Before the debate, I wrote up some notes in preparation. I tried to guess what Isaac would say, and then respond to those things. He didn’t end up saying these things, but I’ll publish my notes anyways so you can see my thought process.
Here’s how I imagined the debate would go:
You called me anti-white; that’s not true — I am white.
Ok, tell me what you value most about white people.
Christianity, Neo-classical architecture, classical music, Roman statues, science, art, engineering…
That’s a list of fruits. Black nationalists like the fruits of white civilization too — what you’re missing is the essence or cause of these things. The essence is universalism, and a rejection of tradition, that differentiates white Faustian culture from Jewish, African, or Chinese culture. By emphasizing the superficial over the essence, you are hollowing out the spiritual core of white civilization, which is more destructive than gay sex or mass immigration.
That’s just a word salad. The reality is simple: brown people and gay sex are killing white people.
The greatest threat to white people is not violent crime or gay sex. The greatest threat is a spiritual collapse of the Faustian spirit, which you undermine with your matriarchal safetyism. The purpose of civilization is not to reduce violent crime to zero, or cure homosexuality. The purpose of civilization is to go beyond tradition using universalism as a Faustian telos.
They’re literally cutting kids dicks off.
The marginal mutilation of children is nothing new; see the castrari and eunuchs of the medieval and ancient world. But this is besides the point: you are becoming hysterical over fringe and marginal phenomena that do not matter. Prior to 1840, 50% of these gay kids would have died in childhood. The modern world is dysgenic, and homosexuality is a natural corrective.
How can you say that? That’s messed up man, you’re evil.
I am in favor of a more beautiful world. You are advocating for hysterical safetyism. I am not interested in reorienting society inward, toward the preservation of the weakest. I want to open up society to new adventures and possibilities — I want to serve the highest man, not the lowest.
South Africa, Rhodesia, and Haiti all lead to white genocide.
In each case, the problem was not “non-white people,” but black terrorists being supported in a white-vs-white proxy war. In the case of Haiti, the Spanish and British supplied the black Haitians; in the case of Rhodesia, the Soviet Union and Americans and British united to sanction the Rhodesians; in the case of South Africa, a similar sanctions regime was employed. The genocide in each of these three cases wasn’t due to non-whites hating on whites, but due to certain groups of whites using non-whites as muscle to carry out their geopolitical aims. It isn’t a law of history that diversity inherently needs to lead to genocide. Liberalism, not nationalism, is the best way to prevent genocide.
Just because I don’t embrace your weird beliefs doesn’t make me anti-white.
You call white people mutants and retarded martyrs. You have a hatred toward liberal whites as an ethno-religious group. You hate this group because they represent the universal essence of white people. You’re chill with rednecks, because they are close to the median human — Chinese, African, Jewish. You like the white people that act “normal” (ethnocentric, conservative) and you hate the white people that act white.
You can’t be anti-white if you only hate a small sub-group of whites — that’s not what anti-white means.
We’re debating semantics. Obviously Tim Wise or Robin DiAngelo doesn’t hate all white people equally — but you could still call them anti-white. Many people harbor anti-white views while also harboring pro-white views. Just because you have hypocritical, paradoxical, contradictory views does not make your anti-white hatred less real or intense. The burden of proof is on you to tell me you don’t hate white liberals — if you cannot do that, then you are anti-white.
Things that would throw me for a loop
yelling
name calling
attacking my employment status (guilty)
Things I’m not certain about
Relationship to Zionism
Tablet Mag
Political vs Religious Zionism
the black people question
Vivek
Birthright citizenship
Are gay people ok
Trump and Caitlin Jenner
Conclusion
Isaac’s job is not to have a coherent philosophy. His job is to create advertisements for based right-wing companies. Whether or not his philosophy is coherent or not is not a big part of his day-to-day life.
Coherence is not my #1 goal. For example, if I said, “Bible said it, I believe it,” that would pass a surface-level test of coherence, but it would not be true. I’m striving for truth.
Sometimes, in the pursuit of truth, I say things that people consider to be incoherent. My job is to try to simplify what I am saying so that it is less confusing and less “schizophrenic.”
Mostly this debate was my attempt to explain my opinions to someone who doesn’t know who I am or what I believe.
At the end, here were some of my weak points:
I didn’t sufficiently establish my “leftist credentials.” At the end, Isaac called me a communist, and then immediately after, he called me a fascist. This makes me think I did not sufficiently explain what differentiates liberalism from these two systems.
I didn’t sufficiently explain why liberalism is leftist, as opposed to “moderate” or “centrist.” This would have required me to more rigorously define the left-right divide.
Even if you believe that the left-right divide is stupid, well, that’s politics, and we have to operate within colloquial speech. Being a moderate or independent or “centrist” doesn’t move the ball down the field.
I’m sure you guys could come up with more critiques, but generally, my subscribers are not interested in watching my podcasts/debates. So I expect this to get 7 likes and maybe 1 comment.
But I do value having debates because it gives me an opportunity to try to get better at talking to “real people.” As opposed to writing articles, where I am endlessly critiqued on pedantic grounds…
Like recently I wrote an article where I proposed a solution, and then in the next sentence, I said “my proposed solution is not perfect,” and the only two comments [at that time] said “your proposed solution is not perfect.”
This would not happen during a conversation. In a conversion, if someone is confused, you can correct them, they will acknowledge the correct, and you will be vindicated. In article-land, I just get hit with death by a thousand cuts.
So having a conversation is a nice change of pace.
