Tarl Warwick (StyxHexenHammer666), author of Critical Race Theory Debunked—a #1 Amazon new release—exposes CRT’s Marxist and third-wave feminist roots, ignored by corporate media like CNN and MSNBC. A former liberal Christian turned occultist, he critiques the Democratic Party’s weak candidates (Harris, AOC) and warns Biden’s cognitive decline risks backlash over COVID-19 and inflation. Warwick links January 6th hearings to a "political witch hunt," comparing it to post-9/11 overreach, where groups like the ADL colluded with PayPal to silence dissent. He predicts censorship will fail long-term as tech evolves and populism resists totalitarian control. [Automatically generated summary]
Carl Warwick is a popular YouTuber and author who has amassed half a million subscribers on YouTube for his honest and analytical takes on politics, culture, and religions.
Warwick, aka Styx Hexenhammer 666 is no stranger to debate and goes up against some of the biggest names out there.
His latest book, Critical Race Theory Debunked, has already reached number one new release status on Amazon.
Today's episode is sponsored by Elevate Farms.
Elevate Farms is a technology and IP-based indoor farm that produces traditional farm-grown equivalent products at wholesale market price with a global footprint.
Go to elevate.farm for more information.
Tarl, thanks for joining me.
How have you been?
I've been well, and I hope that you're well too.
Oh, thank you very much.
I want to jump right into your book.
It's on critical race theory, a hot topic, obviously.
What compelled you to write a book about this?
Was there one person or thing that made you put a pen to the paper on this topic?
Well, I had made a video debunking critical race theory based on the five basic premises that were put forth by its academic proponents.
And I saw it on a Vox article.
So I took it from a left-leaning site, actually.
And what I figured is a lot of times there's nothing that's really short for people to digest.
And not everyone has the time to read four or five hundred pages.
So I figured that I'd make a fairly short booklet that in a concise manner just goes through the claims of critical race theory's own academic proponents, debunks them, and then adds a little bit on to the end.
And it's more concise for readers that they may be on the go and they don't really have more than maybe a few minutes at a time actually to read.
Yeah, I mean, obviously this reflects with the reader because it's gone so quickly up to number one.
And I noticed that a lot of your books, they're pretty low price.
Is that because they're all fairly short?
Is that why?
No, I hold the price down artificially because another thing that I understood years ago when I started editing books, this is one that I wrote, but many of them I've edited, is that initially on Amazon years ago, I ran into this problem where everything was either prohibitively expensive.
It was a $40, $50 hardcover, which as a poor kid at the time was out of my price range unless it was something really interesting, including for short works, or it was low price, but it wasn't in a proper modern format.
And so what I set out years ago to do is simply to format things properly, edit them line by line, get rid of all of the mistakes, get rid of all the spelling errors, because people had been uploading primitive PDF file scans from sometimes 10, 15 years ago with their interior files.
And the problem is that those original manuscripts had all of the original mistakes and problems.
Some of them even had like writing in the margins and things like that.
And I couldn't imagine why anyone would buy them.
That's definitely a good idea.
Now, I've been talking to people a lot about CRT, as it's called lately.
And there's so much obfuscation on this topic.
And I want to get your opinion on this.
Joy Reed, for example, she had on the woman who says she coined the term.
They try to completely separate it from Marxism and intersectionality.
Do you find that to be what they're doing these days?
Yeah, they're trying that definitely.
The problem for them is that critical race theory's own academic proponents in their fourth premise openly admit to not only Marxist but third wave feminist influence.
Now, they don't see a problem with that.
I mean, in the academic sense, because they think that Marxism is okay or even a good thing.
The problem is that a lot of people that are pushing critical race theory aren't even aware of this.
If they really believe that Marxism is fine, whatever, that's their opinion.
But they should be aware of the fact that that's actually an influence on critical race theory.
And the problem is that a lot of the corporate media sites, CNN, MSNBC, even the Vox article, largely don't admit to that actual Marxism.
One of the problems that I identified in my own little booklet on the subject is really just the fact that people, they're not even meaning to be disingenuous.
They simply don't know.
Nobody has told them that Marxism is explicitly part of it.
And I've noticed, and we can talk about this maybe a little bit. is actually that if you take critical race theory and you look at it in the broader sense, really it's Marxism in the pure sense.
The only difference is that class theory has been replaced with racial theory.
So instead of poor versus the bourgeois or poor versus the rich or whatever, the Kula class that gets purged, it's really about different racial groups or ethnic groups, as it may be.
So do you think they're just muddying the waters to try to use that as a method to push it as far as they can push it?
Or is there some other end goal here?
I think that the proponents of it at the top definitely are trying to muddy the waters.
I think that the 99% of people that would actually support critical race theory are simply, they're not informed about it.
They don't know exactly what they're promoting, specifically because all of the trusted sources like we would have on YouTube or whatever, all of the authoritative sources are telling you, no, no, no, it's barely even leftism.
It's certainly not socialism or communism or anything like that.
No, no, no, no.
They're just paranoid.
I've been called literally for calling out critical race theory, paranoid and far-right extremist and things like that for suggesting that there's Marxist influence into it, even though it's openly admitted by its academic proponents.
Some of the legal scholars that were involved in shaping what critical race theory in the unified theory sense actually meant are self-proclaimedly influenced by Marxism.
They don't hide it.
They just don't see the problem with it.
And I think that the real big problem is the disconnect between the academic, like the Ivory Tower people that go into critical race theory and the vast majority of people that are proposing it who will go out of their way to vehemently deny the fact that there's any leftism involved there beyond the mundane armchair liberal.
For sure.
And I see it a lot from Joy Reed, that Mark Lamont Hill guy.
They really want to say, oh, you haven't read the academic papers.
You haven't talked to the woman who coined the term, even though herself is also the, sees herself as the creator of intersectionality.
So I think what they're trying to do is like what along the lines of what you said is get it out to as many people as possible.
And the damage has already been done once they start indoctrinating people with it.
And if they have to learn that it's about communism down the line, well, then they're already going to be like, oh, well, you know, it's got good points.
It's just about equality and equity.
I'm sure that goes along with it.
Now, you've been a YouTuber for a long time, I've noticed.
You're grinding it out for like at least a decade from what I can see.
Have your opinions changed over the years and how much of that has been affected by different people's comments or criticisms?
Yeah, I've changed over the years.
Initially, when I first got onto YouTube, it was literally just as a joke because back in 2007, when I first arrived on YouTube, nobody was going to make a living being a YouTuber or anything like that.
It was just uploading cat videos or something like that.
Yeah, I didn't even cover politics.
At first, it was mainly spiritual issues, some philosophy.
I got into psychedelia and the drug war and things related to it.
And that was sort of the launching point into politics.
And people can go and look this up if they want to.
If you sort my videos for the oldest first, you will quite clearly see I was essentially a leftist many years ago.
But then the left sold out.
Obama sold out.
Liberals in general sold out.
My views didn't honestly change.
It's just that the groups that were representing those views have morphed over time.
I fit in by 2012 more with the Ron Paul Revolution than I had with the anti-war left not even a half a decade prior.
I found that sad and they're selling out as completed at this point because now they're literally supporting political witch hunts and opposing the rights of the accused.
We see this with the January 6th earrings going on, I think possibly even live as we're speaking now.
It's the most insane thing I've ever seen.
I haven't seen anything like this since just after 9-11 when the government was trying to justify rummaging through people's trash to find out whether they were patriotic or not.
We'll get to that in a couple of minutes.
Justin, I think we have some B-roll of sticks as a first oldest video, whatever the oldest video is on your channel.
I just want to, there you are.
You look a lot like one of our editors, frankly, here.
Shout out to editor Sid.
So do people have misconceptions about you, do you think?
You're pretty, I'm confident in saying you're a Trump supporter now.
People probably wouldn't think that right away.
When I first saw your videos, I think it was probably around 2016.
And you're one of the people who, I don't know how much you agree with Tim Poole, but I would put you in the same camp of people who have changed their opinion.
I've watched change their opinions over the last four or five years.
Do people usually have a different conception about you when they meet you or first see you?
You mean in person, like on the street or something?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, generally, I mean, I've got the long hair, I've got the tie-dye and stuff.
So when I go out, if someone is not familiar with who I am, probably think I'm a hippie or something like that.
In all honesty, though, the people that have recognized my work kind of get it.
But my views, honestly, technically speaking, they haven't actually changed that much.
Literally, it's the paradigm of politics that changed more than anything that I was doing.
I think that's the same with Tim Poole, actually, now that you mention him.
He's still a liberal individual.
It's just that a lot of self-proclaimed liberals now, they're pro-censorship.
They don't, they believe in state power.
They believe in molly-coddling or even worshiping the state.
And I don't think he quite understands it because, of course, the left or liberals in general, even half a decade ago, weren't like that.
And I'm sort of in the same crowd.
This even happened a little bit with libertarians, with the libertarian party under Jorgensen praising Facebook censorship and things like that.
And it's just a mess.
I think it's also happened, the evolution of all the parties has completely changed.
Up here, we have the Green Party, which is, of course, an international party who all uses the same platform and logos and everything.
And there was a time where they would just be, we're the straight environmentalist party.
We care about the environment, and that's it.
But now they sort of represent a far left liken to the squad, for example, in terms of their policy.
But what I was sort of getting at with you is, to me, you're just sort of a guy who isn't afraid to speak honestly on any of the topics.
Now, you mentioned that you were probably considered yourself a leftist before.
Didn't you also, you said you were a Christian, but then you identified as a Satanist.
You want to go through that a little bit for people?
Because I'm sure people try to bring this stuff, try to bring this stuff up on you and say, look what he used to say, you guys.
Don't trust him.
That happens constantly, especially among leftists who simply don't like me and pretend to be religious.
Yes, I was a basically, my upbringing was as a liberal Christian.
You could say similar to like, I don't know, Methodist or something like that, like going to church on Christmas and Easter, basically.
And then Christmas service basically is like, I liked it because, you know, I could light the candle, put it in the snow, and it's cool.
It's kind of relaxing.
You get to sing songs and stuff.
That was my upbringing.
And when I was a teenager, actually, like high school age, I became more of a, if not a fundamentalist, a more religious Christian, got baptized and so forth.
But what I realized, and a lot of people would chalk that up to Marxist indoctrination in college, but it was actually before that.
I stopped believing in that.
I started reading more about not just science, because science doesn't necessarily not mesh with Christianity in many ways, but the occult.
I thought about my own spiritual experiences.
And for a while, I was in sort of atheism.
I had lost my faith, so to speak, but I didn't like the vacuous nature, straight line atheism.
And so Satanism, in the sense that I followed it, was literally just atheism, but with rituals.
It's basically a mockery of Catholicism more than anything.
If you've read Anton LeVay's Satanic Bible, it's fairly straightforward.
And there is actually a proto-libertarian methodology behind it by design.
What I realized after that, though, and I left Satanism behind, God, I think almost a decade ago, is that Satanism is also vacuous.
It's a great psychological stepping stone potentially, but it's not for everyone.
I don't encourage people to become members of the Church of Satan.
I certainly never was, or anything like that.
And I've decided to just sort of be an occultist, which is to say that I search for truth.
And I think the search is more important than actually finding anything.
It's the entertainment behind it.
The story, once you've fully read it, is no longer entertaining.
You can go back and read it again, but you know how it ends.
I look at it as sort of like reading an eternal story that doesn't have any end.
And I think that there's something behind spirituality.
I've had spiritual experiences, but I don't belong to any organized religion, no.
Yeah, I think when I read some of the criticisms of you, I don't think people realize that there is, you know, a 12 or 15 minute video about what you just said, where you talk about all this.
It's not just you're blowing with the wind here.
You've put a lot of time and effort.
And like you mentioned, you've been doing these videos for a long time.
You've put a lot of thought into all of these topics that you're talking about.
Maybe not so much the cat videos in 2007, but maybe you got updated cat videos, I shouldn't say.
Well, I mean, that becomes the problem, which is when you've made videos for, as I have, 12 years now, the problem is that you would have to go back in order to prove someone wrong about your views or about the evolution of your views, you have to manually go back through thousands and thousands of videos.
It would be impossible in order to link them in order to show one person that they're wrong.
And at some point, it just is too time consuming to do that.
For sure.
And I hear a lot of people like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson talk about that.
Whereas if you're talking for thousands of hours or hundreds of hours, there's going to be something that somebody takes issue with that you said, but they don't often want to show it in full context.
Adam's Run: Trump 2024?00:10:20
I also want to talk about something you posted a video about recently where you said you would vote for Trump again in 2024 if he runs.
I want to play that and get your thoughts on the rest of that thought.
All right, everyone.
Based on what I'm seeing, like when he was speaking the other day, the fact that he's still holding large numbers of rallies, weather permitting and so forth, I am inclined to believe that Donald Trump leans heavily towards wanting to run in 2024.
Link in the description.
He's already menacing Cuomo, who I think he still envisions might have Democratic Party aspirations.
Cuomo, by the way, would technically be near the top of the list.
Biden clearly won't be the candidate.
If he is, he loses automatically because he's not going to be capable of campaigning.
Kamala Harris has a likability rating in the Democratic Party, probably lower than many Republicans would.
And Cuomo is a sleazebag, but somehow he's managed to get away with killing 15,000 people, writing a best-selling book about it, and calling himself the COVID king while also having like a dozen me-too accusations against him.
Somehow, his career has been assured.
He's another Teflon die, sort of like Clinton-S. Trump.
I think will run.
Or at least, again, there are several things that could stop that from happening.
Number one, Biden resigns or is 25th.
So do you really think Trump's running again?
Wouldn't that sort of put to the side all their election meddling efforts right now?
Or do you think it's whichever is the best outcome for him?
I think that Trump is inclined to run, not least of which the reason would be for his ego.
As I said, well, I said, and this isn't a bad thing.
I don't mean that in a sense of, well, his ego in a negative sense.
Years ago, I said what Trump wanted was the triple crown, which is he had, it's essentially money and power.
And he had all the money in the world.
He had all the fame in the world.
Those are two of them.
He wanted power.
And when you're Trump, when you've got billions of dollars, you've been, you know, you're the host of the apprentice.
You've done the pageantry.
You've done wrestling.
You've done stern.
You've done literally everything under the sun for decades and decades.
The only thing that would suffice would be the presidency.
I think he leaned towards trying to become the governor of New York initially and realized it was beneath him.
He wanted to be the president.
There's only one thing left in his entire life that he can possibly do, which is to become a two-term president.
That is the pinnacle.
It is the only mountain left to climb.
I think he'll run.
I will vote for him if he does.
I think he'll probably win if he does, because I see the Republicans finally have their balls back, which Trump gave back to them after two decades of not having them.
And I think that the Republicans are busy at the grassroots level.
And you can see the alarm bells going off of the DNC headquarters about this.
At the grassroots level, they're starting to take over housing authorities, school boards, mayorial offices and stuff.
They're targeting the lower level districts, getting more precinct leaders in.
And if they can do that groundwork, then they can fortify, really fortify the election from the ground up and go to the state level as well.
Now, normally this portion of the show would be behind the paywall.
So thanks to our sponsor at Elevate.farm for bringing this to you guys for free.
Now, if you still want to watch without any censorship or without any ads, you can go to RebelNewsPlus.com for just $8 a month.
You can watch all of our shows behind the paywall, or you can sign up for a full year where you'll actually save three months in total off your full price.
You mentioned Biden.
Do you think he, you don't think he makes it another, it's crazy to think of another three years and what, four months of Biden?
I mean, you take any clip of him and there's a large brain fart, as they call it, happening.
You don't think he's going to make it, do you?
Not living, but you don't think he's going to have the capacity to run again.
It's possible.
I mean, you can't completely write him off.
There are some people that are in their 80s that are still with it and so forth.
It's just that Biden is not even 80 and he's not with it.
They could probably prop him up.
They prop up his half-vegetative body and make it animatronic or something like that.
But I think there's a less than 50-50 chance that he makes it there without having a major health crisis, getting 25th or being forced to resign.
Problem for the Democrats is then they're left with a technical non-incumbent who was never elected, who has considerably lower likeability than Biden, and who can't debate.
Can you imagine Kamala Harris debating Joe Biden?
I mean, Donald Trump.
Just nothing but uncomfortable laughter is what she goes.
What do you think are actual voting issues for Democrat voters?
I don't see anything other than, you know, rainbow coalition identity politics being any, was there any were there any voting issues in 2020?
What are they going to run on in 2024, do you think?
Well, the Dems are going to focus on COVID, I think, more than anything else.
And you see this with the January 6th insurrection claims.
I use that term, of course, sarcastically.
They're trying to draw that out because what they want to do is cast Trump and the populace off.
They were trying to commit treason.
We defeated them and they tried to take over and we stopped them because we're heroes.
We're the rebel alliance.
And by the way, evil orange man Drumfler Bad did a bad job with COVID and Biden did better.
The latter is not going well for them, though, because of the Delta variant.
You've got new cases coming up, which isn't going to stop because none of the methods seem to do anything about it and haven't for more than a year.
And Biden's going to eventually take flack for that.
Even the legacy media is actually warming to the idea of his approval cratering.
And as soon as they start reporting on that, which I'll be making a video fairly soon, actually, on the subject, a few of them have.
It's basically over for Barden, for Biden's party mentality, which is basically he expects to have limited, I mean, limitless support, I think.
The problem with Joe Biden is that he's surrounded by people that are sheltering him.
They're not telling him the truth, which is, hey, your approval has fallen.
Well, your disapproval has risen almost 10 points in the last six months.
Maybe we should change what we're doing.
But nobody's willing to tell him that.
They even had tales about him from back in the primaries that he sort of lorded over things and he was very indecisive.
That is, he wanted to make his own decisions.
It was very forceful about it.
But at the same time, he was always biting his nails, thinking, well, maybe I should do A, maybe I should do B, and it would be gridlock.
And that seemed to be a problem during the primaries.
Even when he had, you know, other opponents against him, he was having problems in charting the actual destination of the ship of state that he wanted to pilot.
And it seems like indecisiveness might finally be his downfall.
Pilot the ship of state.
That sounds like a t-shirt sticks that you might want to sew.
Other than Biden, though, you've got Harris, who you mentioned wasn't voted in.
She didn't make it through the primaries.
And then there's AOC, who's not around as much lately.
I don't think she has national appeal.
They don't really have it.
Pardon me?
She won't run.
Yeah, of course.
The Dems, they don't really have any popular faces.
And it seems like the people that they push out now with this January 6th committee or hearing or whatever they're calling it, it's just the same guys that are willing to say anything.
I'm talking about the Eric Swalwells, Adam Schiff, that Hirono lady, the Hawaii representative, I think.
And you're talking about the hearing they were having.
And I saw this earlier before we came on here.
And it's them literally trying to cry.
And I want to show you this so I can get your reaction to it.
Go ahead, Justin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to my colleagues on the committee.
Thank you to our witnesses.
I never expected a day to be quite as emotional for me as it has been.
I've talked to a number of you and gotten to know you.
I think it's important to tell you right now, though.
You guys may like individually feel a little broken.
You guys all talk about the effects you have to deal with.
And, you know, you talk about the impact of that day.
But you guys won.
Better the next time.
God help us.
And if we're so driven by bigotry and hate that we attack our fellow citizens as traitors, if they're born in another country where they don't look like us, then God help us.
But I have faith.
Because of folks like you.
And Adam, I didn't expect this would be quite so much either, but it must be an Adam thing today.
But I'm so grateful to all of you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
So I was in the military sticks.
None of this makes me cry at all.
None of the events that happened on January 6th makes me cry at all.
And Adam Schiff, they're really attempting, trying his hardest to cry.
I wish I knew the name of the guy on Fox who does the impression of him.
I don't know if you've seen that, but it's really good.
We all pooled our money together and got you something.
Mmm. Mmm. Mmm.
It's beautiful.
What do you think this theater is all about?
Because to me, they're sitting there saying, how dare we treat people as the other and political opponents as non-citizens or whatever he just said.
End Goal of Otherization00:04:25
But I feel like the end goal of all this stuff is to otherize Trump supporters and possibly turn it into a situation where we demonize them based on their belief system so that it becomes illegal.
I don't know.
What do you think is the end goal of all this?
Yeah, well, that's been ongoing for half a decade now, and it's been partially successful, but there's a huge pushback against it.
I just like the fact that Adam Schiff was attempting to show emotion.
I liked his attempt to appear human.
It's like watching Mark Zuckerberg try to get teared up watching Benjamin Button or something like that.
I was human once.
I am human, yes.
Yeah, no, I think definitely, though, this is part of a push for censorship and everything.
Like it's sort of like after 9-11.
Essentially, what it is, is these morons are trying to take an event that a lot of people have an emotional interest in.
They blow it out of all proportion, make it seem a thousand times scarier than it was, because this was a fiery but mostly peaceful protest.
CNN told me that about Wendy's burning months before.
They're trying to take that and use it as a justification to pass what Biden perceives of and the Democrats at large as a panacea, which is mass spending, aka higher inflation, more taxes.
They've already weaponized the DOJ.
They raided Rudy Giuliani, America's mayor, you know, just saying.
They've been weaponizing.
They were trying to actually partner with private firms to look into people as well.
Now we have the ADL partnering with PayPal and we have the big tech giants working hand in hand with the government to establish a key database basically of dissidents and wrong thinkers.
All of these things go hand in hand.
None of these things can be justified unless people are afraid.
Much like we could only invade Afghanistan or Iraq because people were terrified.
Well, this is essentially the war of terror.
It's not a war on terror at this point.
Only this time, instead of being predominantly foreign, it's predominantly domestic.
They've gone even one further.
Instead of this being W saying those people over there need to be invaded because they're a threat to us, now it's these people in our own country, in your own neighborhoods are a threat.
Rat out your neighbors, keep tabs on them, don't trust your neighbors.
Lord help us if we should have some social cohesion in the country because people might trade amongst themselves and exempt themselves from the globalist economy.
That's basically what it is.
I think people never thought it would get to the point where certain businesses and companies were cutting people off because of their ideology.
I mean, PayPal de-platformed us based on absolutely zero things.
They didn't give a reason.
They didn't point anything.
They just cut us off one day.
And I know Patreon did that with people as well.
They had reasons that weren't to do with their platform, but I think people didn't think that that would be coming.
How far away do you think we are from ideologies being illegal?
Well, the ideologies won't be illegal, but what they'll do is they'll say they'll keep stretching terms like bigotry or racism, sexism, homophobia, extremism.
They'll keep stretching them out further and further and further.
The problem is what they do when they do this is that they dilute them.
So a Nazi proclaimed to be a Nazi in the year 2000 or 1995 was understood.
It's a person, they've shaved their head, they get a swastika tattoo on their chest, they hate Jews, they hate blacks, they hate life itself, they get a baseball bat and they're beating people down for the color of their skin.
Now a Nazi is someone who opens their legs too much on the subway train.
So keeping that in mind, what they've done in their haste to lambaste other people and censor them and destroy them, which is just, again, a power and money grab, is they've actually made the problem 10,000 times worse.
And people who are actually still independent-minded and independently voiced have to fight against them.
I think they'll be unsuccessful.
I think that new tech in part and the upswelling of populism, not just in the United States, but elsewhere, will eventually erode their hold over things, their totalitarianism, but it will take time.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the midst of a censorship dark age at the moment for some years to come.
Fight Against Censorship Dark Age00:00:25
Thanks a lot, Stix.
Hexenhammer666 on YouTube.
And of course, you can catch him on Twitter as well.
And the number three guy on BitChute.
And don't forget to buy his book.
Peace out.
Thanks for watching another episode of Andrew Says.
If you want exclusive content, go to RebelNewsPlus.com, where we talk about topics we're not allowed to show you on social media.