazing risk takers who were willing to forfeit their entire existence in order to degrade independence.
It was created through...
Through blood and iron.
Period.
It was created through a war.
If the rebels lost that war, the United States would simply not exist in its current form.
Yeah, but you don't understand the founding of your own country.
It was founded on philosophy.
Yeah, I've read...
You've ignored it, I think.
You don't seem to understand it.
And you sit there going, well, blood and iron.
I understand it in a sense that I don't buy into it.
And thus...
Jefferson invented America when he penned the Declaration of Independence.
No, that was a legitimizing function.
He was trying to appeal to social mores.
He was trying to appeal to Enlightenment philosophers of his age.
Did the United States actually arise in that kind of vacuum in which individuals came together in order to protect their own rights?
Obviously not.
That was a way of justifying a very bloody and long war.
No, that's not true at all.
The whole point is it's not in a vacuum.
It comes in because of the Enlightenment.
The intellectual revolution of Europe accumulates in the United States of America.
Because there was a legitimacy crisis in the 18th century in which claiming what else was Jefferson going to do?
The United States itself was facing a legitimacy crisis where they had to seek a new form of legitimacy.
They could not seek older forms of legitimacy of being a colony of Britain.
They were picking up on currents, philosophical currents of the day.
And that is why they described the state as such.
That doesn't mean that that is actually how sovereignty is created.
No, you don't understand.
Like, these ideas...
If social justice warriors went to war...
Hey, wait, Richard, please let Sargon respond to that.
The whole point, Richard...
I mean, read Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
You can see exactly...
They know what they're doing with the American Revolution.
I mean, he sits there and plans out, like, the tonnage of the ships required and the materials required to build these in order to put these values into practice.
Like, the idea that you think this is a retroactive thing is just wrong.
No, it was an attempt to legitimize actions that were taken that were political actions.
The ideas came first, the actions came second.
Oh, so they read philosophy and then they decided to create the United States.
That's exactly how it worked.
Keep dreaming.
Have you read any of these things?
How can you sit there and say that that's not the case?
Because I don't buy into this fairy tale of Americanism, which you unfortunately do.
Denial, I get it.
Denial of a fairy tale, yes.
But that doesn't make them not true.
Both of you will disagree.
Wolves, did you want to weigh in?
I think it's absurd to suggest that the people fighting that war, the majority of them understood the philosophical underpinnings.
I think there were far more real-world motivations there.
By the way, we just hit number one worldwide.
The majority aren't required to understand it.
Number one worldwide.
This is amazing.
Yeah, we're number one worldwide right now.
All right.
Sticks, do you want to weigh in?
Oh, no.
I've got nothing to say on that one.
All right.
Cool.
So, MinNSMH, 20 pounds.
Richard, you say out of...
Of one side of your mouth that liberalism is all idealistic fantasy, while your position is a pragmatic.
Then out of the other, when you start talking about your ethnostate, you talk purely about your ideals.
Okay, that's an interesting statement.
This is how I would answer that.
I don't think liberalism is a good way of understanding social order or sovereignty.
That is the foundation of a state.
And so when Sargon says, oh, this is what governments are about, he's basically saying, haven't you read Common Sense?
Haven't you read John Locke?
Because in this abstract world, that is what governments are about.
I am saying that this is what governments are really about.
There is no doubt force involved.
There is no doubt rivalry and power relations involved.
No question.
Now, when I talk about the ethnostate, yes, it is inherently idealistic.
It's not liberal, but it is inherently idealistic in the sense of there are ethnostates that exist today that could be protected, yes, but my conception of an ethnostate is something to shoot for.
It is something that it should be a telos, a great goal that we channel our actions towards.
So I agree.
It is interesting to think about pragmatism and idealism, but there's no fundamental contradiction in terms of what I'm saying.
What you're saying is no different to what I'm saying?
You just disagree with the goal?
No, that's not what I just said very clearly.
Do you want me to reiterate myself, Sargon?
We have to say things like ten times for you to understand them?
No, Richard, it's obvious to everyone you don't understand what I'm saying.
It's really obvious.
No, it's not.
Sargon, stop trying to be a dick.
Sargon, I am sorry.
You're going to find this insulting.
You think that you are more intelligent than you are, and that is a difficult place for you to be.
No, I'm describing reality.
I'm describing this experience with you.
You're telling me what I think, so what color?
Come on.
Oh, give me a break.
You just told me what I think.
I don't know.
I didn't tell you what you think.
I said you...
You have a conception of your intellectual abilities that are greater than reality, and that is a difficult place for any human being to be.
That is my description of you, Sargon, and I am sorry, but I have to be honest to you, and you should actually thank me for being so honest.
You are monstrously wrong, and you are resorting to an ad hominem attack because you know you have no answers.
No, that's not...
Both of you are being unfair.
I've answered your question.
I'm asking him about his ideology, and then he attacks me personally.
Fair enough.
My simple experience of being with you, Sargon.
I have answered your questions.
Can you actually speak to the issues, Richard?
What are you capable of doing for the past two and a half hours?
You've been ducking and diving.
You've got everything to avoid talking about this.
Honestly, we could bitch about this the whole time, but JF, what did you want to say?
Yeah, I just want to summarize here the discussion, which is a very interesting one, but it's getting blurred into the yelling and the talking over.
It's a beautiful question whether ideas drive societies forward or other mechanisms, more complex, more...
As a biologist, I'm interested, for example, in genes and I'm interested in evolution and who kills who and who survives and who makes babies with who.
This is a very interesting question.
I don't have a super strong stance.
I do tend to side with Richard and Medina Rose.
I don't think that ideas drive societies forward as much as we think.
I think that there are other processes at play, emotional, psychological, the reality of killing in a war and the reality of reproducing, the reality of rape and whatever happens during these wars.
I think those are forces that drive in a way.
That is not captured by Sargon's statement, in my appreciation of it.
Because, like, Leonard Peikoff points out that ideas are like the motor of history.
They're the thing that begins all of the suffering, all of the change.
And then, that's where I agree with Richard.
It's like, you shouldn't buy it necessarily, and you should look at the reality, the empirical reality of the world, and see, maybe these ideas are just, they're kind of secondary effect.
They appear.
As part of one of the consequences of deeper processes.
Why do we assume, though, that it's necessarily an either-or scenario?
Because the biology, ultimately, the biological composition is going to affect the ideology in a situational sense.
The ideology then feeds back in.
I'm not exactly sure why that would be of particular importance when the major issue With identitarianism, the same as it would be with any ideology, fundamentally is pragmatism, whether it works or not.
Communism on paper is fine, and in practice it can never actually be implemented.
It's impossible.
Why is it that white people, Asian people, and Africans have all been attracted to communism if ideas don't hold a certain power?
Of course ideas hold a certain power.
Okay.
What Styx was saying is absolutely right.
I mean, ideas and genetics are connected in a kind of feedback mechanism where what ideas we have, because remember, it's not just communism.
The Chinese had a particular kind of communism that's fundamentally different than Russian communism, fundamentally different than the SJW stuff we see in white America and so on.
And so there's a kind of feedback mechanism between high ideals and then also history.
And so Russian communism was, you know, the creation of a Jew writing tracts in the London library.
But at the same time, it was fundamentally Russian and it inherited the structures of the Russian Empire.
It inherited many other political aspects of the Russian Empire of the past.
You could say the similar things about the American experience.
There were, no question, enlightenment ideals that were embedded in this transition to a new order.
At the same time, it was a fundamentally Anglo-Saxon Protestant order that was created in the United States.
So these things are kind of embedded within each other.
And this is why the study of history, when done properly, not done dryly, but done properly, with an understanding of psychology and emotion and passion and ideas, can be such a rich experience.
Yeah, but you're not demonstrating that that's like a genetic connection.
You're just saying there's an existing culture and therefore.
I mean, and even then, you know...
Honestly, from a liberal perspective, the difference between Russian and Chinese communism is really fucking small and almost irrelevant.
No, it's not.
It absolutely is.
The difference between...
Sargon, you're conflating.
I would say this.
That's a difference between the ultimate effects versus, like, the pure doctrine.
It's like within religion, the same thing happens.
On that one.
And in culture, it's existing culture is racially defined.
I don't think it's particularly...
Existing culture is racially defined.
I have a question here.
Christianity is this Jewish and Near Eastern religion that was taken into Europe.
And was paganized and Europeanized to the point that it became something fundamentally different.
Even root concepts like incarnation, the Holy Spirit and Trinitarianism were not original actually to the Judaic faith.
And so it became something else when it was impacted with existing racial and cultural realities.
This is what's so fascinating about history.
It's not some easy puzzle that you put together.
It's actually rich.
And complex and can't be described in a simplistic way.
Yeah, but you don't explain how culture can be so radically different when the genes are effectively the same.
I have a question here.
Look, I have more serious questions as well, but I can't ignore a silly question when someone donates $200.
Holy fuck.
Are you going to pass some of this cash on to us for some whiskey money or something?
We'll see what happens if it's a Jew, is it Richard?
We'll see what happens if it's a Jew, yeah.
After I tally all this shit up.
200 fucking dollars for Richard.
Just for that joke, sorry, we're going to forget all the rest of your transgressions.
It wasn't a joke.
$200.
Okay, on a scale of one to gay, how gay are traps, and will they be allowed in your ethnostate?
Traps are gay.
Yes.
Will there be transsexuals in the ethnostate?
Hopefully not.
I'm sure within any kind of...
Social order, there's going to be some deviance.
I think actually Jean-Marie Le Pen said that, you know, deviancy is like a spice or a salt.
You know, if you have a little bit of a spice with a meal, it adds.
It adds flavor.
But if you overwhelm a meal with salt or spice, you ruin the entire meal.
So dicks are salt?
What?
Dicks are salt?
Yeah, so look, in any kind of society, there's going to be a little bit of deviancy.
But if it overwhelms society, if there's not a core decency to society, it collapses.
And that's what we're seeing now.
I can't believe you answered that very seriously.
Thank you.
Pastor Gator Coot, $5.
In the interview with David Pakman, Spencer says Iranians are more white than Jews.
What the fuck, Richard?
Well, Iranians are Persians.
Actually, the word Iran is another form of the root word Aryan.
So there's no question that there is a genetic continuity between Europeans and Persians.
Obviously, we have a major historical discontinuity.
I mean, it is a fundamentally different historical experience.
Are you suggesting that you agree with Aryan-Germans?
What?
I'm not actually aware of any genetic continuity between Western Europeans and Persians.
Can you send me a source on that afterwards?
Sure, I'll send you a source.
But yes, Arianism is a real concept.
I know that they're Arianism as an ethnic group, yeah.
But I didn't realize they made it to Germany.
What?
I don't even grasp what you're saying.
I would like to see the studies that you've got there.
That genuinely does sound interesting.
Lucius Wagner, $5.
Question for Spencer.
Will white Muslims be allowed in your state?
I think I know the answer to that one.
Absolutely not.
They're not being white correctly.
I don't understand.
This is what I'm talking about when I say that there's going to be a cultural aspect that you're going to have to enforce.
Yes, and I've said yes.
That's one of the things that we will enforce.
I am actually pretty...
I am myself a kind of tragic agnostic.
I don't want...
There to be intramural wars of religion within the white race.
And if white people within the ethnic state want to be Protestant or Catholic, then I would encourage them to be that.
I do not want to be the Bible of a war of religion.
Let me finish.
Andy, can I please?
Yes, please, please.
But one of the reasons why...
One of the reasons why you want identitarianism is because you'd be like, well, you know, if people are mixed together, it could cause violence and cause problems, lack of continuity and breakdown and degeneracy.
What about differences between other things people find important, like a religion?
You know, not just banning Islam, but would you have, like, a state religion, maybe?
I hear you.
I'll actually address this interesting question.
Islam is fundamentally different.
Being a Muslim is fundamentally different than saying a white person being a Buddhist.
Because Islam is a black flag raised against Europe.
And adopting Islam really is adopting the religion of the invader and the conqueror.
So that is simply a no-no.
Whereas a white eccentric who gets into Buddhism, who cares?
And I certainly don't want intramural fights between Christians.
Why doesn't that matter?
Because, I mean, if we're conquering them and we adopt their religion, then that's okay, but if they come and conquer us...
Buddha was an Aryan, by the way, but...
What about, though, if a sect within Buddhism or anything else were to arise that became like that?
Or what if there was a group within Islam, like the Alawite, maybe, who were like, yeah, we don't really care about the Caliph.
Maybe we would allow the Alawites in as some exception, because they're highly civilized.
Yeah, I get your point.
And what if someone within converts?
I'm going to address it.
Many white nationalists...
To a very large degree, they are right.
But they're also, to a degree, wrong.
The fact is, Christianity has also been a source of extreme divisions and bloodshed within the white race.
That's something that we have to think about.
What was it?
50% of bohemia was slaughtered during the wars of religion.
The fact is white people can assiduously kill one another over doctrinal differences that no one can remember.
So the fact is, religion can be a source of conflict.
One thing that I have noticed, and just looking at this descriptively or phenomenologically, is that these divisions within Christianity Don't create the kind of divisive bloodshed that they have in the past.
The fact is Catholics and Protestants are at each other's throats.
You can find places where they are, obviously.
Those are obvious enough, particularly people living in the United Kingdom.
The fact is, as a whole, religion within the white race, religion is not the source of conflict that it was.
I think that is a very good thing.
The fact is, we are becoming a more secular society.
Now, Styx raised an intriguing possibility of should there be a kind of state religion.
I disagree fundamentally with this notion of, oh, there's a separation of a church and state, and that religion is just a private matter.
It's some personal thing that we do on weekends or something.
I think that is a...
Inherently naive conception of what religion is.
And actually, religion and the state are intimately connected, historically speaking.
And religion gives legitimacy to the state and vice versa.
So actually, this is an intriguing question I don't have a simple answer to.
But could a state have...
We Americans might like to say, oh, we're a secular society or whatever.
That's not really true.
There was an Anglo-Saxon Protestantism and a white Christianity, which was effectively the state religion of America.
We could say, oh, you could be whatever you want, but that just meant that you were some denomination of Protestant or maybe a Catholic.
So there are state religions.
And this is actually a very serious topic that if we were to have an ethnostate, we would have to think about seriously.
Is there going to be that theological basis of legitimacy for the social order?
So I guess you'd have to have multiple ethnostates then.
Sorry.
Probably.
Probably.
Yeah, I mean, this is something I think is very important to mention.
The fact that...
Because we were saying earlier that, yeah, whites can argue about this and that and have wars and kill each other in large numbers.
Yes, that's all true.
That does not mean that we shouldn't have an ethnostate.
That does not mean that we shouldn't separate by race.
The fact that we can disagree over religion, culture, politics, whatever, does not mean we're together.
That's just silly.
You say, like, let's mix all the races.
No one's in favour of that.
A lot of people are.
No, well, hold on a second.
Hold on a second, Sir.
I know that it's not...
Yeah, I know.
What I'm saying is that the opposite of an ethnostate, or not having an ethnostate, means fundamentally that eventually white people will cease to exist.
I mean, eventually.
All right, so...
Of course it does.
I'll take three minutes here real quick.
JF's going to ask the questions.
Wolves, when I'm back, I'm going to have to kick you if that's cool, just so it's...
I am going to fill up the old glass of whiskey, so I will be back in one minute.
Everyone can take a break if they want.
Yeah, if everyone wants to take like three minutes, and then we'll do a little bit more.
All right, cool, cool.
Well, Andy, Andy, I'm actually going to have to sign off here.
All right, cool.
Yeah, I'm pushing the envelope as to my time here.
All right, perfect.
I'll be back in five, but it's two o 'clock in the morning here, so I guess, I don't know, like another half hour or something.
Yeah, I was going to say at 9.30 p.m. Eastern, we'll do a quick peace out to everyone, and then I'll stick around and read some Super Chats.
I have quite a little bit to read, actually.
But yeah, everyone just take three, grab a drink.
I'm pissed or whatever.
I know the audience is watching, too.
So we'll be back in a second, right, guys?
Jeff, are you going to stay on?
Yeah, I'm going to stay with the plebs of the poor section of Detroit and try to interact with them with this nerd life form.
I'm fucking number one worldwide right now.
Jesus fucking Christ.
What a fucking conversation.
Yeah, so just one sec, guys.
And Styx, man, I'll talk to you soon.
And let's do another stream on your channel, my channel, whatever's good.
And yeah, all right, cool, man?
Yeah, peace out.
Thanks for swinging by.
And we'll be back in three minutes.
All right.
Hello, chat.
This is JF time with you.
It's me and you now.
Can I tag along?
I'm sorry.
I'll be quiet.
It's going to be me, Millionaire Woz, talking into your ears, reminding you that we love you.
Woz ASMR.
Everyone is good around you.
Trust them.
It's fine.
Is this the most watched live stream right now in the world?
Yeah, I'm currently whispering to the most people you can whisper to on a live stream in the world.
It just feels like we should be saying interesting things given this opportunity.
We could sing.
Normally on my live stream I sing.
I do some rap.
I do Celine Dion.
Yeah, I mean, so just to summarize, I mean, man, this discussion is high level.
I will say this.
What we've heard from the beginning.
So at first, there is this argument of the imprecision of definition of races.
On the one hand, we have Sargon saying it's a problem.
On the other hand, we have Richard Spencer.
Saying it's not a problem.
What I was going to do there was I was going to go through a list of people.
Like Denzel Washington, is he white?
Is he black?
Are you sure?
Are you really positive?
Because we haven't analyzed him genetically.
So are you absolutely positive?
And what about Will Smith?
Is he white?
And I was going to go through a list and then say to him, that's really weird Sargon because you've just given exactly the same answers that I would give.
So maybe it's really not difficult to identify people by the race.
And we do know exactly what is meant by black and white.
Because we do.
It's such obfuscation to pretend otherwise.
Yeah, I mean, the thing about the recognition of race is that humans have super high visual treatment features that we cannot necessarily put words on.
But for some reason, the cluster of features that makes an Asian, makes a white person, or makes a black person is so clear that it's extremely precise.
And in fact, when you recognize people with your eyes and then you do the genetic test, the correspondence can be above 90%.
And 90%, those are the cases where you will include everyone on Earth, you will include Indians, you will include...
Some of these studies even reached 95-99% correlation between self-identified race and genetics.
Yeah, there was one study that was like 99.8% conformance between their self-reported racial identity and what the scientists found.
Something remarkable.
I mean, there's just no ambiguity about this.
I mean, talking about the edge cases is just so desperate.
Now, one person on the chat among the 12,000 people who are watching us has written, "JF, notice me senpai." Her name is Maslada.
So I will add Maslada to my list of notice at 9:04 p.m. Eastern Time.
You have been noticed, Maslada.
So then the conversation moved on to the old prescriptive aspect.
Because the first problem was descriptive.
So the categories, are they poorly bounded or are they not poorly bounded?
That was the problem that Sargon first brought.
Then it moved on to the prescriptive versus descriptive, and there was a little misunderstanding here, I feel.
Because Richard on the one hand was saying, okay, start with your category that you've defined as race, with the facial features and the genetics or whatever criteria you want to use, and then look at these groups and look at what they do culturally.
And Sargon kind of attacked, I mean, I wouldn't accuse Sargon of strawmanning here.
I don't think it was a strawman.
I think he just approached the idea differently than Richard.
He attacked the idea that Richard wanted to impose.
What would be a white person and what it would mean to be a white person?
Whereas Richard was simply in awe in front of the reality of what white people have accomplished, and he just wants more of that.
Was that your understanding, Millionaire Rose, on that part?
Yeah, I think, and this is what I was trying to get to, but I was interrupted and so I couldn't get to it.
I think there are two things here.
There is the genetic.
Profile that leads to someone being genetically white.
And then there is the cultural profile.
And, you know, you could talk about them being culturally white and behaving in a whitish way and all that.
And I think Sargon's problem was he was saying, okay, you've got the genetics, but what makes somebody culturally white?
And what will you do if they behave in an unwhite way?
And that's fair enough.
I mean, there is a question there.
I believe that people...
That white people, like genetically white people, have a way of being which is largely consistent across the different countries where they live, and that that way of living reflects a way of being, a spiritual reality, a spiritual character, which in turn can be violated when they are forced to live in circumstances, cultures that they wouldn't choose, such as multiculturalism or communism.
Basic creature, and then there are ways that it wants to behave, and there are ways that it can be forced to behave that aren't good for it.
I think that the best argument against Sargon has not been stated yet, which is on that part.
It is that everything that you can reproach to what you were reproaching, to what I call the kind of straw man or the kind of misaddressing of Richard's view on...
The culture of whites and what is the culture of white people or how do we define white people in terms of their behavior and culture?
You could do the same to an arbitrary country categorization.
You could ask, well...
Are Canadians acting Canadian enough?
And in fact, our laws are essentially tools to ensure that people will converge toward a certain space of behavior that we allow, and then we have the things that we don't allow.
That's the function of laws.
And the problem that Sargon seems to impute only to ethno-nationalism seems to actually apply to any form of nation.
I actually said this.
I actually have someone who wants to jump in and go against what Richard and Woz is saying, and you as well, JF.
So I'm going to send him the link.
This is Kevin Logan.
Oh, my God.
He's been listening in, and we have to start weighing it back towards the left a little bit, just so it's fair.
Kevin Logan should be here in a second.
Actually, just to...
Yeah, sure.
Well, just to go back to that discussion, I was actually pointing this out, that any social order, at some point, the collective, it forces itself, legally speaking, and punitively.
So there are things that you must conform to as a UK citizen, in this multi-culti liberal UK, that the state will enforce.
It's just, there is no society on earth In which the whims of the individual go unchecked.
Alright.
Here we go.
There's always a collective.
I guess that you phrased it so poetically that I didn't even get the idea.
Thank you.
So, he should be here in a second.
There he is.
What's up, Logan?
How you doing?
Kevin Logan.
I'm good, man.
How's things?
I'm good, man.
You've been watching.
What's your thoughts?
Any questions?
Any rebuttals?
By the way, everyone watching, just hit like.
Help support the channel.
I've watched the whole thing, and it's been interesting, but I think one thing that's been lacking, certainly in terms of an opposition to the thoughts of Mr. Spencer and Mr. Woes, that seems like an odd way of putting it, but you get what I mean, would be that...
The arguing around the edges of who's white and who's not, I mean, I think that's a perfectly legitimate question, but ultimately it doesn't get to the root of why it's just frankly a silly idea.
They say, oh, that's not a reason not to have an ethnostate.
Well, surely the reason not to have an ethnostate is that, A, I think most people don't want an ethnostate, otherwise we basically have an ethnostate.
It's unworkable in practicality.
You'd have to use huge amounts of violence to bring it about.
Peaceful ethnic cleansing doesn't happen.
I'd like to see any examples of it ever actually having happened.
It's just a stupid and unworkable idea.
So these little peripheral ideas of who's white and who's not, I don't really...
Well, Kevin, we already dealt with this earlier, but Kevin, I'll ask you, is Uma Thurman white?
Yes, sorry?
What do you think?
He's not the racial inquisitor.
Here you are.
Can you define whether she is or not, please?
Sargon, Sargon, be quiet.
I'm asking Kevin a question.
No, you're the one asking him a loaded question to which you know...
How's that a loaded question?
Sargon, pipe down.
Shut up.
Sargon, Sargon, shut up.
I'm asking Kevin a question.
It's none of your business.
And you know what you're saying is a leading question.
You know you just have a...
You think...
I'll ask it a different way.
I'll ask it a different way, Kevin.
Is Uma Thurman black?
That's no different at all.
No, but this is my point.
This is my point, Saga.
No, she's obviously not black, and I don't care.
If she's a decent person and she wants to live in a certain place...
It's not about whether you care or not.
That's not the issue.
The issue is, is she white?
Because you were asking, how do you know what white is?
So I'm asking, well, do you think she's white?
No, no.
But this is my point.
I don't care.
It's not a matter of whether you care or not.
That's not the issue.
In the sense that if you want to build an ethnostate, you're saying that only this colour can live in this place.
And I'm saying that's a ridiculous thing to want in the first place.
It's a very natural thing to want.
It's the way that people live for tens of thousands of years.
Yeah, and owning slaves is the same.
Just because something's natural doesn't mean it's right in any sense whatsoever.
That's an absurd notion.
Well, it means that it has some form of legitimacy.
I'm just curious, Kevin, I've never encountered your work before.
Do you think that there should be any kind of restriction at all in immigration?
Or do you think that we should have, you know, wherever capital flows that humans should follow or wherever human winds flow, they should go where they please?
No, no, absolutely not.
I mean, you have to understand the reality of the world.
And we have nation states, and so we have borders.
And so I'm not for absolutely unlimited migration of whomever.
But the idea that you're going to have to say, OK, well, this colour of people have to leave this land, especially in America, it seems ridiculous because you have a significant number of black people who, by and large, their ancestors didn't choose to go there.
They were brought there by white people.
And so to say now, oh, you now have to leave...
Do you think there's a genetic coherence to the British Isles?
You know, putting aside, say, the last two decades or so, do you think that there is a centuries-long genetic coherence to the British Isles?
Well, we've had waves and waves of invasion.
No, there have actually been very small numbers of the overall population.
So is there something that you could say is recognisably the British people as they were in, say, 1945?
Not really, no.
Of course there is.
Of course there is.
Well, no, there is in the sense that you have citizens of a nation-state, yeah.
But in terms of...
They just happen to be individuals who had a passport that said the United Kingdom...
Well, no, that's what I mean.
I'm not saying that the people known as the Britons don't exist.
They do exist.
Right.
But they're not some absolutely...
Right, so your objection is that the edges are bloody.
Is that your objection?
Not that the group exists, but the group's edges are bloody.
Yeah, exactly.
And so the idea that you're going to put this absolute definite mark on it.
Well, you can't put an absolute definite mark on it, but you can say that.
No, it's not.
You see, the issue is...
Right, okay, Andy.
Go ahead and then let...
Kevin, respond.
And then V has joined us for a second here because he has watched Richard Spencer's stuff before.
And he says he knows how to debate it.
So, yeah.
So let's go with you first, Woz.
Well, I was just saying that just because the edges of a group are blurry doesn't mean that the group itself does not exist.
This is a very...
Tired argument at this stage to do with the rainbow thing.
Just because purple and orange exist doesn't mean that blue doesn't exist.
This is my point.
I don't...
Yeah, exactly.
But this is back to the peripheral argument thing.
I don't care.
Even if you want to say that it is absolutely definable and even if it weren't blue...
Then you're changing the goalposts then.
The issue is not whether you care about it or not.
The issue is does it exist and we're...
The other thing that I would say, whether you seem like a personally reasonable chap, but whether you care about it or not is totally irrelevant.
The fact is, people who are going to actually change the course of history do care about this quite a bit.
Most people are like you.
Most people don't want to take part.
In the inherent conflict involved with politics.
Most people aren't idealists.
Most people don't want a better world.
They simply want comfort and safety.
But the fact is, most people don't make history.
The people who are going to make history, the people who are going to act in a visionary fashion.
You're making this argument like, oh, well, I don't care that much.
I'm just here with me and my cat.
That's effectively what you're saying.
And it's like, well, great.
But the fact is, people like you don't make history.
Sorry.
You've never heard of me, and that's fine, but I'm most assuredly not a person who doesn't want to...
Richard, do you let Kevin talk?
I do get involved in politics very significantly.
You may not like...
Yeah, you put on takedown videos, character assassination videos of people.
Whoa, you're butthurt about a video I made like a year ago, man.
Chill the fuck out, dude.
It was ridiculous.
It seems to be the bulk of what you do on your channel, I'm just saying.
Also, I should sit in the dark smoking, having depressed rants.
No, you should tackle arguments.
No, you should try to use your brain.
I'm going to head off, because I actually wanted to get to the underlying principles.
It's been rather difficult to do that, but I've learned enough from the responses I've got to know exactly what I'm dealing with.
So unless there's any questions anyone has for me specifically, I'm going to bounce.
Yeah, yes.
Does anyone have any questions for Sargon?
I do not want this to be devolved.
So if you guys could stop with the ad-homes, that'd be awesome.
Maybe we can all ask a question.
And then, I mean, my question on my side would be, Sargon, and I think we've discussed this in a comment on a YouTube video.
Would you recognize the freedom of association of a group of people?
Who set up in Antarctica, if you want, in a place where there is no one to be violent against, who decide to identify based on their race, who get together, who are proud about it, they install a state, and they are proud of who they are, and they define who they are as their race or their culture or a mix of both.
Would that be wrong in and of itself?
Yeah, no, I totally understand what you're saying.
And yes, because, I mean, I don't think...
Someone has a right to enter someone else's state.
That's a privilege that's granted by the people who live there.
Whatever particular governmental method they use, I think democracies are the only really legitimate ones, but that's a different conversation.
So yeah, I would accept that, but that's not what we're arguing for.
V, did you want to add anything?
I'm going to wrap it up in like a minute here.
So, V, do you want to add something?
I could add, what if the people in that new state are oppressed by a minority, which are now the aristocracy, if you will, and they're oppressing everyone else in that place?
Like, you have in North Korea, for instance.
It might be a desirable end state, wouldn't it?
Oh, yes.
That's clearly what I'm arguing for in North Korea.
Do you not think aristocracies are oppressive, or what?
Any system of government is oppressive in some sense.
Look, Sargon, right now...
Why don't you just say yes?
Aristocracies are...
No.
Aristocracies are purely natural.
We live right now.
There are aristocratic classes.
There are oligarchic classes in contemporary America and contemporary United Kingdom.
This is a natural state of being.
The question is who and whom.
The problem of an aristocracy is it becomes hereditary.
This is utterly irrelevant to the main thing that we were talking about.
It's a real question because it becomes an oppressive form of government.
Actually, it doesn't matter.
A heritable aristocracy is actually better because I believe in the power of heredity.
I think there are actually kingly people who were born that way, who were born to rule.
No question.
This is what I am saying, is that there...
There's a natural state of being in which there are going to be aristocrats, there are going to be oligarchic factions, plutocratic factions, etc.
We have those in modern America.
We have them in spades.
You don't have them fully codified into your laws, Richard.
You have the same rights.
Neither did aristocrats of yesteryear.
They didn't have a codified in law.
In many cases, they didn't.
Some cases they did.
It's irrelevant.
The fact is there are going to be hierarchies within society.
We are never going to create some abstract liberal order in which we're all individuals.
The question is who and whom?
Who is ruling and for what purpose?
That is the question that we must answer.
The notion that we can get away from aristocracies is hopelessly naive.
No, but look, nobody's answering against hierarchy, Richard.
That's the thing.
No one's against hierarchy?
Okay, so you're changing...
He just doesn't, like, connect it to hierarchy.
You're exactly right, Woz.
A hierarchy should be defined through merit.
You earn a hierarchy.
No, I didn't say that.
I was born white, therefore.
So, obviously, you're against the idea of a meritocratic hierarchy.
Why would you be?
I mean, you might end up with a brown person ahead of you, right?
Well, in an ethnostate, that wouldn't happen because it couldn't happen.
There's going to be a hierarchy within the ethnostate, as I've said.
There is a natural state of being that there are going to be variations in society, and it's not going to be purely based on merit.
That is just hopelessly naive.
Hey, Richard, sorry, but may I have Sargon clarify his statement because he's saying that you don't understand exactly.
Please let him finish his sentence, okay?
His statement, rather.
Right, yeah.
So I'm not against the idea of hierarchy.
I am against the idea of a system of inherited privilege for people who have decided it's the tyranny of the past, basically.
And I can't believe you claim to have read Thomas Paine and not understand that.
That blows my mind.
How could I have read Thomas Paine and not be you?
That's what you literally just said.
Problem with what you're suggesting.
Because, I mean, you've got this fantasy in your mind that you're going to be in the aristocracy, but what if you're not?
What if you're actually a serf on a farm somewhere and you're being forced to work by someone else?
They could be whiter than white.
What if that happens?
You can be like, well, you know what?
I did ask for this.
And you're just going to plow that field, are you?
Life...
No, answer my question, yes or no.
Are you going to be happy with your lot as a serf in the new ethnostate feudal monarchy?
This is all completely hypothetical.
The answer's no, isn't it?
Just say the answer's no.
Would I be happy as a serf?
Probably not.
I don't know what to say.
You would choose it for someone else.
That's the point.
I'm not going to choose serfdom for anyone.
We don't live in such a society.
I don't know what you're saying.
This is just an irrelevant...
You guys...
Tangent.
But Richard, you said...
With these old arguments from 300 years ago...
That you're trying to make relevant again by bringing back the aristocracy and a monarchy.
You've just argued for a king, Richard.
...within the modern United Kingdom.
Is there or is there not?
That is basically about inherited wealth and so on that is not purely meritocratic, whatever that means.
And do you not think that I might have a problem with that, Richard?
What I am fundamentally saying is that this is a natural state of being, that there are going to be hierarchies.
These are not going to be purely fair in whatever merit...
I mean, when you say meritocracy, it's begging the question in what?
You know, China had a meritocracy based on test-taking.
I don't know why you're making it, but I do have a question.
So what do you guys do?
Let's say you get your ethnostate.
What do you do when the international jury start propagandising white people using the internet?
Like Russian meddling with the elections.
They start putting stuff out on the internet and targeting white people to become total degenerates in whatever way is objectionable.
What would you do about that, Sargon?
Do you think that nothing should be done about that?
As far as I can tell with alt-right principles, the first thing you'd have to do is shut down the internet.
at least being outside.
We wouldn't shoot.
No.
We wouldn't shoot.
You'll be over here.
I'll answer the question.
You're engaging in these just meaningless hypotheticals, but I'll answer the question.
If I had leadership in an order and there were outside groups attempting to demean my people or subvert political legitimacy or just ruin the government, of course I would censor them.
Nazi Germany banned British newspapers.
Oh, therefore Nazi Germany?
What an argument.
Sargon, did you just say that this very thing happens all the time, Sargon, like Jewish people trying to subvert the West?
No, as in authoritarian governments shutting down outside access to their internet.
I have a question.
Do you want to prevent Russian hacking?
Do you think that's a problem?
Richard, when you were censored...
I don't buy into it, but maybe I do.
I don't buy into it.
Let's have V ask a question.
Let's say it were real.
Do you think the US government should actually act against it?
If it were real, do you think the US government should act against it?
Do you understand what you're talking about?
I answered your question.
I'm just about to answer.
If you would shut the fuck up for a second, you'll get your answer.
To be clear.
To be clear, we are not actually talking about hacking when they talk about the Russians.
What they're talking about is like Russian Facebook advertising campaigns, Twitter bots, things like this.
It's very relevant, okay, because one of them is legal and the other isn't.
Can I cut in for a bit, right?
Richard, you're just legitimizing the current establishment for censoring you.
You are saying that you are a disruptive force in the current establishment, so it's okay if they censor you off the internet.
I understand why the current establishment would want to censor alt-right ideas because we threaten their legitimacy.
No question.
You don't think it's wrong.
Don't you understand that this is why I'm defending you?
It's wrong, right or wrong.
It just simply is.
Yeah, but you don't think it's wrong.
You just advocate for exactly the same thing.
You don't think that's wrong.
I am willing to censor.
I am not a free speech absolutist.
That's a stupid position.
You're not a free speech advocate, my friend.
You are against free speech if you would happily censor people.
Yeah, Richard, it seems rather odd that you would complain about being censored yourself when you're literally saying that under your own rationale, it's fine for them to censor you.
It's bad for them to censor me because obviously I'm right.
I don't understand why this is an argument.
The jury made by the same logic.
You guys are living in some world.
Stop talking about us and talk about the question, Richard.
I answered it.
Stop defending it.
Just accept that you are a censor and you're just annoyed that it's happening to you.
Not that it's not happening to them.
It's not about any fairness.
It's not about morality.
It's not about justice.
Are you a real free speech absolutist?
Do you think that child pornography is all fine and good?
It's a character attack.
It's okay that your ideology turns you into a bunch of censors and authoritarians.
That's the facts of your ideology.
Every political order is about a line.
Every political order is going to draw a line somewhere.
There is no such thing as free speech absolutism.
Every political order is going to draw a line somewhere.
I disagree with you completely, I'm afraid.
You actually have it in law.
I mean, obviously, there are exceptions.
But for all intents and purposes, because we live in the real world, it can't be perfect.
But for all intents and purposes, your country is spectacular when it comes to free speech.
And I can't believe you would just throw all of that away just to get your way.
I think the difference is that most people would try to large in the free speech window while you would try to shorten it.
I think that's the difference.
Sargon, this is all about what you would do.
Sargon, this is all about what we would do to protect our ethno state from being subverted from outside.
Yeah.
Right?
That's basically the question.
So is there anything that you would do to stop subversion from outside a state, regardless of the ethno thing?
Yeah, yeah, but it wouldn't involve government authority.
Because all they're doing is talking.
So what would you do?
Talking.
I don't think talking to people outside of the ethnostate should be stopped by the government.
I think that's a massive violation.
This has nothing to do with the ethno question, though.
This is just a question of how to protect a state from subversion from outside.
This is why collectivism is dangerous to the rights of the individual.
This is why you guys are afraid of your own principles.
You won't talk principles.
It's really frustrating.
You have to protect.
It's genuinely frustrating.
It's the collective.
You claim that I'm running away from my principles.
I have said over and over and over again that, yes, I want a society in which people are free to exchange ideas and goods and so on that's healthy and free and lovely.
There is a point in which the rights of the individual will confront.
The collective order.
That is the same for the ethnostate.
That is the same for every single social and political order that exists.
Yeah, but for you...
When you got punched, hold on.
Let me just ask him this.
When you got punched, right, those were your rights violated by a collective, which was pretty much...
It was an individual.
Punch me.
Yeah, it was an individual punching you because of ideological reasons, not because he hates you as a person.
He hates the ideology that you're spewing.
And the state pretty much consented to that because there wasn't, you know, thorough investigation into the individual who punched you.
I am a U.S. citizen.
I pay taxes.
I obey the law.
I do not seek to overthrow the United States government.
Therefore, I have rights as a citizen.
Yes, but other collectives view you as a danger, so they punched you.
They did not give a shit about your individual rights.
Do you think that's fair or not?
Of course it's not fair.
Life is not fair.
This thing is designed and not an accident.
Yes, because life is not fair.
Politics is not about fairness.
Politics is about confrontation.
Politics is ultimately about violence.
Politics is ultimately about violence.
Did you talk to Antifa, mate, recently?
Because that's what they call it.
The society itself is consensual.
Politics is actually about the use of force.
If the US government comes to your house tomorrow, Richard, and arrests you, you can't really complain, can you?
Of course I can complain.
You are engaging in a logical fallacy.
What I am saying is that there is some point in which the collective, in this case the state, is going to...
It doesn't mean that you don't have a right as a citizen or the government can just willy-nilly pick me up and throw me in prison.
It's ridiculous.
Richard, you said that certain men have rights to rule, right?
They've got this certain innate quality to them.
So let's say that Donald Trump wants to lock you up.
What's to stop him from doing that?
What's to stop him from doing that?
Richard, I almost want to encourage you not to even respond.
At this point, there is severe logical fallacies being used.
I'm kind of disgusted by the last five minutes, and I'm going to just comment on this.
So you guys started with asking Richard about whether he would accept external influence from his ethnostate, entering into the ethnostate, and making propaganda.
I will point out that...
The First Amendment and similar rights such as those provided by the First Amendment do not apply to outsiders.
You do not have to guarantee the freedom of expression of an Australian who lives in Australia if you are the US government.
Okay, so that's the first thing.
You guys start with this comparison and then you use that.
That little experiment that you did with Richard by asking that specific question about outsiders.
And then you reframe all of your examples within the United States.
And then you're talking about citizens fighting against citizens.
And then you're going up to justifying the fact that he could get hit by another citizen.
But this is an aggression.
This is a crime within a country where his rights need to be protected.
Yes.
Yeah, but you don't believe that the citizens have a right to choose the media that they enjoy?
If the government has a prerogative to protect its own sovereignty and social order, do you believe that yourself?
No, Richard, you're not listening to anything I'm saying.
If the Russians were actually trying to subvert American democracy, would you want the United States government to prevent them from doing that?
Would I want them to censor Facebook?
Prevent outside people from talking to people within my nation?
No, absolutely not.
So would you just let the subversion continue?
Absolutely, you have to fight it.
The Russians are trying to talk to our people, so we need to abandon our...
During the Cold War, America actually had this happening, right?
It actually had outside influence from the USSR.
What they did is they made anti-communist propaganda.
You can see anti-communist cartoons, anti-communist talk shows, even movies where they would expose the flaws of communism.
And they would expose their own people to the minuses that communism wants to bring.
So they did not censor.
They did not go like the Chinese.
They didn't censor the airways.
The United States government effectively owns the airways and rents them to designated entities.
There were three networks.
That were basically sanctified by the U.S. government.
Do you really think that the U.S. government would have allowed CBS News to be broadcasting Marxist propaganda during the 1960s?
Give me a break.
You guys are silly.
Exactly.
I think Sargon and V have been quite idealistic about this in the real world.
Governments do try to protect their...
It's only about being idealistic from the position of admittedly idealistic.
And even then, I don't agree, right?
I don't agree that we can't fight these ideas with ideas of our own.
And I certainly wouldn't.
People are not logical.
To prevent people from talking to my own citizens.
People are not logical.
The masses are not logical, Spagland.
That's a delusion.
Of course they're not logical.
Of course they're emotionally driven.
This is a great problem.
You're going to pick them against two...
Tying propaganda and hope for the best.
Plato's Republic will never come into existence.
You're just not going to be able to do it.
Anyway, I want to ask questions as I came here to ask.
It's the hubris of thinking.
You can plan a society.
And it's always failed, and it always will.
So that'll be my final point.
Well, I'd like to ask you a question, Sargon, before you leave, because you've been asking me and everyone else questions.
Hello?
Right.
Millennial chat from a month ago, the one that's barred in most of Europe now.
You agreed that East Asians were going to out-compete whites, us, at the higher ends of our society, and Ashkenazi Jews, and you agreed that blacks and Hispanics and Muslims are going to out-number us in our societies.
If we leave borders open.
No, even on current trends, they're going to do that.
So, I would ask you, why don't you care about the fate of the whites, us?
I don't care about the fate of the blacks either, if that helps.
It doesn't matter.
They're still going to outnumber us.
I don't care about the fate of any group.
I care about the fate of the people I know.
Right, so you agree that you accept this premise.
The fate of the people I know...
It's survival.
It's survival that I'm proposing.
What you're proposing is that you're just...
I care.
You're jumping to the worst possible conclusion right now.
What you're proposing...
Oh, what, around 200 years when the blacks are numbers?
Look.
That A, I don't even know if that's guaranteed.
B, you are jumping from freedom to tyranny and say, well, it's going to be justified because otherwise, worst case scenario, it's ridiculous.
Not tyranny.
We can pay them to leave.
We can pay them to leave.
That is tyranny.
I'm sorry.
I mean, literally, shut the borders.
Shut the internet.
Shut this.
We're going to have an aristocratic, kingly society, but don't worry, it won't be tyranny.
Don't make me laugh.
Sargon, Sargon, you are hysterical.
I'm not tyrannical and I don't jump straight.
Shut up!
Here's what we do.
Listen, listen, all you here.
Here's what we're going to do.
I want to wrap up and then we're going to read Super Chats after.
I want everyone a chance for a final word for what they've observed, what they feel, and no one else interrupt.
There's not a question and answer.
I just want to ask the question I came here to ask.
One question, and then we're going to go through everyone, and we're going to wrap up.
This has been very interesting, very entertaining for everyone who's watching.
It's going nuts right now in the chat and on Twitter.
So thank everyone for this.
But V, go ahead and ask.
Yeah, I actually watch Richard Spencer, even though I disagree with his ideas.
And I remember last year you were at this university where you talked about how football takes away from white identity, right?
And I think this is one of the things where Sargon was going at, like, what's a white person?
Because apparently it's also a state of mind, like the idea of identity.
But my question is, what do you think about white people who like anime and video games?
Does this take away from white identity?
Not necessarily.
Okay, but what if it's a person that's really into anime and really into gaming, just like some people are into football?
Well, apparently, the most fervent white nationalists are all into anime.
So, actually, I think we actually need more anime in order to...
Or maybe we need less, or we would actually create a fanatically Nazi society.
So if they were all into...
It's just an elective affinity.
I mean, white people might enjoy eating Thai food.
Who cares?
You're the one who brought up football identity, right?
So if all the white nationalists were into football...
All I was pointing out is that identity is a very rich concept.
And there are aspects of our identity that are false and that are hollow.
I'm not saying that every identity is as good as the other, or that there aren't some that are richer and more traditional and more connected with something real and powerful.
The obsession with football seems to be a papering over of the absolute hollowness of our lives.
No question.
We've lost a sense of regionalness and so on, and we've embraced these ridiculous steroid-induced criminal athletes.
It's distasteful.
That's what I was saying.
Earlier you were talking about drooling white people with VR headsets.
So how is it different?
I don't want to do that, for God's sake, no.
No, I mean, you were criticizing, you know, the idea, or in my opinion, this is how it came off.
You were criticizing the idea of a gamer identity, like a white person who just plays video games, stays in the house all day, you know.
That's a very sad state of affairs.
All right, so, okay, with that being said, I'll let everyone know that everyone who has been a participant in today's chat, I will contact you all individually and I will be throwing you some money since today was very lucrative and I want to help spread the wealth for you guys making a fantastic show.
All right?
So I'll talk to you all individually.
So I want everyone to know all donations that have been made today.
I'm going to be very generous to the guests because they deserve it for such an entertaining show and helping us make number two and one worldwide.
So thank you everyone for that.
Sargon, I know you have to leave since it's very late for you.
So do you have any final words, any thoughts, anything you want to say before you go?
Yeah, okay.
I find this all very interesting.
I find it very interesting how Richard seems to be Completely happy with throwing away the patrimony of the West in the misguided, I'm going to call it, attempt to re-establish feudalism monarchy and aristocracy, and then in the same breath say that he's going to censor the internet, presumably censor other things, presumably restrict freedom of movement, because otherwise you couldn't have your ethnostate, and then people are going to say that he's not for tyranny.
I find this...
Hilarious.
But thank you very much, Andy.
This was absolutely fascinating.
And I tell you what, I don't have any Jewish DNA, so you don't need to give me any of the money.
I'd like you to keep it.
I think you would.
Nah, dude.
I'll contact you on Skype.
Don't worry.
Honestly, dude, I'm fine.
I want you to have it.
I really do.
Okay, but then you could buy a ball pit because, you know, kill everybody's done.
Honestly, dude, thank you so much, man.
I really appreciate you coming.
Yeah, awesome, man.
All right, I'll talk to you soon, buddy.
Take care, everyone.
Thanks for the debate.
Yeah, thanks, man.
Richard, man, it was very interesting to hear everything that you had to say.
Personally, I know I've been staying out of it.
I told everyone I'd leave my emotions out of it.
I disagree with the ethnostate stuff that you said.
However, I was just here to moderate.
But I appreciate you being here.
We're an open house on this show for ideas.
I caught a lot of flack.
For having you on the show.
But I don't give a fuck.
Because even SJWs were DMing me.
Saying, hey man, this is intense.
This is fucked up, what they're saying.
But then this is an awesome show.
A few SJWs were like, why are you doing this?
And I don't care what they have to say.
Because finally, this is a free speech platform that everyone's able to join and speak their mind.
So I really appreciate you being here.
So do you have any final words before you go, man?
I had a blast.
This is a great three and a half hours or so, and I would definitely do it again, and I would like to thank all the participants, including Sargon.
I would just say that I care about my people and our future.
Awesome.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, and if you want to jump out, we're going to be reading Super Chats after, but dude, thank you very much and hope to speak to you in the future, dude.
Thank you.
I'll do it again.
All right, sounds good.
Bye-bye.
Kevin Logan will jump to you since you were an opposing viewpoint as well.
Do you have any final thoughts?
I know you didn't get too much time since you came in at the end, but any final thoughts on what happened, what you've heard?
Yeah.
A couple of quick points.
I'm having listened to the whole discussion.
All I can say is the kind of, frankly, bullshit.
Spouted by the likes of Spencer and Woz and JF to a degree.
I'm so glad the ethnostate is never, ever going to happen.
It's a bullshit pipe dream.
It's pathetic.
It's never going to happen.
And I'm really glad it's never going to happen.
And secondly, you're very generous.
Hey, hey, no talking over final thoughts.
Sorry, sorry.
Anyway.
And secondly, the very generous offer you made of some money.
I just, because I'm such a virtue signaling cock, any money that comes my way by this will be going to a Jewish charity of my subscribers' choosing.
I thought you'd like that, Millennial Woes.
I thought you'd love that idea.
Maybe you can join us.
Yeah, it's very amusing.
I've got enough money already.
And Kevin, I'd love for you to come back on.
You may be on a future debate.
I saw that you had asked me in the morning, but I already had planned Sargon once Coughlin dropped out.
But I'd love to have you back on in the future, man.
Thank you very much.
It's always a pleasure.
Okay, cool, man.
And I'll see everyone later.
Bye-bye.
Sounds good.
Peace out, bud.
I'm Millennial Woes.
I've never spoken to you before, but it's nice to meet you, by the way.
Thank you for putting in your two cents.
Got a little bit hectic near the end, but yo, like that.
I mean, For what dumpster fire this shit could have been, I think it was decent.
So, any final thoughts?
Any final words, man?
Yeah, it was very hectic.
It was very busy.
And I didn't want to...
I'm sorry, I interrupted some people at the start.
I didn't realize what it was going to be like.
It's okay, man.
Yeah.
A strange thing.
What I would say is...
I mean, the salient thing for me is...
If you believe that there are such an entity, such a group as white people in whichever country they are, then I think the arguments of, I mean, you might not like the idea of an ethnostate or whatever the other things that were brought up, but if you care about the entity, the race called the white race, white people, white Britons, white Swedes and so on, then I think it's very clear opposition will not protect that group.
And we'll actively endanger them.
Because, well, for various reasons that I think are obvious from the conversation.
So basically, if you want the white race to survive, if you care about it, then I think our opposition are not your friends, basically.
All right.
Well, thank you.
And I hope to have you on the future, maybe for a more organized debate that you'll be a main debater on.
Maybe in the future we'll stay in touch, dude.
So thank you very much, man.
Yeah, thank you very much.
Alright, thanks.
Appreciate that, man.
See you later.
Easy, man.
And we got V, you came in very late.
Hang on one sec.
And one second.
Are you there, V?
Yeah.
If you want to just finish this up, I have to speak to one person.
Okay.
All right, V, your turn.
Yeah, so I know it's not fair because Millennial Wolves isn't here, but what he just said, I can't live on challenge.
If he wants to have a stream about it, that's fine.
But I want to point out that white people didn't elect him as our representative.
And when he says, if you're against my ideology, you're basically against white people, I find that to be incredibly interesting.
I listen to Richard Spencer a lot.
I think I listen to every one of his public speeches, but as a person who has been censored more than his fair share, and he even got punched in public to say that it's okay when politics is about violence, and it's okay if the majority silences the minority.
For me, that was...
It's incredibly interesting as well, because basically he's saying the only problem he has with it is that it's down to him, but if he was in power, he could do it down to others, so he's not against its own principle.
I will still defend Richard Spencer's right to speak.
If he gets censored, I will raise awareness, and I will point out, because I do believe in my principles.
I do believe that the only antidote to bad speech is good speech.
Censorship doesn't solve anything.
You know what?
It's actually very interesting that you bring that up, man, because a lot of people that I've heard, old associates of mine, just people on Twitter in general, have cut me off from associating with them for just simply having this talk.
A lot of people like, uh, I'm not going to even say his name on Twitter.
Cause I don't want to promote him, but he was getting mad when Rose came in.
Uh, cause JF brought it him, him in.
That's why I brought Kevin Logan in and yourself, uh, to help balance it.
I truly hope that the audience watching believes that I tried my best, uh, to, um, to balance everything that was happening on the show.
Uh, uh, Jeff, what do you think?
Uh, what do you think with, um, I'm going to go make, Love you, man.
Let's talk soon.
Peace out, man.
Always a pleasure.
Well, all I have to say is, wow.
Jay fucking F. You've created something beautiful there.
Yeah, and I want to also thank TJ, a.k.a.
Amazing Atheist for doing that very, very nice tweet saying something along the lines of, you know, Andy, a lot of people talk shit about him, but my God, this show is good.
He's doing an amazing job moderating.
Do you think that I was balancing it well?
I was trying to be fair for both Richard and Sargon.
I think you...
I underestimated the quality of your moderation, even if it was not super involved.
I think you were perfect.
And even when you were getting nervous, and I received some DMs from you, and you seemed to think that there was the dogpiling, I can tell you there was not much dogpiling at that point.
There was almost dogpiling at the end against Richard Spencer.
But very faint.
It was Kevin, Logan, Sargon, and V attacking him all together.
But for the most part, it was just perfect.
And there's no reason why you should be nervous about this.
You did excellent.
I intervened very minimalistically, but when it was needed, and I intervened.
And that's one thing that I corrected Sargon on on the very first intervention.
I'm not a moderator.
I have a PhD in biology.
If you take me to be a moderator with a chronometer who counts 30 seconds and then says, okay, now, Sargon, that's your turn.
You're not using me to my maximal use.
I'm a moderator of ideas, of proper representation, and of driving the discussion forward toward the interesting ideas.
So I'm much more involved intellectually than someone with a chronometer.
That's why I was trying my best to bring in some more people.
By the way, Gabriel Lopez, holy fuck, threw 200 bucks our way.
Is Richard really sympathetic to socialism, even though only for the whites?
If so, wouldn't the alt-left be more fitting?
So this is something I wanted to comment on.
We saw a lot of straw mining against Richard Spencer in that discussion, in my view.
To accuse him of wanting socialism, I didn't hear anything that he said tonight indicating that he had even a position on the involvement of the state in the economy.
So this was trampling done mainly by Sargon.
Same thing when they came with the question of liberty of speech.
They claimed that he was an authoritarian and that he wanted to limit free speech.
All that he said is that if you are an entity, if you are a nation, you might want to filter what comes into your nation in terms of speech.
And he also said, by the way, all nations do it.
And that is true.
All nations filter part of the internet.
Sometimes it's for child pornography.
Sometimes it's for less grave stuff.
As he said, there is always a line.
There are always things that you protect your citizens from.
And so it was quite, in my view, unfair for Sargon and V and Kevin Logan to attack him on that while they can only do that attack hypocritically because they live in countries that they support, which does censor part of the information that comes in.
Yeah, I mean besides like your observation about straw manning, I think Styx, Sargon, V, all those guys...
Did an awesome job.
While you did see some strawmanning, I think, you know, defending their point of view pretty well.
And I think both sides defended their ideas pretty well.
It was just really, honestly, I want to re-listen to this entire thing.
I, by the way, everyone who's donated, holy fuck, thank you so much.
We're going to start setting up some even better debates, hopefully in the future.
We're going to learn and get better as this goes.
Thank you all for fucking donating.
Jason Gruthis just threw 50 bucks.
Arrived late.
Thanks for the fascinating discussion.
Lots to think about.
National Socialist threw 100 bucks to say white pride worldwide.
Thank you for throwing the 100 bucks, man.
Appreciate that.
And Bold Like Leopard, just doing five bucks.
Sean King for King.
The new white ethnostate.
We'll go over a few super chats, guys.
There was Lick.
Oh, by the way, all the DMs from people right now.
10 out of 10. Amazing stream.
Holy shit, good show, bro.
Just a ton of people.
Some people on the left saying awesome stream.
I thought it would be a little bit one-sided, but you kept it good.
Tons of at replies from a lot of people.
One person in particular, you know who you are, fucking spurging like a fucking piece of shit constantly on Twitter.
Calm the fuck down.
If you didn't like it so much, then why did you watch, in my opinion?
I am very fucking proud with...
This felt like the most original free speech stream ever.
Absolutely.
We had fucking Richard Spencer saying his ideas on the white ethnostate.
And it's very rare do we hear people on the opposing end...
Battling back and forth.
It's very fucking rare.
Everyone was very polite to me and let me...
Obviously, I had to scream a little bit, but when they finally calmed...
I understand.
It's a very passionate subject.
It's an intense subject.
I hope that this gave food for thought no matter what side of the fence that you fall on.
And someone's saying Andy's sucking his own dick.
I am sucking my own dick, motherfucker.
Number one on fucking YouTube Live?
Come on!
I will suck my dick live to get more viewers.
This is a special case.
I mean, I like modesty and everything, but...
This was an important moment in internet history, in my view.
I'm so honored to have been part of it.
Yeah, man.
This is crazy.
And honestly, guys, it wasn't only thanks to this show, this platform that we have.
It's thanks to the people who've been subscribing and joining in.
We've got about 1,000 subscribers today so far.
So I hope this increases the audience.
Make for future debates that get better and better.
Gabriel Lopez is through 20R again.
Thanks, man.
You're the best, dude.
J.F. Spencer said that he supported socialism in his interview with Roaming.
There are also other interviews of him on YouTube expressing support for it, agreeing with a single payer.
A Bernie for whites only wanted him to answer.
This is not something I heard from him tonight.
So, yeah, he may have supported that in other places.
But that's why I was very alarmed by, like, oh, what you just said supports socialism.
What you just said supports free speech oppression.
Or what you just said...
Here's another strawman.
Because they claim that he supports aristocracy.
All the statements I've heard Richard Spencer say tonight...
We're simply describing the fact that aristocracies emerge in any society.
And one question that I didn't have the time to ask to Sargon would be, are you against the transfer of wealth between billionaire parents to billionaire children?
Because if you are not against that, then you are supporting a system that maintains aristocracy in a capitalistic society.
Cool.
Alright, and you know, we'll set up some more future debates and all that stuff.
You know, everyone's asking, Jim, if you're watching Mr. Medicare, people don't want you to jump in and just give your final thoughts.
I'll send him the link.
If he jumps in, if you want, just jump in for two minutes.
People love when Medicare just says hello.
This motherfucker's been watching the entire stream.
Dude, finish that video.
Everyone wants to finish that part four of the crowd video.
I'll bring in Jim.
Everyone, you know, bass Jim.
We'll have him in.
I'll start pounding through some super chats.
If Jim jumps in, that'd be awesome.
And I know my mouth will get dry at some point, so maybe we'll do a train back in here.
Yeah, feel free to put them on the stream.
Yeah, let's do...
Let me make sure that...
I had more questions from the audience, but literally, man, there was questions from at replies, DMs, super chats.
Very, very difficult.
Oh, there he is!
Billy!
I'm sorry, it's not Jim.
Fuck.
Billy.
Yeah, anti-bully.
I don't know why I keep saying Jim.
Stupid.
Hey, Jim.
I mean, fuck, fuck.
Billy.
Holy shit.
Come on, Adam.
Get the name.
Billy.
So, some final thoughts, my friend.
Yeah, my final thought is, did you actually just say on livestream that you'd suck your own dick to get more views?
Yeah.
That's amazing.
You give me so many fucking quotes.
That's great.
I thought the stream was good.
I liked it.
It was entertaining watching them fling shit back and forth.
I thought Six did amazingly.
I saw some people saying on Twitter ahead of times...
Oh, Sticks isn't going to be a good foil or a good counterpoint to Spencer's viewpoints.
Were they blown the fuck out or what?
Because he has some really good questions.
Really practical, just basic questions.
And I like the kind of back and forth between him and Spencer.
I thought that was really good.
Yeah.
I enjoyed that a lot.
I thought he did a really, really good job.
You've got to stop adding so many fucking people.
You're bringing people in left and right, man.
Well, the thing is, because JF threw in woes, and when Sticks left, I was like, okay, fucking, we need some counterbalance.
I have to honestly just stop fucking reading Twitter.
It's just people fucking...
It was a good stream.
I mean, you reached number two or number one worldwide or whatever.
One at some point, yeah.
I saw a lot of people giving you a ton of shit for even entertaining the idea of having Spencer on and having other people on.
I hope this is a big, giant fuck you to them.
Go with your gut more often, man.
It was a good stream, and it proved to be good for you.
You got to stick to doing you, man.
What you said, we talked after that other stream the other day, and I was nervous.
You're like, Andy, just fucking do what you want.
Who cares?
I was still going to do it regardless.
I was just nervous, right?
I think that was great.
It was fucking entertaining just to be...
Part of this and moderate it.
Damn.
Super entertaining, man.
I enjoyed it.
Got a lot of great fucking quotes out of it.
Got some good sound clips out of it.
There's a tweet going around right now.
People think you made a comment you didn't make, but I'm just going to let it sit up there because fuck it, it's funny to me.
I don't know if you've seen this or not.
It was a summary of a conversation that...
Spencer and Sargon were having.
Spencer, there are white-skinned Jews, but they are defined ethnicity.
Sargon, but won't white-looking Jews infiltrate your ethnostate?
How would you tell?
And then here's where you come in.
Worski, easy, just throw a nickel and see who runs for it.
You're such a bigot.
You're such a terrible bigot.
What are you doing?
First writing Hasbro and making these kind of statements, you're turning into a Nazi, Andy.
Don't you see Vamp Candy, my friend?
She made a...
You know what?
Hang on.
I'm going to show...
I think you will enjoy the fuck...
It was actually right after you left that conversation we were having the other day.
Vamp Candy went on a fucking tirade.
I think you'll enjoy this.
And JF, you might enjoy this too.
Here we go.
Alright, I'm going to do a little share screen here.
Audience might enjoy this.
Step Brothers, the movie.
There we go.
I like how Adam Worski is stuck.
That's your new fucking covert white nationalist name.
It's like you've gone through a rebirth with that one.
I like this, by the way.
Coming autumn 1939 from the guys who brought you London Blitz.
Vadim Newquest was giving me shit, and every time he had tweeted at me, I just responded with this image without saying anything.
It was pretty funny.
That's what I don't get.
I don't get why people are giving you shit.
You moderated.
You let other people talk.
You just gave them a chance to talk for other people to watch.
Look at that.
You had 12,000 people watching.
Obviously, people were interested in hearing the fucking conversation, so I don't see what the problem is.
Yeah.
Do we have the current emotional state of Vadim?
Is he doing okay?
Or was he too triggered?
I don't know.
Vadim, how are you doing, bud?
Maybe we can throw Vadim in here and ask him.
I'd feel better if we had a physiological measure, something for his heartbeat or something that gives us a sign of life.
Yeah, Vadim was not doing well the past two days when we heard about this.
Oh, Vadim, man.
I hope you're doing all right, man.
I don't know how to pronounce this.
The worst is being number one on YouTube and then fucking up.
That was great.
You get right at the top and then scream that out.
That's good stuff.
You know what it is?
I used to love Final Fantasy VI when I was a kid.
Still love the game.
And the character, Locke, as a kid, I pronounced it Loki because I had the E at the end for my entire life until I was a few years ago.
My buddy's like, Loki?
No, it's Locke.
But when I saw the name, it just brought me back to when I was a kid.
So I said, Loki.
I don't feel bad about it.
I always pronounce hyperbole as hyperbole, like it's some futuristic fucking sports.
No, the worst is, dude, I was trying to watch a video of yours the other day.
Actually, I think you were bashing Ian Miles Chung when he was in SJW, and you kept saying Ian.
And I'm like, I can't even watch this.
You're like, and I am?
I'm like, ah.
I love that.
There was one my friend Jules did of him that's been since deleted.
It was like a 30-second promo of him dressed as a Nazi.
It was funny shit.
Brilliant.
But, yo, thanks for giving your final thoughts because everyone was calling for you, and it's awesome.
Yeah, no, like I said, and I'm going to hop out too, but it's really good.
Do more like this, man.
100%.
And fuck anybody that tells you otherwise.
You proved that this is what people want to watch.
They enjoyed it.
Everybody had a good time.
Fuck the people crying like little bitches on Twitter.
Fuck them.
Beautiful.
Thanks, Medicare.
Take it easy, guys.
Oh, hang on.
When's your video coming out?
Please, tonight?
No, it'll be up tomorrow.
It's the last part.
There's a lot of shit to include.
I can't help it if these autistic fucks keep doing shit online.
Like, if Base Mama could shut the fuck up for a day and Sister Danger could stop making contradicting statements every other fucking minute, maybe I could get it done.
Yo, Base, by the way, Base Mama, I don't know if you got this, Barings interview with her.
Base Mama.
Yeah, no, I did.
Yeah, I listened to the whole thing.
And did you notice that people were responding, the four honored guests?
I think Shuan had asked.
Who the fuck's getting paid $20,000 to speak at this thing?
And Christina Hoff Summers responded and said, I'm only getting $1,000 in airfare.
Oh, really?
So if that's their biggest fucking speaker and she's only getting one grand in airfare and maybe a hotel room, what the fuck?
Who's getting $20,000?
Who are they budgeting for?
Because something's not right.
Did you find it interesting how the VIP party at a hotel is $13,000?
Yeah.
Yeah, we're going to rent the hotel bar out for $13,000.
Nice math.
Nice 178 IQ.
It really makes me think.
Okay, Pickle Rick, that's really good shit.
That's rough, dude.
Well, good luck on that.
I'm pumped, everyone.
Go check out Mr. Medical.
Yeah, it's going to be sick.
Excuse me.
It's Billy the Anti-Bully.
Billy the Anti-Bully.
Adam, Adam, get the name right.
Sorry.
All right, you guys have a good one.
Good stream, though, man.
All right, thanks, man.
Appreciate it.
Dude Fucking still 8,700 watching guys Like I don't know what to fucking I don't know what to say I mean, the fact that people were so interested, the fact that the chat was super intense following everything.
They were like, oh, Sargon did well there.
Or, oh, Spencer just owned him.
Or, oh, JF, exactly.
Or Styx, too.
Styx did very fucking well as well, and Sargon as well.
There was good points all around.
And by the way, just so everyone knows, I have a fucking chat on slow-mo 30 seconds.
So, you could only post every 30 seconds.
And that's how fast it was running.
The post was perfect.
All right, let's get through some Super Chats.
Do you have some time, dude?
Yeah, if you're up for me to stay, I like reading Super Chats.
Me too, and I might need to take a five-minute ride at some point, and if you want to take a break as well, do you want to take a break?
I'm good right now.
I'm sorry?
I'm good right now.
Let's do it.
All right, perfect.
Let's start from the beginning, and we'll try not to answer too many things, just like a brief...
Answer, just like, boom, and the next one, right?
Because we've got a couple to head through.
Jimbo Slice, five bucks.
Spencer, is there a difference between white racial traits and white culture?
And can non-whites be culturally white slash whites be culturally non-white?
Pretty sure you can answer that at some point.
We got...
I answered that one.
Oh, wait.
Am I at the...
Yeah, no, okay.
If Huddis...
You know what?
I'm going to fucking put the...
The screen here so we can all read together.
Here we go.
Land Protocol, five bucks.
Number two.
And that was number two worldwide.
Fright Supremacy, five bucks.
Gasly!
How does it feel?
How does Spencer feel about translucency?
Because he's a ghost.
Do you have to be 100% opaque to be included in the white ethnostate?
I think you are right.
I think you are right, Gasly.
Cridnik, two bucks.
I dedicate these funds to the leftist cancer awareness.
Troll of Metal, ten dollars.
Why do you think the ethno state is possible at this point?
Once you let the Jews here, you ruin any chance you have a nice country.
We HAPAs will fix the Jew problem if you whites allow.
Intense promises.
I'm not surprised we're banned from Germany at this point.
By the way, I was kidding when I said that.
Oh, really?
Oh, I was bummed.
We did it.
Banned from Germany.
Because they were starting to talk like, well, what happens if the Jews come in?
Ah, this is going to be a problem.
What are we going to do with this problem?
And I was like, shut it down.
Oh, man.
Hast's Awakening 20 New Zealander bucks.
The fact that people question the ethnostate possible establishment goes to show...
That they can't actually argue against the science of racial differences and the evidence of homogeneous societies are the best.
If this Jewess, again, or Jewess, sorry for mispronouncing, 1488, Helter Skelter ain't going to provide any shelter.
Genghis Bertis, $5.
So the alt-right is fine with socialism if it's under white people.
If so, what's wrong with the Soviets?
Are Slavs non-white?
Kissing girls is pretty gay fam.
Five bucks.
Nice name.
The only good ethno state is Uganda.
Show me the way, Richard.
Find the queen.
Kumpala.
Five dollars.
Hey, I sent JF an email at this time.
I wanted to send in a super chat, but it was loaded.
You don't need to read this out.
Just tell JF this.
Too fucking late.
Five bucks.
No niggers in my...
Gay Bathhouse, Jesus Christ.
Brittany Diaz, $10.
Why doesn't Sargon ask the same questions about blacks?
What makes a black a black most...
But that's not what...
What was being debated, but fair enough.
Most would say that all he has to do is look at them.
Why can't the same almost be applied to all whites?
Bill Z, five bucks.
All Sargon has to do is not live in our ethnostate as a self-identifying white.
I want it, and many others want it too.
He can live in multiculturalism.
Hey, give me a minute so I can grab some water and use the washroom, dude.
All right, I'll do it.
So, David Teens, $5.
My name is David Teens.
I'm the only one on Google.
Am I white enough for Richard's criteria?
I have difficulties.
Okay, German father, Puerto Rico mother are my kids.
Well, Richard Spencer has covered this in the past.
I think that Richard Spencer does not apply a super severe criteria.
I think he's open to have...
People who are one quarter or one half of another race.
I think that these people, Richard Spencer and Tara McCarthy in particular, probably even more than Richard Spencer, they are mostly interested in whether the person participates to a common goal.
If the person is really interested in being part of that country and identifying as part of that country.
Doug Jones, $5.
Sargon, I love Yemen, but you need to stop interrupting.
I'm really interested to hear Richard explain his position.
Absolutely.
I think that there were some dirty tactics used.
They were not dirty in the sense of, like, internet trolls level, but I think that all these guys are very intelligent, but there was a little bit of dirty, rough play here on the part of Sargon.
$5 from Mark Nautis.
Sargon keep asking Spencer for details on his ethno state.
It's his clear weakness.
And Spencer, stop talking over the top of people.
I'm sorry because I think I can increase the size of the screen.
Okay, this would be easier to read for me.
The answer is very simple.
Not all traps are gay.
I think they would have to.
If they are born in the ethnostate, I don't think they would be kicked out when we discover that they're gay.
Genji Berticus, $2 US, one for Jim.
Enterestan Hero, $11 US.
Sargon Stix can go live a multicultural...
Live can go live in multiculture and somewhere else.
If you are okay with living next to non-whites, do it somewhere else.
White country for whites.
Make your libertarian paradise work elsewhere.
Okay, so you are disagreeing with Sargon and Styx.
Queen Nick, $5 US.
I am of Italian ancestry.
Are Italians allowed in, or will the Gestapo round my family up and drown us in vats of prego?
I do think that they would be allowed in.
When I hear the ethno-nationalists talking, I think that most of them are open to much genetic diversity and racial diversity in their ethno-state.
Alright, so we go to the next England DG 50 bucks.
Spencer, so how would you address the treaty violations the US as a founded ethnostate, as you implied earlier, violated?
Which parts would you claim for your ethnostate and do you wish to decide where we should reside?
I don't think that Richard Spencer wants to decide himself.
I think he would be happy if a group of white people decided, made that decision.
Spicey after birth.
Spencer, would, in your view, a northern-western European ethnostate, as was historically the case for America, be more ideal than a pan-European one?
Northern Western European instead of Pan-European.
My guess, I don't know what Richard Spencer would answer, but my answer would be probably yes, it's probably closer to what Richard Spencer sees as the Western civilization, you know, and what he identifies as the...
The beautiful cultural products of the white race.
Brad Hominum, $10.
Aside from the obvious problems, Spencer's idea of a society sounds fucking boring, except for the inner circle, who will get access to all the black hookers, meth, and curries.
Okay, I guess I don't talk.
Yeah, yo, I was dying when I fucking listened.
I was reading the Super Chats.
I'm just like, oh my god.
These guys are great.
I think we have to answer these questions.
Yeah, I'll continue for a little bit.
Kenny, five dollars.
Thank you very much.
Fam, ten bucks.
Are gay traps allowed?
We did ask him that.
And he said no.
Dynamic Frog, five pounds.
It's Sargon White.
What do you think?
It's Sargon White.
For the definition of most technostatists, including Richard Spencer.
He is.
And they are totally fine with one quarter or one eighth black ancestry.
All right.
Martin Ehrlich, five bucks.
Is Roosh V white?
I would say so.
A yes as well.
Ryan, no?
I don't know enough about him.
I just don't know.
He seems pretty white to me.
Ryan MF, $10.
What effect would a white male state have on innovation?
Would America continue to import the best minds from all over the world?
Or just hope a few IQ Jews sneak in under the radar?
Jesus Christ.
What do participants think of freedom of association, at least for collective entities smaller than a certain size, instead of an ethnostate?
All right.
A Durish Ashkani again, five bucks.
Reminder that Persians, Iranians are the only Aryans, whites and snowmen.
There's hail Xurxes, gas all cum skins now praise Ahar Mazda.
You know when you read a full sentence and you don't know how many slurs you've just read?
Okay, fair enough.
CV Vitolo, $10.
Spencer doesn't understand that you can make up literally any arbitrary line and call it white or purple.
Argue with an expert.
You don't.
Your arguments are so bad.
No coherent theory of race formation.
David Dines, $5.
Andy, I'm 41 years old and I've never had to deal with this.
But my kids will.
Am I white?
Get to the bottom of the issue.
You caught this, Andy.
Eagles Nest, five bucks.
This is a dog pile.
Bring Kevin Logan.
I did.
No, I'm not going to bring Destiny.
To make it less unbalanced, please.
Lost Wingman, 07. $10.
Blood and Iron.
Was the means you retard, not the purpose?
Actual Justice Warrior, $10.
I'm half Irish, half Puerto Rican.
I have dark hair, dark eyes, tannish skin.
I have blue, blonde, brother and sister.
Are we all white or non-white?
Or are my siblings white and I'm not?
What do you think?
I think you follow it.
I don't think.
Yeah, I think you fall within Caucasians, I believe.
All right.
Todd Whalen, five bucks.
JF, can you explain biologically why a group of privileged white men are discussing politics?
Well, I don't know that we're that privileged.
I think we've worked very hard to make it happen.
But why is it men that discuss politics?
Well, it's because when we lived in tribes, that's what we observed when we came to North America, we saw the native tribes, and we saw that the men were handling politics because the ladies were less movable across the great territories.
So that's why men handled inter-tribes politics.
Sounds good.
Andy M, two bucks.
Richard needs to reread the USA, his history.
Darth Punjabi, $5.
The alt-right talks like Arab Islamic supremacist.
I have to agree with Richard and the alt-right movement, even if it doesn't favor me.
The red elephants, $10.
In the late 1800s, we only had 30 million people here.
We actually needed immigration.
And the immigrants we were accepting back then weren't low-IQ Somalis and crime-prone Mexicans.
Joshua Boast, $10.
Richard, did you, 30 minutes ago, differentiate Anglo-Saxons and Germanic?
Because both Angles and Saxons are both Germanic tribes from Anglin and Saxony, which are in modern-day Germany.
The Guardian.
What's up, bud?
Ten bucks.
I love the retardation going on.
How the fuck does Spencer know what Thomas Jefferson really believed?
He's picking and choosing his facts to suit his narrative.
He is selling a fabricated history.
Ark Lives Matter.
Five bucks.
Can Sargon explain why he wants the race that gave him his freedom to disappear?
Dan Dellinger.
Five dollars.
Question to Richard Spencer.
Isn't Russia predominantly white or in the realm of a white ethnostate?
Also, Adam Worski is a dick.
Oh, thanks, bud.
Can you answer that question, by the way?
So, isn't Russia predominantly white or in the realm of a white ethnostate?
Yeah, I think that some people could consider that.
Absolutely.
George Zoros Zemecki.
What's up?
Bud by Bucks.
Bring Destiny on.
It'll be fun.
No.
I think we've all had enough of Destiny.
He's a slandering motherfucker.
Damkin Southerner, $2.
A question for Richard and Woz.
Are Armenians white?
What do you think?
Armenians.
As far as I know, based on the two only Armenians I know, which are Anna Kasparian and the guy from System of Adam, they do look white.
All right.
Cool board, nine.
Five bucks.
Spencer is just a full-size destiny.
Red guy, $5.
Looks like us got a closeted gay punching bag versus a guy who calls himself Culture Warrior because some woman was fucking with his video games.
ZVXY123, $10.
Richard, do you have an objective measure for whiteness that isn't known?
That isn't, I know it when I see it, or DNA testing.
I think he was trying to explain that.
Problematic white knight, 10 bucks.
Yeah, number one.
Good job, Andy.
Now make sure your audience Googles USS Liberty, Lavina Fair, Havera transfer agreement, changing dead Jew numbers of the Auschwitz, Majnick, and Treblickenia, but still 6 mil.
Stryker Quiet, five bucks.
Where's Nick and Jim Medica when we need him?
You all saw him at the end there.
Hank McCoy.
Oh, sorry.
It was Billy.
My bad.
It was Billy.
Hank McCoy, five bucks to JF.
Are not our ideals, the summation and clarification of the various physical and physiologic...
Physically?
Oh, my God.
Physically?
Let me say that word.
My mouth is...
Let me read it.
Are not our ideals the summation and clarification of the various physical and psychological forces?
Psychological?
I'm a retard.
I should just fucking slap my hand in a door right now.
It's not dramatic.
But no, I do not think that...
Ideals are a different class of things.
They are not emergent properties from the world pushing into your psyche.
Ideals are...
Sentences, they are structured information that can be unpacked or superimposed onto reality.
All right.
Perfect.
James Kratos, 777, five bucks.
Richard Spencer, how would...
Sorry, I'm stuttering.
An economic...
Oh, my God!
You know what?
Let me just grab some...
If you want, I can do something.
James Kratos, five dollars.
How would an economy work in an ethnic state?
Styx, how would you define an economy in a libertarian classical state?
Well, it seems that people don't understand that all these guys agree on a sort of center-type economy.
There was no radical libertarian today.
Even Styx defines himself as a libertarian, but he's probably more of a libertarian in terms of non-obstruction.
But in terms of the economy, I think all these guys were...
There was not a single radical, so I think they would converge towards similar definitions.
Also, German Revolution of 1918-1919 by Jews.
Problematic White Knight, $2.
The Crimson Satire, $5.
To all, why do you conflate race and ethnicity?
Ethnicity is about nationality and culture, not race.
An ethnostate needs not to be racial identitarian.
That is correct.
Victor Carmine, $2.
Richard, isn't liberalism a soft form of communism?
I guess if you define liberalism...
Yeah, I guess that if you define liberalism as accepting the presence of a certain state, of a certain size, or services to the population, then you have converted a part of your economy to a communist-like model or socialist-like model, or what Sargon once called socialistic tendencies after refusing his definition later.
The Guardian, $5.
Someone is going to have to show me the study Richard Spencer is basing his claim on that philosophy and ideas are genetically inherited.
I don't know that he said genetically inherited.
I think that he said that the way I interpreted his statement is that ideas are passed on, they are inherited.
This inheritance requires genes.
It requires brains that are produced by genes.
At least that's what I took off, but I'm biased on the subject.
That's my view of ID and philosophy transfer.
Laura Loomer is talking about JQ at FuenteStream.
Totally not troll, PLN10.
KSWheels, $2.00.
Traps?
Hashtag traps are salt.
Traps aren't salt?
This is offensive.
Quid Nick, US $10.
Will someone from Richard's depleted and food-starved ethnostate please inform him that I too have a philosophy, but it is a much smarter and much more rational one than is, and my philosophy works.
Alright, well you seem to be happy in life.
Keep it up.
Bullrock, Canadian, $20.
Niche, beyond good and evil.
Question.
What is Richard Spencer's template to prevent his fantastic ethnostate from becoming an authoritarian supremacist juggernaut which will start World War II potentially?
I think there's lots of strumming of Richard going on here.
Richard doesn't seem to be a radical.
He doesn't seem to be radical on the political axis.
So I think that the ethnostate of Richard Spencer would look a lot like the United States.
That's what I get from him.
Anon Amouz, $10.
Richard, what's your favorite Moonman song?
That I don't know.
Reclusive Dusk, £5.
Transport that has changed in the last 100 years.
How it will affect genetics and race in the future?
Will the idea of an ethnostate become redundant?
I think that it will certainly increase race-mixing transportations.
Anderson Paladin, $5.
Another inquisition is my position.
That's extreme.
Worst Edomite ever, $5.
This $5 says sticks could beat you all to death with his 10.2.
Actually, he says his dick now is 10.3 inches right now.
Oh, there is growth?
He said he...
Oh, there is growth.
Sorry, I'm at the point of the stream now where I'm all stuttery.
Like, by the end, my brain just has to shut down and I get all stuttery, so sorry about that.
That's okay.
I like practicing my dictation as a voice actor.
Or it's $2.
Will fascism have a place in the ethnostate?
Not that I know, personally.
Anon Amou's $10.
Richard, how libertarian would your ethnostate be?
Would it have something akin to a First and Second Amendment?
I kind of asked him when I asked about libertarianism, and he was not standing with libertarianism.
So he seems pretty much to be where the United States are.
Trinathon242, $2 US.
Would your military be volunteer or conscription?
Good question.
Lee Yates, $10 US.
In the ethnostate, can we keep our Asian wives?
I sure hope you can.
Hey, dude, $77, $5 US.
Love what you're doing with the free speech streams.
Andy, would love to join one of your debates one day, all right?
Don't mean to email AndyWorsky at gmail.com.
I have someone going over all the emails tomorrow and making an Excel file of what you do, where you stand politically, your contact information.
I have someone vetting everyone right now.
Gregory Pierce.
The Virgin Donor.
We'll just give $2, and it will write a full paragraph.
The Chad Gregory Pierce donor gives $100, doesn't even care about leaving a message.
You're the best, manly.
Land Protocol, $5 US.
Hi, Jeff.
Hi.
Cassie Beast, $5.
Hashtag Wrenchless Lives Matter.
Whip it out for $2.
Adam lube up them kids' warski shine.
MDM, US $5, Mil and JF, you're making this time great with your sexy voices.
Pam, $10.
How will you enforce the interracial marriage in an ethnostate?
And how will you deal with the children of mixed-race couples?
Where will they be deported?
Personally, in my ethnostate, there would not be...
Increased rights for any races.
So to me, any citizen of the ethnostate would not be discriminated against based on their race.
Bexpire, $10, you.
Personally, for me, I'm not down for ethnostate.
I just think it's inhumane.
So that's why, personally, I haven't been convinced of it.
So that's just my personal opinion.
Dexfire, $10 US.
Oh la la.
You'd sound sexy even if you were talking about bowel movement.
Falcon Millennial, $10 US.
Richard Spencer, do you tongue butter turtle caves?
I have no idea what that means.
Nigger Weeb, $2 US.
Is Obama white?
If not, why not?
I don't think he is.
Because he's black.
Ryan Normie, US $10.
For the white nationalist Christians, was Jesus white or non-white?
That's a good question.
I think he was extremely...
Black, I think.
According to the movie Dogma.
I am curious what Richard's stance on tongue-buttering turtle caves is.
I have no idea what that means.
He means like licking a turtle cave.
Wait, wait, wait.
Turtle cave?
Turtle caves.
I don't know what that is.
I'm going to assume it's a bit of a troll, but fair enough.
Okay.
Anon Amuse, $10.
Richard, how libertarian would your...
Oh, that we've read.
Yep, that one was read, yeah.
How can we...
Okay.
England, DDJ, $20.
Don't be moronic.
Woes, hard for you.
There's a difference between a red bone, but you can't tell at sight which genetic traits carry over to make them a better member of society on-site.
Well, you can to a certain extent.
You can do averages on races.
Thomas Fluxley, £5.
Richard, you say religion and state give legitimacy to each other, yet claim to believe in science.
Why should you give legitimacy to this?
Good question.
Attica Ray, 75 NT, Spencer and Millennial, how do you propose to label and place mixed-race families and people in your theoretical ethnostate?
Good question.
God Howard, $2 US.
Kevin Logan is a fat ginger bitch.
Jesus Christ.
Welcome from the north.
$5 C. Thank you, Kevin, for showing up.
It was getting more one-sided than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
Now unblock me on Twitter, bitch.
Pinkalo, $5 CA.
Question for Jeff.
What is your stance on the separatist movement and creating an independent francophonic Quebec?
I am a Quebec separatist.
I support the separation of Quebec from Andy Worski.
Paul Cornelius, $5 US.
Jeff, can you help Sargon and Spencer understand they are arguing the difference between 18th century empiricism and 19th century idealism?
You seem to have understood something that I do not understand there, but it seems that you may be right.
Pastor Gatter Coot, US $2.
Is Sean King white?
Sean King is at the exact middle between white and black.
He's the defining line.
Sean King is the race line.
All right.
Anon Amuz, $10 CA.
Richard, a libertarian would your ethnostate be?
Would it have something I can say?
Oh, I asked this one.
And he said...
Oh, wait.
Did I ask?
No, I didn't.
I was about to.
I had it on the list, but not enough time.
Sorry.
Richard, how libertarian will your ethno state be?
Would it have something akin to the First and Second Amendment?
If so, how would you stop people from practicing other cultural things like Islam?
Interesting question.
Cassie B, two bucks.
Dickie Spencer is actually cute.
Egg Rolex, 20 bucks.
The white ethno state is not unworkable because it occurred for hundreds of years in multiple places.
The question whether it will be peaceful or not.
And that is only decided by those who oppose white interests.
God bless.
Ten Pounds from Badass Bab.
Andy, I'm full of joy for being born a goy, but if I see you, I'll hire a Jew, Ray Sworski.
Invite Nightmare Fuel and AIU, please, even momentarily, maybe in the future.
Definitely.
Five bucks from...
I go PN.
Fuck you, Andy, for having V on.
Now I'm having...
Now I'm out five bucks and I have to keep listening.
Worst enemy ever.
Five dollars.
Once you go black, you'll never go back and get your society back.
Fact.
The Guardian.
Five bucks.
Richard Spencer's argument is that his opinion matters because he...
Believes that he's the most important person in the world.
Dude, you aren't that important.
Furious George, two bucks.
Sargon, would you consider moving to Iceland?
Channeling Bowdoin, ten dollars.
Liberalism is moral syphilis and I'm stepping all over it.
Nilo Rydestorm, two New Zealand dollars.
Andy legitimately said, guys, guys, guys, guys.
I pulled a Reuben at one moment.
Though I think...
I don't want to toot my own horn, but...
I did better than fucking Ruben.
Striker Quiet, $10.
Kevin is wrong.
Most blacks in the U.S. are immigrants, and many of the remainder are their children.
They are not even African Americans.
This is bullshit, and they don't belong here.
The Guardian, $5.
Richard Spencer wants an aristocracy.
How do I pronounce that?
Aristocracy?
Is that right?
Aristocracy?
Can you point it?
Where is it written?
I don't see it.
Aristocracy, right?
Yeah, aristocracy, but now you're learning English from a Frenchman, so I'm not sure that I can teach you the right way.
Richard, you want a kingly ruler, so Richard Spencer, do you think you should be the kingly ruler, get fucked?
I don't think Richard Spencer advocated for aristocracy, I would say.
I think this podcast, by the way, is making me at least somewhat smarter, or more smart, sorry, because I'm learning a lot of new words.
My stuttering is struggling to pronounce these words.
I hear you guys always say it, but my stuttering is like, what are you doing right now with your fucking mouth?
T-Y-E-O, 200, I think, yen it was.
Is that yen?
Maybe.
Yeah, I don't know.
Yeah, so your message, Richard, is we was white gangs.
Jeremy W, five bucks.
Andy is not only...
Sorry, Andy is the only non-terrible person in the stream.
You should avoid all these people in the future.
But I still love you if you don't.
But that's your opinion and free speech is free speech.
Xenomancer, 20 bucks.
Does Richard Spencer believe that he's one of these people born to rule?
Academics, please respond.
We do kraut here.
Christopher Tavares, 20 bucks.
Good stream, Andy.
I have a question for Woz and Spencer.
Why does Logan's apathy to your issue of race receive such anxiousness compared to dealing with Sargon?
Interesting question.
Duncan Southerner, 2 bucks.
V is God.
Furious George, 5 bucks.
The road...
Wigan Pier by George Orwell.
Richard, you don't represent your tribe.
You can't flee the V. Brazen Bunny, two bucks.
There is only one race, human.
Chris B, five bucks.
So Sargon thinks censoring harmful propaganda by foreign agents is a bad thing.
Whitey Siscum, 20 bucks.
Richard Tis for three and not for me, Spencer, over a year with that censorship shit.
One bucks from Billy B. Thank you.
Anderson Paladin, $10.
Is anime white?
M4, 3 OD, $2.
Subvert stopped by telling the truth about communism.
The Guardian, $5.
Richard Spencer, you aren't for freedom.
You are for ruling over others.
You claim anything and do anything to get your way.
You are not principled.
Serbian Space Marines, $5.
Spencer uses the same logic as Antifa does.
Anti-equality doesn't seem so.
I don't think he's ever said that.
10 Pounds from MattMill30.
I have an initial question and follow-up question.
Which of the Almir twins is white?
Considering they are twins, would the other twin integrate with the ethnostate?
Stutter there, sorry.
Larry Steele, $5.
Sargon and V can only logically support anarchism because every other system of government violates individual rights.
$20 from black magic.
Can we at least agree that feminism and the welfare state are the biggest threats to a Western civilization?
Of course, these will be perpetuated, so as long as we keep decoupling rights from responsibilities, repeal the 19th.
Do you want to read on?
Worst Sotomite Ever, $10.
All right.
Worst Sotomite Ever.
When is Spencer writing his fantasy novel about the authoritarian ethnostate?
And is it based on 1984 since it's also an extreme right authoritarian regime with just a dash of white propaganda?
Biker Quiet, US, $2.
How well did that work out, V?
Perseus Gold, $5.
Why is Sargon so opposed to naked, hypercritical self-interest among whites when everyone else gets away with it?
Yeah.
Very good question.
Gabriel Lopez, 200 har.
Is Richard really sympathetic to socialism, even though only for whites?
If so, wouldn't alt-left be more fitting?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I think we asked that because, by the way, you're Gabriel, man.
200 fucking bucks, man.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Thank you so much.
Fruit Pirates.
There is a whole spectrum of solutions in between civic and ethnic nationalism.
True.
It doesn't have to be about races.
This is more intuitive as well.
Absolutely true.
Brazen Bunny, $2 US.
Get Malcolm from the North on.
You need a black.
Versus Gold, $5.
Jumping from freedom to tyranny?
Sounds like Plato's cycle of regimes.
Nothing to see here.
Democracy by its nature, producing tyranny over time.
KCB, $2 to help find JF's H-Sounds fund.
Whip it out, Adam.
Curious George, $2.
Epic win by Carl.
Lick your wounds, rabbit dogs.
I think you are biased.
Striker Quiet, $5 US.
This is already happening in SF.
SWPLs are pulling their children from school full of Chinese and Koreans.
The school?
Our parents build.
Paul Cornelius, $2 US.
Kevin Logan, how will you misrepresent Sargon tomorrow?
Joestar Yabuki, $100 knock.
It's all about survival.
14 words.
By the way, it was weird seeing Sargon and Kevin on the same team.
That was like the strangest thing I've ever seen.
Okay, because they are opponents normally?
I don't know much about their dynamic.
Kevin's more on the SJW side and Sargon has, you know, obviously bashed SJWs.
So they've been against each other for a very long time.
So very interesting to see them team up today.
Anderson Paladin, $6.66.
Like the devil.
Right-wing anime death squads.
The Big KK, US $5.
Sargon, your objections can be summarized quite concisely as more morality.
Objective morality isn't real.
Why do you act like it is?
No-Faceman, $2.
We need oriental cartoons to save white identity.
Jason Grutus.
$50 Australian.
Arrived late.
Thanks for a fascinating discussion.
Lots to think about.
Land protocol.
U.S. $5.
This is for Sargon.
National Socialist.
100 U.S. White Pride.
worldwide.
No first time.
*laughter*
No Faceman, $5 CA.
Spencer claims to love white identity, yet he wants a white ethno state that will be very oriental.
Anime and oriental despotism.
Nice.
Enter us an euro.
Oops.
$5 US.
Where did I lose?
I was up.
You got too low.
Sorry.
Oh my god.
Oh my god.
Okay, there.
$5 US.
Bring on Andrew Anglin next time.
Andy Ray Swarski.
You will be more current voice.
TGRX 85 $5 CA.
Press 1 if this has changed your perspective towards the alt-right.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who changed their perspective.
Some for the worst, some for the best.
Julia CA $5.
Andy, you're the best.
Thanks for being such a great mod.
Prince Charming.
US $2.
See, that was an important moment in the conversation, because I wasn't sure if in the end Richard Spencer is a man of the people, but he is not.
He felt bad about being a serf in the ethnostate.
The Internet Scum.
Go ahead.
Yeah, I'll read a few.
The Internet Scum, five bucks.
Rich, what the fuck is a SAR gun?
A pistol that shoots weaponized...
Bird flu.
Ryan, $5.
Kevin, subscribers to black.com.
He's a straight-up cock and probably thinks that there are more than two genders.
Sage311x, $10.
I'm alt-right, and the only way ethnostates will be formed stably and nonviolently will be through classical liberalism and democracy.
It must be agreed upon and voted upon fascism, communism, monarchies fail.
Two bucks from...
Critical.
Kakastani.
Two bucks.
No step.
Christopher McClure.
Five dollars.
In the tech industry, the demand for employees is so high that we have to give out work visas.
How would this work in an ethnostate?
Bold like a leopard.
Five bucks.
Sean King for King.
The new white ethnostate.
Petey.
Yeah, Petey.
Two bucks.
Great job, Andy.
Maybe a few people, fewer people next time.
I think we started out with a few people and then we added more.
A Pisces Gamer, five bucks.
Andy, please get JF off as your co-host.
He's clearly biased in the debate and he is lying and being a slimy fuck, but that's why I bring on people on the other side as well.
I think JF and I are pretty opposites in a lot of ways and it keeps the show interesting in my opinion.
Yeah.
Land Protocol, five bucks.
I love listening to these debates.
When I do bookkeeping, work early in the mornings.
Keep it up, dude.
MH3D, five bucks.
My dad kissed a sleeping retard.
Gabriel Lopez, 20R.
JF Spencer said he supported us.
Oh yeah, I think we read that one.
We read that one, yeah.
Yeah, but thank you, Gabriel.
You are supporting us a lot, always.
Thank you.
You are part of the BDC, which is called the Big Dick...
Club, people who donate a lot of money.
Thank you so much.
Lost Wingman, 07. Five bucks.
Jean François.
How do you pronounce that?
Jean François.
Jean François.
Banning ideas is not censorship.
I never said that.
Please go back to watching Coach Redville's balls.
You don't ever have to add your link, by the way.
On the streams.
I can never remember how to spell your name, so I have to go onto your Twitter and then open up your YouTube from there.
Ryan, 10 bucks.
Kevin and Sargon are subscribed to blacked.com.
Totally not troll.
10 PLN.
Would you censor ISIS?
Down forward punch, five bucks.
I went through JF's case in detail and confirmed JF's story.
Destiny grossly overexact.
Yep, I think he was definitely doing some slander there.
Jonathan Young, five bucks.
Andy, what do you think of Trump's Twitter rampage today?
Did not see it.
Did you hear about that?
The Trump's Twitter rampage?
No.
What was it?
I have no idea.
I'll have to check that out.
Definitely.
Flat Horizons, $10.
Bring back Destiny, aka the alt-right, Kryptonite.
You would back the fuck off the entire panel.
Publish my comment.
You heard it here first.
Totally not troll.
$25, PLN.
Would you censor ISIS?
Spencer Caton, $5.
Sargon needs to get beat up, lol.
What a classical skeptic faggot.
I do not endorse violence, and that's a very terrible thing to do, in my opinion.
Yeah, don't attack people for their ideas.
Just challenge them in debates.
Ignaot the Moon Knight.
Yeah, it's true.
We'll get Jim on sometime, but Billy's usually around what Billy would normally say.
Our regime isn't transitioning from democracy to tyranny.
A democracy fails due to corruption if it's institutions.
Example, no.
Seth Vidko, two bucks.
I saw Richard Shirtless in Gaval.
He's ripped.
100 euros.
Yeah, by the way, thank you so much.
And I already promoted this, so thank you so much.
We really appreciate it.
Just in case, $10.
Jared Taylor, debate next.
People have been saying that all over the place, so I'll definitely have to message Jared.
Jessica Ustess, five US, five bucks.
JF, if Spencer's ideals were implemented long enough, wouldn't there be bottlenecks, both population and genetic wise?
Asked this earlier, but I wonder.
Not necessarily.
You build your hypothesis on the assumption that...
That the other races bring useful diversity into our genes, but it doesn't have to be the case.
Walter Dedman, five bucks.
Supreme Führer Worski, will you bring Spencer in on your Hasbro final solution tour?
Maybe Quebec, Quebec, $10.
Thank you for making this thing.
It takes courage to publicly have controversial debates.
A lot better than cat videos.
I agree.
Herpderp, 177666.
Five bucks.
Bring TJ on.
I definitely want to get...
I already spoke to TJ on some DMs and he's very interested in coming on in the future.
Jeremiah B, five bucks.
Adam, eat my pickle worski.
Lord hate, two bucks.
Hill, yeah.
I think you meant hell yeah, but hell yeah.
Derek Meister, 10 bucks.
The guy fighting for relevancy, Cult of Dusty, is criticizing you for platforming Spencer and accusing you of cashing in despite not even knowing what's happening with the cash.
Thoughts?
I'm going to be paying out some people who are on the show.
It's going to go investing into future shows and a better set.
And it helps support the show to keep us going.
And Cult of Dusty continuously bitches on fucking Twitter and adds nothing to the conversation.
I hope he keeps making his fucking dumb VR videos where he swings fucking dildos around in VR.
I'm sure it's quite enlightening and more entertaining than this stream.
Fuck you, Dusty.
Fuck off.
George.
Hieronomous, $5.
Get Chris Cantwell on.
He is interesting and strong arguments.
England, DG, $2.
Spencer is a straight-edge moron.
Vaughn Cobra, $20.
I watched to hear Jim lie about when he will do his video next.
Every time I talk to him.
No.
Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.
Herp Derp, 177666, 10 bucks.
Why doesn't Richard get a wife and have some kids if he's so afraid of the future of his genes?
3 equals D, 5 bucks.
Oh my God, Richard was being snide and also interrupted a lot too.
Jesus, get the fuck out.
JF, what a bad moderator.
You know what's my goal in life?
It's that I get as much emails like this than I get emails saying the other thing, which is that actually Sargon was interrupting many times.
And so I think you guys are emotional, but I did an okay job.
I was pretty much fair.
I had a position.
I had an intellectual position, but I was fair to the ideas, fair to the individuals.
And I stayed as, you know, non-emotionally invested as possible.
I did pop in a couple of times to say I disagreed with Richard's viewpoints.
And that was my job.
So, yeah, we're still learning.
We're still learning.
Absolutely.
10 bucks from Sergeant Stiper.
Thank you so much.
To the person asking about...
Identifying what is black instead of what is white.
Tell that to the black nationalists who call elders, swell, etc.
Too white.
Turd Forger, $10.
On the first day, God created the public space.
On the second day, God created JF in his image.
On the third day, JF embarrassed all the skeptics in the worst way possible in the public space.
That's, by the way, my favorite thing that you ever say.
When you say something about public space.
I actually, by the way, yesterday, I did a binge watch on a lot of your videos, dude.
I watched a few of your videos, but I binge-watched a bunch of them.
Which one did you watch?
I watched about 20 of your videos in a row.
Oh, shit.
Honestly, my favorite one.
I mean, besides your Bashing Krauts science and all this, there were some really funny ones.
I really enjoyed you.
I don't know where you were doing this, some podcast, but talking about...
Education on YouTube is better than at a university.
That was the best explanation.
Like you said, in one stream or in one year of YouTube, you will have taught more people than you if you were to be teaching at a school for like 100 years or something.
And it's so true.
Today, for example, we had a stadium full of people, like a small stadium.
It's crazy.
Amazing.
Yeah, fucking crazy.
England DG, two bucks.
A group of white people make that decision, fail JF.
The Spectacular Wanderer Inc, two bucks.
Not usually a fan of Worski, but this was a great show.
Fuck you.
Thank you for your two bucks, you fucking cunt.
I'm just talking.
PopTVTV, what's up, buddy?
Five bucks.
Take my money, you Canadian beautiful bastard.
Thank you.
Again, with our two bucks.
Fuck beautiful Canadian bastard.
When the grammar costs something.
Ah, it happens.
It happens.
Look at me.
I'm a mumbling mess right now.
My stuttering intensifies.
Flat Horizons, $20.
Why are people upset by the notion of a nation for only whites?
An overwhelming global minority.
Anyways, Israel for Jews is seen as legitimate.
Why not whites?
Joe, Asian word, Sanka, $5.
Sorry, Sakana.
Five bucks.
JF just pisses me off.
Sargon was not only the one playing dirty.
Spencer came in out of the gate being slimy, disrespectful, and throwing at-homes.
That's true.
I agree.
He did.
He was a little bit ambitious there.
Do you want to read from here?
All right.
So Lan Protocol, $5.
Bring on.
Next time, do it.
No bows.
Do it.
Lol.
No, not this person.
Crash Pelican.
$5 US.
Woes versus stick would be better.
Spencer and Sargon were the intellectual lightweights on this topic, despite their name recognition.
Well, yeah, we did have an exchange of sorts, but it was...
I have to say, I'm fascinated by what happened.
It was not that much an exchange of ideas.
It was two people very talented to fuck each other up who did their best, and it was beautiful.
It was not like two brutes.
It was two very refined debaters that are not perfect intellectually, but they know their stuff.
Three equals D. U.S. $2.
Jeff, does that Richard Spencer dick taste that good?
People have accused me of defending Coach Red Pill, Tara McCarthy, Richard Spencer.
I always defend ideas, and I work for the debate to advance in a way that's interesting for the public.
That's all I care about.
Platter reasons, $10 US.
Hitler did nothing wrong.
Well, that's kind of an overstatement.
Jesus Christ, I disagree with that statement.
No, you disagree with my statement that it's an overstatement?
I just think that Hitler did something wrong.
Something's wrong.
Jesus, no, I disagree.
Hitler killed a bunch of fucking Jews, man.
What are you talking about?
I'm saying, I'm saying, Hitler did some things wrong.
I also disagree with Flat Horizons, is what I'm trying to explain to you.
The autism is high tonight, and you're nervous.
This whole Richard Spencer thing made you nervous.
You're not the same anymore.
Flat Horizons.
No, Neorat, $5 US.
This is for JF to read.
Well, here I am, baby.
Like my Super 88 system, I got it at Chunkies for $2.
Shitty-gitty-ash.
I don't know what that means.
Nacho kind of people, $2 US.
Show Bob and Vegana?
Okay.
Christy Dracovi, $10 US.
What is your take on Theod Rose Fikri's ideas on racial identity?
I have no idea who that is.
John Favids, $10 US.
Warsky, great host, hottest show in town, bravo.
Xenomancer, $5 US.
Get JF to translate his rip-off report on air.
My rip-off report?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Interest an euro.
$5 US.
I dare you to do a stream that discusses the JQ.
I guarantee your channel will be shut down and will be unpersoned.
And if you try this, Ray Swarsky.
All right?
Well, I don't think that sounds like something that Ray Swarsky would like to do.
Break here, $2 US.
Did anyone read my superchats?
We did.
AW, $5 US.
You heard it here first.
Andy thinks the Japanese ethnostate is evil and immoral.
Let's bomb them again.
For real.
Love you, Warsky.
Richie, $20 US.
Congratulations, Andy.
Great stream.
Eye of the Tiger status?
Unlocked.
Thank you, Richie.
My $5 super chat went missing, Andy.
Well, that's too bad.
I hope we're going to catch it again if we scroll.
No, I think that was from before.
We weren't able to read all super chats.
It would literally be an entire stream of super chats.
Thank you for supporting, though.
Trillin Flossin, $10 US.
Congratulations on the huge, Trump huge stream.
I haven't watched yet, so it better be awesome.
Hopefully you are getting more smart, smarter, bro.
Keep on Trillin and Flossin.
Matt Ruffer, $5 US.
Richard Spencer did advocate that there were those born to rule.
By that suggestion, you are advocating for some form of aristocracy.
Well, it's different to say...
That the fact is that some people are born to rule and that I advocate for this fact to be maintained and desirable.
That's two things.
Descriptive versus prescriptive.
Ivy Sparks, $2 US.
How tall is Jeff?
I think 5 '6".
Matthew Miller, £2.
Please actually answer my previous question.
I'm sure we did.
Mika Curtis, $2 US.
Rich seems like he looks at himself and jerks off.
Really?
I hope you become bigger than H3H3 podcast.
We are bigger.
We are.
I feel like Richard Spencer has a hard time with grasping the fact that a culture can never be lost as long as its heritage is still celebrated and race is something that can exist in multiple generations.
Culture can be lost.
There are languages that are disappearing every year on the Earth.
Flat Horizons, $5 US.
Open borders for Israel.
Sigurd Aldorsen, $5 US.
You need to get Mike Enoch to contribute to one of these debates.
He can articulate the alt-right points better and more accurately than most.
That is true.
This is a man we could get at some point.
Yeah, and by the way...
Well, I disagree with a lot of his points.
I did hear a few of his streams.
He's fucking really harsh to a lot of people.
But it's pretty entertaining to listen to.
He did watch a stream of ours, too.
He was talking about it on his show.
On the related videos, Kronos posted.
So that's pretty interesting that he was watching.
Here, I'll read on from here for a little bit.
And almost done.
Almost done.
Yep.
Max Crescent, $1,001, $5.
Hard Ops is the best blender plug-in out there.
Also, BoxComp.
Why are you guys reading Super Chats for every half an hour?
Because we can't interrupt the show.
Sorry about that.
No.
Sorry, my cousin just walked in.
What's going on?
Oh, yeah.
Please have that guy T on as well.
Yeah, we will.
Black ethno-nationals coming on from a libertarian point of view.
Dale Ritter, $5.
Hey, JF, do you support an ethno-state?
I'm pretty sure he's already answered that question.
If so, have you made any videos on that topic that you can point me to?
Have you?
I don't really have a full video about this.
I give hints of my views here and there.
Alright, sounds good.
Hey, may you read for just one second, dude?
Yep, so we have Dusty J, $5 US.
Andy, why are you keeping Chris locked in your basement?
Yeah, that's true.
That's pretty inhuman.
That's inhuman behavior from Andy, who claims to like humans.
Let him out and black on the show already.
$5 US.
Black cat.
Jeff, you kick ass.
Excellent job, Andy.
You're embarrassing the skeptic.
Cry your orbit.
Go ahead.
Cryo Hermit, two bucks.
Where are you going to go from here?
12k viewers.
Wow.
Yeah, probably like 15, 20k.
I say we shoot for that, right, JF?
We shoot for numbers that you don't even see right now on streams.
That's it, man.
It will be the future.
There will be more people on YouTube.
Nibuchad Nectar, two bucks.
Could JF...
Please laugh in French for me.
Muahahaha.
There you go.
Totally not a troll.
Attend PLN.
MSN tomorrow.
Adam Worski sending money to Spencer.
Dr. Jargon, 100 sec.
JF is my favorite.
JF is my favorite in this anime, but he should definitely have stepped in a few more times when Spencer and Mill went batshit.
Something stupid, five bucks.
Thanks for the unbanned.
P.S. I saw the Liz porn.
Her pussy looks like a salacious crumb sitting on Jabba's belly.
Keep up the great streams, Adam.
LiloRidestorm, five New Zealand dollars.
No, my five bucks had a glitch and didn't show.
I've contacted YouTube support and they fixed it and gave me a refund.
So I'm giving it back now.
Love, Andy.
All right.
Thank you so much.
Fuck you, two, two, two, two, two.
Two bucks.
Are you sure you're almost done?
Yep.
Ultra grade, five bucks.
Disappointed in Sarkand and Spencer.
They act like two teen bitches.
Sticks with only a mature one.
And JF did great.
Matthew Miller, five pounds.
First, which Almir twin was white.
We already couldn't answer that one.
Second, how would the other...
I don't get this.
I don't get this.
Well, because it's just funny.
He's trying to split the heirs and twins.
It's very funny.
Okay.
An interest and hero, $10.
I apologize for my super chat dyslexia.
Hitler did some things wrong.
One, his country lost the war.
He didn't actually gas the Jews.
Now we're dealing with the consequences in this nightmare.
All right.
I'll just give you one second here.
All right.
Well, I think it's going to be the end of the stream.
Yes, guys, thank you so fucking much.
JF, any final thoughts, my friend?
Man, I'm just...
There's no word.
And silence in front of the beauty that we just saw is what is deserved here.
Respect and silence and love to everyone.
That was a beautiful, beautiful stream.
Thank you, everyone, for watching.
What a great time.
Sorry for the big stuttering at the end there.
I start to get tired and stutter a little bit more.
But that stream was fucking very interesting, very awesome, great debate, and hopefully we'll have more like that.
Thank you very much.
Anything else, Jeff?
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection