An Identitarian, a Civic Nationalist, & a Classical Liberal Walk into a Stream (the Third One Cucks)

2,208 words

We’re one week into 2018, and the front-runner for this year’s White Nationalist MVP is a guy who is not a White Nationalist (yet) and someone who most in the Dissident Right hadn’t even heard of until a few weeks ago.

That’s not to say that no one had heard of Andy Warski ^[2]. His +250,000 YouTube subscribers had certainly heard of him. His dark comedy videos blasting SJWs, feminists, and miscellaneous Leftist kooks have received millions of views, and his show Warski Live was a hangout for Alt Lite and Skeptic E-celebs.

Which makes you wonder why the hell Andy Warski would want to start hanging around a bunch of White Nationalists. Under his own name, no less. Conventional wisdom has always held that if you want to get involved in White Nationalism, its best to have nothing to lose, as our foes will do their best to take whatever you have from you. I’m not complaining. I just hope the lad knows what he’s getting himself into.

It was only last June ^[3] when Warski Live was the scene of the public crucifixion of YouTuber Rage After Storm, who had days before sent the entire YouTube Skeptic Community into conniption fits for the crime of saying that race is real ^[4].

In that stream, Warski’s then-friends Kraut, Jeff Holiday, and others took great delight viciously mocking Rage and even condescendingly concern-trolled her over her mental health. That stream was the first big shot in the ongoing Alt Right vs. Skeptic War, and at the time Warski was firmly with the egalitarian Skeptics.

But it appears Mr. Warski has had one hell of a character arc since then.

Last month, after the infamous Kraut and Tea doxing server scandal and revelations of unconscionable misdeeds by former Skeptic friends and associates, Warski began to distance himself from the Skeptics and has taken steps to make amends to people on the Far Right, even going as far as apologizing to RageAfterStorm and endorsing the truthfulness of race realism ^[5].

Around the same time, when organizers of the Kilroy Free Speech Conference decided to drop its most Right-wing speakers ^[6] (James Allsup, Faith Goldy, and Baked Alaska) without any warning or explanation, Warski, who was scheduled to speak the conference, withdrew out of solidarity ^[7] with the Far Right activists who were denied the platform they were promised and had promoted. That’s some serious old school integrity.

And then Andy’s Warski Live streams started to get interesting. Very interesting.

First, he appointed French Canadian biologist J-F Galiepe, an unabashed ethnonationalist, co-host of Warski Live.

Then on Warski’s December 27 show ^[8], Warski set up a debate on race realism with not one, not two, but three top-notch race realists (J-F Galiepe, The Alternative Hypothesis, and Tara McCarthy) who took turns crushing and humiliating their neoliberal SJW adversary, the slippery and repellent Steve Bonnell II, aka Destiny ^[9].

Destiny, a neoliberal’s neoliberal to the core, reacted to the debate loss by accusing J-F Galiepe of being a sexual predator and Andy Warski of being pro-pedophilia. You know the old saying: if you can’t beat ’em, defame ’em.

The race realism stream was the talk of the town in White Nationalist circles for days, for understandable reasons. We’re not used to being treated fairly.

In 2017, White Nationalism received more attention from the MSM than it ever hoped. While these hatchet pieces have done much to bring brand awareness to near maximum, much of the public is not any closer to knowing what we actually believe than they were a year ago. For all the attention the MSM lavishes on us, one thing they have not and will never do is give White Nationalism a fair hearing. All interviews are deceptively edited to portray White Nationalists in the most unflattering light, omitting any important talking points.

Unless they have been living in a cave, everyone is aware that there is something called the Alt Right that exists mostly on the internet and is kind of racist or something. But how many of those people could actually articulate what we believe? Well, other than that we believe in “hate” and “white supremacy” that is?

So for someone with an audience of a quarter-million bluepilled normies to be kind enough to let a bunch of reactionaries run wild and unfiltered on his platform is a thrilling new experience for us. A quarter-million subscribers may be small in the grand scheme of things, but it’s the quality of the exposure that is exciting.

It was around this time that White Nationalists assigned Andy Warski the affectionate nickname “Racewarski.” And it appears the name is sticking.

After the race realism debate, Warski started coming under heavy criticism from friends and others in the YouTube community for giving a platform to “Nazis” and “white supremacists.” But rather than back down, he took things a step further.

A few days, later Warski announced on his show that he had been contacted by one Richard Spencer and was planning on having America’s most famous White Nationalist on his show to debate a yet-to-be-announced opponent.  When Spencer’s debate opponent was announced, it was not to be some random screeching SJW which everyone expected but none other than alpha Skeptic Sargon of Akkad.

Thursday’s stream was billed as a “conversation” ^[10] and not a “debate,” and that may very well have been Warski’s original intention. But the fans, both Skeptic and WN, were anticipating something grander, more important, and more romantic: a showdown between the insurgent Alt Right and the Skeptics. A real Clash of the Titans with blood, explosions, and one person leaving totally BTFO’d.

That’s what everyone expected it to be. That’s what everyone wanted it to be. And that’s what they got.

If you haven’t already seen it, you can watch the whole stream here ^[11].

Now, Richard Spencer would not be my first choice to represent White Nationalism in a debate of this significance. He’s actually quite weak as a debater ^[12]. (And here ^[13].) But if the opponent is Sargon of Akkad, he’s good enough for jazz. Besides, even Jared Taylor and Mike Enoch lack Spencer’s level of name recognition, which helped turn Warski’s stream into the high-profile event that it was.

The big takeaway from the debate is that if Sargon of Akkad is the best the YouTube Skeptic community has to offer, then the Skeptics are in deep trouble. Because even Richard Spencer ate Sargon’s lunch (Sargon could stand to lose some weight though.)

Far from landing the knockout blow that Sargon and his supporters hoped for, Sargon failed to land a single punch, and ended the encounter dazed and flustered.

Sargon’s fatal flaw as a debater is his inability to comprehend how anyone of sound mind could hold any worldview other than his own. This is true of a lot of people. Maybe even most. But most people are not professional commentators you would expect to be at least literate, if not fluent, in their opposition’s talking points, even if they don’t subscribe to them.

So when Spencer did not agree to some of Sargon’s basic assumptions (“No, free speech is not an unqualified good,” “No, aristocracy is not a priori bad”), all Sargon could respond with was “Wow, just wow” and the like.

The difference between identitarianism and classical liberalism is the difference between political objectives and political principles. While the classical liberal believes an objective immoral if it violates a moral principle (in Sargon’s case, individual freedom), the identitarian views a principle as illegitimate if it impedes a moral objective (in Spencer’s case, the preservation of the white race).

But those who fetishize their principles will eventually come to embrace principled defeat as the history of the post-war GOP will testify. To the identitarian, there is no such thing as “moral victories.” You either win or you lose. And unless you’re an accelerationist, you never win by losing.

In the stream, Sargon made some stunning admissions, the most conspicuous being that he does not care about the fate of white people (or black people for that matter). He only cares about the people and making sure that everyone has their rights protected.

What Sargon doesn’t (or pretends not to) understand is that if the classical liberal values he holds sacred are to survive in any recognizable form, they are dependent on the continued prosperity, dare I say supremacy, of white people. Classical liberal values are a distinctly European thing. Libertarianism is even more specific than that. It’s a distinctly Anglo-American phenomenon, incomprehensible to most European continentals. This is White Nationalism 101.

People may call the idea of an ethnostate fanciful, but it’s not nearly as utopian as the idea of a society of Somalis and Pakistanis extolling the virtues of the non-aggression principle, gender equality, and advocating for the privatization of roads. There may not be absolute free speech in the ethnostate, but there will be a hell of a lot more free speech than there will be in a West overrun by Muslims and Africans.

You would hardly know it from the post-match commentary, but there was a third guy in the debate as well: the shirtless one himself, civic nationalist and militant pragmatist Mr. StyxHexenHammer666.

I like Styx. He’s a talented and hardworking guy and about as smart as a person can be while still being a normie. Ideologically, he’s halfway between Spencer and Sargon. He opposes the ethnostate on practical grounds and gave some thoughtful practical objections. He’s still wrong, but at least he didn’t come off as a hyperventilating moral grand-stander like Sargon.

The refreshing thing about Styx was that he was the only person in the debate representing any particular brand. Spencer is the most visible figure in the Alt Right, while Sargon of Akkad is the big cheese of the Skeptics, and thus their fates are intertwined with those of their respective movements.

Styx, on the other hand, is really a lone operator. Because Styx was not under the same pressure to win one for his team, he came off as more relaxed and gave the most polished performance of the night.

Many have said that the Warski Live debate would have been more interesting and productive if it had been just Spencer and Styx. I would agree with this assessment. And for anyone else who does, Counter-Currents’ very own Greg Johnson will debating ethnonationalism with Styx ^[14] on Tara McCarthy’s channel this Tuesday.

And there were also some late additions.

^[15]Halfway though, Millennial Woes came off the bench and showed some uncharacteristic aggression. MW scored what I think was the biggest kill shot of the night when he asked Sargon if Lawrence Fishburne was white. Sargon said he did not know. That is the moment Sargon lost the debate. Up until that moment, Sargon had merely been arguing badly, but by saying that he did not know whether Lawrence Fishburne was black or white, Sargon revealed that he was not even arguing in good faith.

Two other commentators came on late for the anti-identitarian side: Kevin Logan, a British Leftist who has an unhealthy obsession ^[16] with Millennial Woes, and Romanian skeptic Vee ^[17], who believes all the same stuff Sargon does, except Vee says it with a comical foreign accent.

Sargon left the stream early, citing fatigue, but then immediately went on his own channel for a post-debate stream with his most devoted sycophants. The whole video ^[18] reeks of damage control. The fact that he felt the need to make such a video at all suggests that Sargon knew he performed poorly and wanted to release a video to put a positive spin on what people just witnessed.

The Spencer/Sargon debate stream was a massive success. Over 12,000 were watching the debate live, at one point, making it the #1 live stream in the world on YouTube and trending on Twitter. Since its broadcast, the debate has been watched by over 200,000 people. Andy Warski has said he is setting up future debates with more too-hot-for-TV commentators like Mike Enoch ^[19] from TRS and manosphere icon Roosh V ^[20].

Andy Warski has really been a godsend for the movement, as he has come into our sphere at a time when Facebook and Twitter have started clamping down on pro-white voices with renewed vigor and public protests have started yielding diminishing, if not negative, returns. A month ago, we looked to be on the verge of losing access to normies. Now we’re on the offensive again.

The biggest white pill of all from the debate was the amount of money that Andy Warski made during the stream, reported to be around $20,000. This is incredibly encouraging. If White Nationalism is to break into the mainstream, the best way to do so is to prove that spreading White Nationalism is profitable.

We are in politics, true, but we are also in entertainment, and entertainment is a business. If it can be proven that someone can make a dollar off of letting White Nationalists have their say on their platform, you can be sure that there will always be someone out there willing to pick up the dollar. Our enemies understand this and are ^[21] in ^[22] a ^[23] panic. ^[24]

But the burden of proof is on us to prove that there is a demand for what we have to say.