Greg Johnson Debates:
Authoritarian States with Academic Agent, Todd Lewis, and Vee on Warski Live

33 Comments

1. ronehjr
   Posted January 19, 2018 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

   I would like to apologize to Greg for suggesting that he needed to do more of this you tube stuff. I honestly did not realize how some of his opponents would combine stupidity with insufferable arrogance. I am afraid that if Greg continues with these debates he runs the risk of actually losing brain cells due to being in this intellectual black hole his opposition brings with them. This is not to say I don’t appreciate what Greg is doing, I very much do, I am just afraid that he will at some point have to bow out in order to save his sanity.

   Reply
   • Thulean Friend
     Posted January 20, 2018 at 3:30 am | Permalink

     Some folks at the TRS forum likened it to Greg being forced to teach a bunch of downies basic literacy.

     Reply
     • ronehjr
       Posted January 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

       Their giving Greg’s opponents too much credit.

       Reply
       • ronehjr
         Posted January 20, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

         Oosh, no way to edit comments, huh?

         Reply
2. Rob Bottom
   Posted January 19, 2018 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

   This was frustrating.

   Apparently the Japanese are living under a Stalinist central-planning government because they don’t want their citizens to become obese. Companies face financial penalties if their employees do not stay within their BMI. This, in a country that doesn’t even have the problems of obesity that America does. Perhaps it’s because Japanese are known to socially ostracize by pointedly asking why family, friends, and coworkers have put on weight or teasing fat people for eating too much.

   The notion that the government can’t impose increased taxes to curb undesirable consumer trends is ridiculous. There’s a reason governments give tax breaks and subsidies for purchasing hybrid vehicles. It’s a way to encourage people to make better choices without outright banning products. And yet the strawmanning opponents balked at Greg’s idea of heavily taxing corn syrup.

   While I appreciate Greg participating in these discussions, I sincerely hope Warski and JF do a better job of vetting their guests. Arguing with idiots like Vee is simply not worth the time and that Academic Agent needs to go back to school.

   Reply
   • Trav LeBlanc
     Posted January 20, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

     Well, we want our guys doing battle with people who have audiences so we can steal that audience. Vee may be a dumbass but he’s a dumbass with an audience.

     Reply
     • K R Bolton
       Posted January 21, 2018 at 12:49 am | Permalink

       It can be entertaining jousting with the retards of left and bogus
       ‘right’.

       Reply
   • Lexi
     Posted January 22, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

     I strongly dislike ostracism and shaming. These are informal and decentralized, but cruel and dehumanizing, methods. Coercion is actually much more respectful of human dignity than ridicule or bullying. The former indicates a love that will not allow afflicted persons to destroy themselves, the former indicates dismissive, sneering contempt and indifference.

     My children are still under my care and protection. I swallow hard when I think about turning them out into this dangerous world where freedom is the supreme if not the only value. I am terrified of the prospect of them being ensnared by drugs. Every mother would sleep better at night if we had a government that would protect our babies from harms that are beyond our control.

     Greg, thank you so much for your dedication to our wellbeing.

     Reply
3. K R Bolton
   Posted January 19, 2018 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

   There’s no idiot like a libertarian idiot. They make the Left seem plausible.

   Reply
   • nineofclubs
     Posted January 20, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

     As Polonius remarked, brevity is the soul of wit.

     You are 100% correct.

     Reply
4. K
   Posted January 19, 2018 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

   One of the saddest and most depressing realizations I had was the knowledge that there was no one who would make me better. There was no one to ask more of me to become a stronger better person.

   I am 26 years old now and I foolishly believed before I was in college that I would be pushed to work harder to sharpen my skills. All I saw was laziness, mediocrity, and lowered standards for stupid people. I hardly needed to try. I then entered the workforce and I thought maybe I would be pushed here, but still I was met with the same mediocrity and laziness I had seen in college. Granted, I do my best to improve myself, but it would actually be an amazing thing to find someone who would be willing to correct and force me to the right thing. I feel I wasted so much time being lazy. I wonder if it has occurred to Warski, Vee, JF, and that insufferable twat Academic Agent the common theme in masculine stories and myth that there was a force guiding them and pushing them towards the good whether it be the gods in greek myth or raz al ghul in batman turning a nihilistic billionaire into a overman.

   Reply
   • Thulean Friend
     Posted January 22, 2018 at 1:05 am | Permalink

     Why didnt you push yourself? You need handholding?

     Reply
     • K
       Posted January 22, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

       *yawn* I didn’t push myself because I am lazy. I am lazy because I can get by with minimal effort because standards are incredibly bad (I am hardly the smartest). And yes, I would have liked some handholding and a mentor that would have been nice would have saved a lot of time that is exactly what I am saying.

       Reply
     • K
       Posted January 22, 2018 at 10:10 am | Permalink

       I also think mentors are extremely necessary for young men. It would have been nice for someone to have taught me about Stoicism and philosophy instead of me having to flail around looking for a way to manage myself better. Not only that I don’t think exceptional people arise out of nowhere Alexander the Great was trained by Aristotle by Plato etc. In fact as far as I can tell all great men have had some kind of handholding at points in their lives that provided them with the guidance and force to become better.

       Reply
5. Lemur
   Posted January 20, 2018 at 1:27 am | Permalink

   Libertarianism is an ideological ghetto much like fundamentalist evangelical discourse. Indeed, both are predicated on propositional revelation – in the case of evangelicals, the bible, and for libertarians the inscriptions of the invisible hand on aggregate human desire. Fundametalism leads to binary thinking in order to increase certainty. That’s why you’re literally Stalin for threatening to take their pron.

   While Vee’s libertarianism is understandable reaction to living under communism, ‘Academic’ Agent has no such excuses. He struck me as a Vox Day tier ‘intellectual’, even regurgitating the same argumentative tropes. For example, they’re both fond of setting up an opposition between Plato and Aristotle.

   These communities are sustained by strict tribal information boundaries. Pushing into their spaces is a strategic imperative, since once we can interpolate a new conceptual vocabulary, their old ways of thinking will gradually melt away. That’s why we’ve seen an increasing flow of people (like Faith Goldy) coming over to the alt-right. Additionally, it gives us a new target/project that will keep the troops from infighting.

   Reply
6. Turkish Ally
   Posted January 20, 2018 at 2:16 am | Permalink

   You carried yourself like a total champ. I would have definitely lost my cool constantly getting interrupted by an arrogant, shrill degenerate with at least 30 IQ points below my own.

   REALLY rustled my jimmies when he interrupted the goat fucking thing as it was getting even funnier. “Isn’t that fascinating?” lmfao…

   Reply
7. Carefull
   Posted January 20, 2018 at 4:22 am | Permalink

   I almost feel the need to apologise for the libertarian(s) on the call. Luckily I have stopped calling myself a libertarian for at least 5 years now. Still, they should have given a higher-level debate than this. Borderline idiocy at times.

   However I am glad that Greg did this. As with the previous interview, I learned new stuff and gained some more material to mull over. So Thanks!

   Btw: The next time some libertarian objects against state power ask them this: “Do you oppose ALL violence?” If they answer yes, then they clearly are not worth having a discussing with because they have never questioned their own belief and are only parroting. But most libertarian thinkers will answer “Some violence is justified, and the criteria for that is can you reasonably assume that the person you aggress against will thank you later because the aggression was beneficial to them”

   Example “force” a child to brush their teeth. Pushing somebody out of the way of clear and certain danger. etc.

   Once they acknowledge this, it is only a discussion of where the limits are.

   Reply
8. twochairs
   Posted January 20, 2018 at 9:53 am | Permalink

   Greg is doing yeowman’s work. So many of the top comments were from rightwing libertarians lamenting his easy victory. This is how consciousness changes.
   This debate was incredibly frustrating. I came away more sympathetic to the campus-left. If the versions of “western” “right-wing” or “libertarian” ideas they encounter, come from a bunch of edgy-Megan-Mcardle-style-dude-bros yelling “Dude! My weed and pot!” pretending to care about something called “toralitarianism” they clearly have never thought about, and at one point even asking (seemingly in good-faith) why one should “care what happens to other people?”
   The campus-left, even the SJWs are in thrall to the worst ideas imaginable, but they compared to these lolbergs, they at least have more instincts. Academic Agent (echoing Paul Gottfried) is correct to call the leftists descendents of Puritans. The right should call them home.

   Reply
9. Brock Bellerive
   Posted January 20, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

   As a dear friend of Todd Lewis, I believe that this “debate” was below him. And it was below Greg. It was nothing more than a charade by mental-masturbators lobbing “Gotcha” questions while snickering and being triggered. They can sell their degenerate platform to the “masses,” sure. That is pretty much the Libertarian argument put forward by Vee against Todd and Greg. The do-whatever-the-hell-you-want platform is marketable. To man-children.

   The Alt-Right and the Traditionalists do not need man-children, which seem to constitute an ever greater portion of American society. Remember that the American rebellion against the British Crown was won by less than ten per-cent of the American population at the time. Remember who matters.

   As a Traditionalist, I do not always agree with Greg; but I want to say that I really appreciate his contribution to the discussion. He was above that circus.

   Reply
10. R1b Visa
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Greg, have you ever written an article or given an interview where you clearly lay out your view of what the underlying purpose and goal of the state should be? Because I feel that was the one fundamental unspoken point of disagreement in this debate.

    I do not believe that the primary purpose of the state should be to guarantee individual liberty (especially not if “liberty” is defined merely as hedonistic indulgence in pot and porn), which seemed to be the unspoken assumption of most people on that call.

    I’m also not interested in having a state that whose policies are designed with the goal of creating a society that is especially obedient to Allah or adherent to the teachings of Jesus.

    For me, the state is a tool that is to be used to ensure the survival of our people. Policy should be geared towards making us resilient against internal weaknesses as well as attacks from outsiders, so that we can out-compete those who would harm us, and ultimately fulfill our destiny to conquer the galaxy and unlock the secrets of the universe.

    Reply
    • Carefull
      Posted January 20, 2018 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

      I think Greg would say: Ensure a prosperous state such that the people in it can prosper as well.

      Reply
11. Joe
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Wow. I just listened to this podcast. These are very informative as to what everyone is thinking, but as a 5w year white male living in America, I can’t believe the disconnect of the younger commentators in this debate. They try to equate Stalinism to what Greg is advocating. Do they EVER stop to think of the moral component?! Communist/Stalinist/jewish/Bolshevism was a completely totalitarian state WITHOUT the good of their sheeple in mind. Toward the end of the podcast, they keep screaming, “What if people start leaving your ethnostate in droves?” Believe me… they won’t. In fact, they would have to build walls to keep people OUT. Did National Socialist Germany have walls to keep they “oppressed” people IN?! No. Even at the end of the war, the desire of people to leave was not based on their abhorrence of the government nor its policies, but rather to the military rapist/murderers who were impinging on their living space.

    These guys who advocate libertarian “who are you to tell me what is right/wrong/moral/immoral” have not lived long enough to understand the necessity of a paternalistic government. Why do good parents shield their children from vices, sins, and other “bad” things? Because they have LIVED and have knowledge of their horrible consequences. Should parents forego ANY of this and just let their children “experience” these detrimental acts in the name of personal liberty? It is absurd.

    I’d love to hear these same commentators 25 years from now… after having children of their own and having the wisdom of years… espouse the same libertarian views that they aired on this podcast.

    Reply
12. K
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    The new right= freedom towards greatness
    Libertarianism= freedom to be and stay pathetic

    I wonder if it had occurred to Vee that maybe if the state instituted policies that made people objectively stronger and more self actualized that Communism would not have taken hold as easily because you know you would have stronger leaders and a stronger people in general.

    Reply
13. Emer
    Posted January 20, 2018 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know if you’ve heard the Bible verse where the apostles are admonished not to cast their pearls before swine but I think it applies to the situation because Greg is dealing with a bunch of cackling hyenas who are not interested in a serious discussion.

    Reply
14. ingrainedQuark
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    The argument Vee is making that Eastern Europeans will simply mass revolt on banning alcohol does not hold. When the Soviets ‘liberated’ East Europe, people were shot and tortured and sent into gulag for the flimsiest reasons, and the very few who dared to say anything were sent into gulag as well. Everybody else started to applaud and repeat the bolshevik slogans out of sheer terror.

    So we are not brave super heroes at all, we are just like everyone else.

    I am listening to the debate right now, and the way Vee is constantly interrupting is painfully annoying for me, I can only imagine how it was for the speakers.

    Reply
    • Rob Bottom
      Posted January 21, 2018 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      Vee is strawmanning Greg’s position anyway. Greg did not suggest how a gov’t would go about banning alcohol. It could be a gradual thing, over several decades, where the amount of alcohol licenses would be reduced, the taxes would go up, etc to reduce consumption.

      We already have a direct comparison to cigarette smoking in America and Europe. First there is a PR campaign warning of the adverse health effects. Then restaurants slowly started removing their smoking sections. Then all private property became no-smoking environments, forcing smokers to leave the building to go have a smoke. Eventually, the number of smokers will be so low that outright banning sale of cigarettes will not even result in the public yawning.

      Reply
      • ingrainedQuark
        Posted January 22, 2018 at 6:40 am | Permalink

        True, smoking is a very good example.
        Speaking of which, does anybody know why is it that smoking is targeted so globally and insistently, while drinking is not? They are both very popular and are both causing serious health problems. I’ve been trying to find an explanation without much success. My current guess is that the tobacco industry is owned by people less liberal than the owners of the alcohol industry, and therefore the latter has more political influence. But this is just my speculation.

        Reply
        • inq
          Posted January 23, 2018 at 3:00 am | Permalink

          The ownership and location of alcohol shops has been historically linked to politically and socially deviant and destructive groups or individuals.
          The same can be said in case of usury and taxes collection businesses.
          Just pay attention to who owns liquor- and easy-credit-application businesses in your town and you will understand who has undermined host societies for centuries.
          Alcohol, credit/debt, taxes – they are powerful weapons against any society.

          Btw, I wish CC could be a litlle more selective in future debate venues.
          Just right from the start the discussion was set for the next half an hour on topic of gays who were refused a sale of cake with special dedication on it. What a topic for WN !
          I think you may be naive …

          Reply
      • nineofclubs
        Posted January 22, 2018 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        Straw manning and reductio ad absurdum are the stock-in-trade of libertarians. See also how easily the argument about regulating opioid use slides into a rant about regulated bedtimes or other fantasies.

        I have found libertarians to be the most disingenuous people I’ve ever discussed politics with. The only website I’ve ever been banned from was a libertarian one, because I pointed out some of the (many) logical inconsistencies in their positions. So much for these champions of free expression.

        This site deals comprehensively with some of the more egregious BS pumped out by libertarians..

        http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

        .

        Reply
15. Wanderer
    Posted January 21, 2018 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Greg’s opponents on this debate ended up making the living case of why paternalism applies for adults.

    Reply
16. anon_111
    Posted January 22, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

    i listened to about half of it and the other fellows seemed overly impressed with themselves

    also, i wondered if it was worth Greg’s time, with what seemed like 4 other people also trying to be heard. at some point its diminishing returns

    Reply
17. Matt Grey
    Posted January 23, 2018 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Well, that’s the first time I didn’t switch off after about 30 seconds from a show that opens with “Whoa! wassup dudes!! Like f***in’ hey!!!” (Or whatever it was he said).

    Thank you, Mr Johnson, for enduring that dog’s breakfast of a programme for and on behalf of those of us who care about the future of our people. No doubt you planted some fresh new thoughts in the minds of some of their regular listeners.

    Reply
18. Alex
    Posted January 25, 2018 at 5:54 am | Permalink

    I have nothing constructive to add, but cant help myself of writing this comment anyhow:

    Personally I lose energy when I hear semi-autistic arguments like the ones from The Academic Agent and Vee. It is just to unmature for me. And they put it out in such a besserwisser wise guy-manners too. Sad!

    I suggest they leave their computer screens for a while and realizes that human beings are not numbers.

    Greetings to Greg Johnson from Germany

    Greetings from Germany!

    Reply