No Enemies To The Right!? [REUPLOAD] | w The Distributist & Wokal Distance
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 сер 2023
- This is an abridged repost, with fixed audio, of the debate between @TheDistributist & @wokaldistance7000 that streamed on August 30th, 2023.
Full stream: ua-cam.com/users/livexq23FZmnfnc
Further reading about "No Enemies To The Right:"
im1776.com/2022/12/13/no-enem...
www.theamericanconservative.c...
Links:
/ @thedistributist
/ wokal_distance
/ greeneman6
www.buymeacoffee.com/benjamin...
Support this channel:
www.paypal.me/benjaminboyce
cash.app/$benjaminaboyce
www.buymeacoffee.com/benjamin...
Find all interviews on spotify: spoti.fi/3px5WnK
/ benjaminboyce
Join me on alternative video sites:
odysee.com/@BenjaminABoyce
www.bitchute.com/channel/benj...
rumble.com/user/BenjaminABoyce
And on Twitter @BenjaminABoyce
Wokal understands the details of the symptoms of a disease. Dave understands the disease itself.
Thanks for this version
Thanks for the show, Dave!
2:45:18 Dave, your face here matched my own exactly. This section really showed that Wokal doesn't understand what Liberalism/Modernity/Enlightenment is. "If atheism had political valence within Liberalism I'd have to change my politics." LMFAO.
The audio is indeed better. Great job, Benjamin.
👏👏👏
@@miroirs-jumeaux Hey you. What are you up to?
"BuT I DoN't wAnT To livE iN etHnOceNtric theOcRacy" - Wokal Distance
Aka high trust society
This guy thinks that we have separate unique cultures even when we're all watching the same movies, listening to the same music, and doing the same things.
Being Jewish is just diet and a funny hat. Being Christian is just wearing a cross. Being a pagan is just little idols on an alter.
The particulars fkimg matter!
Incredible to see that this Wokal Distance guy is still stuck in 2014.
Wokal is wrong. He says Israel's ethnic nationalism is understandable and acceptable because it is surrounded by enemies (unlike European countries). He also concedes the Boers face a situation more like Israel. He thinks Europe will be fine, but that is a gamble he has no right to advocate they take. What if he is wrong? Israel is the only one of these that hasn't been forced into taking the risk. What if the destruction of European countries and cultures will be so gradual that the people it spits out at the other end won't even recognize it as a destruction?
Mass immigration caused huge cultural and demographic changes. Our elites changed the very concept of what it means to be German, Irish, English or British. The native people are told they must integrate into this new national conception and that they are outgroup monsters for refusing to hate themselves and their ancestors or for rejecting multiculturalism as the core of their culture.
What right does he have to say that European countries should take these risks? Why shouldn't this process be seen as erasure and destruction? What's wrong with allowing them to keep their demographics stable as they have voted for incessantly? Is it only once the process is done and the nation deconstructed that someone like Wokal will admit that it was a mistake?
I'm Jewish (as you can tell from the length of the comment) and have family history in South Africa, but I happen to like my European country and its people for who they were and not for what they have been replaced with. It's not that the newcomers are devils, it's that they just aren't the people I grew up surrounded by. If Wokal's area of Saskatchewan was invaded by Vancouver-freaks, would he and the locals have a right to reject them or would he simply have to accept the slow dissolution of his culture?
Wokal Distance is, for my money, the clearest and most pure example of one of these people we're seeing lately with a combo of basically zero real dissident opinions or objections to the status quo and painfully middling IQ who has correctly read within the changing winds of society an opportunity to capitalize financially on the shift of acceptable discourse.
Common sense is not a bourgeois value
@@nacetroy Reality has torn down these "arguments" in a manner no flourish of human language could hope to contest. I have less than no use for anyone who is still clinging to them for any reason, sincere or cynical.
Of course he has, his group created it.
Chameleons camouflage.
What a long winded way of saying ‘Jew’
@ronald.pickering nothing he said had anything to do with religious belief. Did you mean "capitalist pig?"
Key takeaways:
-Wokal is a progressive. He literally invokes the whig view of history and feels nothing of importance lost when old cultures die out.
-Wokal thinks that culture is no deeper or thicker than pop culture, i.e what music you listen to, etc
-Wokal thinks that most NRx/Dissident Right people are secret racists and that's why they should be ostracized and fired.
-Wokal thinks atheism isn't political and he can work with them despite being a 'Christian' (ex-Jewish), but he would never work with someone who held NRx/DR views because their post-modern views and secret racism cross his "personal line."
-Wokal cannot answer a direct question
-Wokal loves yelling when there's no reason to yell
-Wokal cannot abide by a 2-minute quote-length limit
Great summary. How to people like Wokal claim to be on the right? I am seeing more progressive liberals and Christians interact with the DR/Nx whose entire world view is left except maybe they don’t like late term abortion or the LGBT agenda
Don't forget "Wokal doesn't know when to shut the FUCK up". He's dominated 85% of the total runtime of literally every single thing in which I've ever seen him.
Wokal is a rootless cosmopolitan who wants to live in the land from nowhere he would be perfectly happy living in the national equivalent of an airport. No distinct cultural values or particularities, history, and etc. just a smooth running machine for generating wealth and comfort. He would be perfectly happy if Japan was 90% racial African as long as they still served Sushi and had good wifi. He also cannot allow himself to believe that certain inequalities are innate and biological that cannot be fixed by the right government policy. He agrees with 90% of what the progressives believe in he just things they went a little to far.
@@sillyname6808
lmao "...as long as they still had good wifi". 🤭🤗 You have a good sense of irony and sarcasm. 🥰
@sillyname6808 Unironically he probably lives in an area that is 80% white.
Thank you, Benjamin. This editing was clearly a LOT of work and The Kitty, as well as many in chat voiced... appreciate it 🐈
I haven't given you a scritch in days. Scritch.
@@helenablavatsky9136 ... [on back... all four legs in the air, with front 🐾folded over... rear legs intermittently cycle-kicking.... head weaving side to side.... eyes closed.... making cute lil' nom-nom sounds] 😸
@@NinjaKittyBonks 😆 "...front folded over..."
Wokal has no problem with enforced separation based on political beliefs and language spoken, but goes apoplectic over separation along racial or ethnic lines. Why some but not others?
I'd just point out that I believe the second amendment actually is timeless and would apply to the year 0 because it states that we have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear guns. That means you have the right to bear anything that could potentially be used as a weapon. Also, you obviously do have the right to kill under certain cirumstances, such as for self defense hence the second amendment. Im sure he didnt mean that last part in that way, but I thought I'd mention for clarity's sake.
Yeah an obvious point missed, but Dave is good at avoiding the slimey attempts to change topic when the going gets tough.
Wokal is a true final form fellow white.
I agree and I'm glad someone pointed this out.
Watching to thank you for having this convo on your channel
As a child of Southern California in the 70s who has come to the DR sort of from libertarianism, wokal is engaged in a utopian adventure of not making race salient. I get it. Sadly humanity tends toward disagreeing. In times of hardship you aggregate with people more like you and looks is a factor. A strong shared faith may override that. The DR says you can have “democracy” or divisions along strong boundaries (of which race is one) but experience and logic indicate that both is fragile. It isn’t a matter of liking this. It is a matter of observing this.
I can not notice race all day but I only need run up against one who does for it to become an issue for me. I listened to Dallas city hall meetings on the radio and it was clear that some people noticed race a whole lot. So I moved far away.
I’d 1000x rather live next to Walter Williams (RIP) and Clarence Thomas than Teddy Kennedy or Joe Biden. But, if I have to make a flash calculation about my safety, all other things equal, I’m going to feel safer next to someone who looks more like me than dissimilar. Now all other things equal is doing a lot of work there. And nothing should indicate I wish anyone harm or even discomfort.
I don’t begrudge the black nationalists their theory that they aren’t going to get a fair shake in a majority white country. I think that they’re wrong. But they grew up hearing and living what they did so I’ll try to convince them otherwise but I’m not going to hate on them unless they try to stir up strife.
Cultures change naturally. Musical tastes and fashions change. We understand and accept this. But where does Wokal draw the line, however fuzzy, between natural change and destruction? He said immigration should be slow enough to allow for integration, but this hasn't happened. The capital city in which I grew up has been d3mographically re-placed and the wider country's culture warped into something that feels foreign and obsessed with race - a daily an anti-native-white cudgel. Our leaders forced us down the American path and insist we are a nation of immigrants and that diversity is our strength. Canada is suffering the same and Saskatchewan will not be spared.
It's all well and good for Wokal to say that we should have had a slower rate of immigration, but the people arguing for that back when it could have made a difference were dismissed as bigots. The general population voted for an end to immigration and were ignored. A policy of "No Enemies To The Right" might have allowed these potential leaders inside the tent when they could have made a difference.
Round Two, here we go! I enjoyed the original stream despite technical issues, curious to see how I feel after a second go around :) Thanks Benjamin for hosting these! I'd love to see some more classic liberal/disaffected liberal/IDW types in conversation with the "new right" folks.
This is tough. My stance is a lot closer to Wokal's than Dave's but after hearing this conversation I understand why people move to the NeoRx side.
I do too, but Achord is a bad example.
Dave was and remains a cool cucumber.
Wokal completely lost me when he used Canada as a successful model of immigration. Even Reddit-tier Canadians are completely fed up with immigration and pretty much blame the mass importation of middle class+ foreigners for nearly every problem they have. Wokal says they don't have a southern border with Mexico, but while I'm not in favor of mass, unchecked immigration from Latin American countries, at least they have something in common with the U.S. (Christian, many of European descent, many parts of the U.S. were originally Spanish/Mexican, share a land border with Mexico, U.S. has holdings in other Latin American/Carribean areas, etc.), and it isn't that hard to assimilate them. Mass immigration from India, Communist China, and Muslim Africa/Arabia is a complete disaster for Canada.
Immigration from south of our border is bringing almost no European descendants. They “assimilate” but retain behaviors more appropriate to ranchero land than suburbia. And all our schools are bending over backward to give instruction and information in their native language. Is that assimilation?
Wokal held the L hard here. He literally never actually answered the question of how Liberalism would wield power, and what he did say just lined up with NRX thinking.
I’m disappointed that Wokal didn’t mention WW2 where liberalism not only defeated its enemies but totally annihilated them.
@@januarysson5633Yeah it was an odd conversation. I felt like in many ways Dave was making more rational "liberal" arguments, and Wokal was the more "conservative" side on some issues, which was a weird inverse. The liberals just can't seem to get past this MLK "I have a dream" Boomer Truth version of race in their brains, and it causes them to spurg out. The propaganda has been very strong indeed.
@@Jigsaw0097 I would call myself a classical liberal of the James Lindsay variety. I believe there is a definite place for a more muscular liberalism of the type that existed in the time of World War II when classical liberals actually believed liberalism could be defended without contradicting their principles. This is the point I was trying to make in my original reply. I think what happened is that that Neo-Marxists did a magic trick somewhere around the late 1960s where they shut off the lights and when they turned them back on they replaced classical liberalism with its wicked clone “social justice”. A philosophical homunculus of sorts. To the untrained eye it looked like liberalism and spoke in liberal terms but yet it wasn’t really liberalism. By the time most right of center observers had realized that the change had been made “wokeism” (as we call it today) had been way on its long march through the institutions. We are dealing with the fall out today.
In all honesty I have listened to Wokal a number of times on with Benjamin and couldn’t really place him as either an NRX or a classical liberal. He can be enigmatic but now I see him as a classical liberal after all. Glad to be able to pin him down after seeing him all these times. His proclivity to make long quotations makes it hard sometimes to recognize where his thoughts begin and the thoughts of others end.
Dave seems thoroughly in the NRX camp but kind of equally confusing at times. He did come off a bit less NRX than he usually does here. He is on the side of “no enemies to the right” but as something of a Catholic integralist I don’t see how that couldn’t have limits for him. Dave also calls himself a Machiavellian and I don’t see how that is not a contradiction to his Catholicism since “The Prince” was on the Catholic church’s Index of Prohibited Books since the 16th century to its abolition.
I would like to see a do-over of this debate with James and Auron. Their ideas are a lot more concretized and in pure form and they are both less autist than Dave and Wokal. The whole argument of how far right does the anti-woke movement want to go is an important one and I appreciate Benjamin’s efforts and patience in hosting this debate.
I will say that in my eyes Wokal won the exchange despite his somewhat confusing delivery as he was able to get Dave to back off somewhat out of the purity spiral I usually see him in.
People like wokal should have zero control over other people’s lives.
The cognitive dissonance is strong in this guy.
Thanks for this upload. I'm gonna leave this comment for the algorithm.
wokal blowing smoke rings is extremely rude and dismissive, you can tell he is not listening to Dave
Awesome interview... will watch the rest later..
Saw you on Leslie's channel
Nice work... ciao
I'm eager to re-watch this, having already watched it live. Benjamin's efforts to bridge the divide between liberals and neo-reactionaries are commendable, and perhaps building that bridge is possible, as in, it's not a zero chance of ever happening, but I think the bridge will never be built because liberals and NRxers have incommensurate first principles.
But this conversation is illuminating, nevertheless: What's striking about this conversation is that, on its face, it shouldn't have anything to do with race or ethnicity, yet that's the ditch Michael & Dave fall into and with no foreseeable way of climbing back out. It's probably not a coincidence that the subject Michael & Dave get stuck on and cannot resolve is also the subject most powerfully weaponized by the woke.
Maybe a different kind of liberalism is, or was, possible; a version that isn't so vulnerable to guilt-tripping over group differences. Whether such a version is, or was, possible, and if it still is, whether we should pursue it, and if so, how, are the real disagreements, here. The fact that the conversation crashes into race and never recovers suggests to me we are not at peak woke and the fundamental taboos powering wokeism are still hamstringing those of us trying to defeat wokeism.
Wokal things that it's ok (even commendable) for atheist jews to be staunch zionists.
He also thinks that it's a reprehensible evil for white people to have any form of in-group preference (and God forbid if any white person expresses a desire to extricate themselves from the wonderful fruits of diversity and opt to instead live in a white-only community).
It seriously drives me insane whenever I see people like you sleepwalking through the core of this hypocrisy.
On the bright side: Sargon (Carl Benjamin) was spouting the same song and dance as you as little as 2 or 3 years ago.
Look at him now though.
Try telling Sargon today that he might be a morally repugnant person for wanting Great Britain to be a secure homeland in perpetuity for the traditional (i.e. pre-1950s) ethnic stock of his country.
The same pattern seems to be playing out for other hopeless normie pundits (Charlie Kirk comes to mind).
Give it a couple more years and maybe even you will be disgusted by the flagrant hypocrisy of "classical liberals" who demonize any form of white in-group preference yet zealously cheer on the project of zionism.
"incommensurate first principles" that sounds like what I usually think of as fundamental beliefs or fundamental concepts, like more fundamental than most can articulate let alone notice that causes argument and hangups even in agreements. And in the inverse, if those are shared, then disagreements are more easily acknowledged and handled.
Race is quite the ditch; a non-existence obfuscation, which I believe is held onto not because a fear their might actually be a difference if address, but such a difference would be so insignificant or associated to collective order and congregation that could and would change over time if people wanted and a revolution such as that undermines countless exploits and frauds.
The simplistic labels are themselves are quite the ditch, needing to adhere to "principles" for that sake alone.
I'd believe most principles can converge as reason and faith/spiritual converse upon them, with a recognition of some which are a little more variant that could be deemed cultural for those participating, region or otherwise -- though that would require to both know and be honest about their own principles and not manipulate to get others to abide as key important, the imposition of "principle."
Or "open boarders" as a "libertarian" trap/ditch for the longest time and still is; where a simplistic notion may make that seem as it fits principles and you can have the excuse of "on principle" or "abiding principles," but it doesn't follow principle when you are being imposed on by the subversion of your principle or rules therefore qualifying it as defense. Classic, you're enemies won't abide, but they'll sure hold you to your own if it benefits them and not when it doesn't.
A different kind? Most certainly, I don't think I'd believe that that's what bares the guilt-tripping... I'd expect that to be found as a subversion at some point because it applies elsewhere. The whole term of "empathy" is misconceived around that notion and seen as sympathy instead, when it's only understanding with not pretense of caring. I'd suggest that perhaps there's an element of social or authoritatively off-loading involved that was hi-jacked and repeatedly subverted.
Considering "woke" is "subversive manipulation" it completely makes sense that all the taboos validate and hamstring against it; the fallacious notion of "race" - taboo; sex/gender split and referential contexts - taboo; something that should be "liberal," different perceptions - taboo; those taboo things feed also in quite particularness the belief in a subjective inherentcy, which appears like objectivity because of the assertion that everything is inherent, but is subjectivity because the reason is that it's subjective and therefore can be dictated and assigned it's inherentcy rather then observation as proper objectivity does. By which you can notice that can be done though postmoderninst deconstruction and reconstructed as an inherent by the intersectionalist notion of any infinitesimal sub-element -- and people go along with and validate that because it appears in the same manner as "plain language" orignating in being contextually referential, but is not so rather being an explicit diktat as inherent.... which feeds "context crushing" and subverting the referential because "people have lives" and "people wanta be or be seen as good natured" and it appears to fit how everyone else has always behaved but not lost the referential understanding. And so on... It connects with the forming and structures of cults too that are easier for people to see, but then they get hung on "religion" as faith/spiritual and not as the organizing structure which shields the secular religion and other things.
Race and IQ is pretty core, Wokal stated it as his red dividing line. If extreme environmentalism hypothesis is false then Wokal's entire frame collapses, because:
differences that lead to resentment would be locked in, selecting with biology would be a valid proxy to get better-than-random outcomes.
"Cultures" vary in the number of counterfactuals they operate on to create operating procedures for the majority of their people;
therefore brains of average members of different groups would not be equally compatible with all cultures.
It is also a topic that can get you banned on youtube, so Wokal will never have to really confront it publicly.
"We should just acculturate people to not have resentment about unequal group outcomes."
"Well we can't, so now what?"
"I just care about beliefs, not biology!" + "I'm going to teach my son my values."
Do you want to have your own kids or adopt? It should make no difference except biology that you reject as a valid distinction right?
It should be noted that there are only 3 possible positions that a person can take on the race and IQ question:
1. The disparities between racial/ethnic groups in terms of IQ scores are 100% the result of environmental factors.
2. The disparities between racial/ethnic groups in terms of IQ scores are the result of environmental and hereditary factors.
3. The disparities between racial/ethnic groups in terms of IQ scores are 100% the result of hereditary factors.
Progressives and "liberals" like Wokal adhere to position 1.
Race realists adhere to position 2.
Literally no one adheres to position 3.
While it's true that this controversy is yet to be "settled" by science, it should definitely be emphasized that Wokal's bizarre tirade against race realism did _not_ represent the facts as we have them.
The preponderance of all evidence that we have so far - while still not representing a complete picture - most certainly does _not_ point in the direction of equal distribution of polygenetic traits (for general intelligence) amongst all racial/ethnic groups.
Go look up the comments that any thought leader in the IDW or NRx spheres have made on the subject if you're interested (i.e. if their opinions hold any weight for you).
Those who dig their trenches in option 1 are digging a procrustean bed.
That type of liberalism that wasn't woke did exist for a couple hundred years in the US and Britain and it worked pretty well while it lasted. However Wokal would hate it and try to get people who believed in it fired and it also we still ended up here. Although to be softer on the second point, all political systems eventually evolve and/or fail, and a couple hundred years ain't half bad.
Dave the entire stream has the look of boredom and why-did-i-agree-to-this. I don't blame him.
Cause Dave is so genuine. 🥰 He's not a poser. Doesn't care about optics and being presentable.
Distributist makes a good try but it's probably impossible to persuade Wokal into seeing the beauty of cultural particularisms when he's already a man who abandoned his cultural particularisms and thinks it was good for him to do so
You're fighting against something like his own internal aesthetic standard of beauty at this point >_>;
Yes. To picture yourself in another man's shoes. Wocal doesn't seem to have that ability. Only because he loves to live in a Canadian multikulti smelting pot and loves immigration and 60's guitar rythms, he doesn't accept that Swedes like me want Sweden to remain ethnically predominantly Swedish (Swedish ethnic supremacy).
Spot on
GREAT conversation!
Fascinating conversation! I do wish Wokal didn't talk over people as much...
Can't help it. It's in his nature.
It's genetic.
It's his Neuroticism. He can't help but to do that. That neurotic thinking from a J.
Or be such an insufferable douch. His vaping and smoke rings are, to me, rude and a way showing his disdain for listening to anyone. He knows it is visually distracting. That's why has he's doing it. He's a verbally adept 13 year old at heart.
Thanks for the recut
BATES: Be friends, you English fools, be friends. We have French quarrels enough!
- Henry V Act 4 Scene 1
I suppose its paramount then that the the tory party used the Henry the 8th act to steal parliament and implement brexit.
The Henry 8th act is also known as the dictator clause, and the tory party are.. Well, tourys.
The Distributist is awesome
Wow headband guy smokes weed and is still that high strung? Impressive.
Wokal's ideas re: coalition building is literally what gets us cthulhu swimming left. He wants to build coalitions with people who disagree with him on fundamental things (like atheists) and just legislate the things we "both agree on." The problem is -- as people like Ed Dutton have pointed out -- is that rightwing people have a fairly broad range of moral concerns (sanctity, respect for authority, equality, harm reduction, etc), but progressives have a very narrowly focused moral range on things like equality and harm reduction. So when you look for the overlap, all you end up doing is implementing the left's agenda. The "overlap" will never include rightwing ideas. To put it another way: leftwing morality is a SUBSET of rightwing morality, which is why the "common ground" approach doesn't work.
Canada has the same cultural as everyone else does... ...Netflix.
Wokal's opinion on how well Canada is handling its immigration did not age well :-) Our institutions are creaking under the pressure. Immigration isn't the worse issue either, the refusal to even allow the issue of immigration on the table for discussion is.
Dave is correct, we have to be very careful about our standards we set to limit the conversation.
90% policing to the right and 40% policing to the left has a predetermined result. Maybe some ideas outside the Overton window to the right are still worthy of grappling with.
The thing is ethnicity is a more real concept in human perception than race or culture, so ethnic preference isn't a disguise for racism, rather racism is a crude expression of ethnic preference.
I am philosophically edified! Great show, and fascinating debate that helped me think about my own beliefs and values. Ben is a great moderator!
How can anyone expect to be taken seriously whilst smoking a hooka and blowing smoke rings?
I don't trust Wokal.
The Godfather of the dissident right. 🤗 I love this man! 🥰 I love Dave The Distributist so much.
What a performance in this conversation. Just on point with whatever he addressed. And I'm so thankful he addressed the ethnic issue perfectly. 🤗 It was a perfect phone call, I mean conversation.
I know this video is five months old at this point, but I think the big elephant that we’re not talking about is the dropping birth rates across the western world and across the world broadly, And the real people in control, making decisions like the bankers, see the dropping birth rates as an national security issue for economy, etc. and basically they’re only out for Mass migration to the west which Canada US Europe has been doing. I think it’s futile try to fight the people in control and what we need to do is have some sort of compromise where we increase immigration dramatically, but we vet who’s coming in to make sure that they want to be a part of our society and our fundamentals.
Nice work Dave
It's odd that Wokal tries to defend liberalism at the same time as supporting people being fired for having the wrong political opinions.
It’s like he’s a liberal but deep down he knows he’s wrong he just can’t face it
How is defending the freedom of association of a private organization an attack on the concept of liberalism? Seems like respecting that freedom would be in support of liberalism
“What’s the liberal solution to these problems?”
“Well, first you have to *insert list of illiberal actions*”
I think you guys are confusing the concept of liberalism in the political science sense, as in the philosophy of political liberty, and liberalism in the Electoral politics sense which means the left..... there are two completely different things liberalism is the foundational political Doctrine invented by the United States based on John Locke Etc, so the United States and Canada are fundamentally liberal countries....... unfortunately the word liberal started getting used to describe the left and now everyone is confused as fuck
A very good discussion!
" In year zero the 2A doesn't apply as guns didn't exist"
Ah, but it's Arms.
Which the 2A comes from the Gentleman in Italy. See Baldassare Castiglione The Book of the Courtier.
Arms includes firearms, but not exclusively so. It also includes swords , daggers, pikes, crossbow, bow,spear etc. In fact, Jeronimo de Carranza has a defense of Christianity via weapons. It's an actual Treatise.
And yes, weapons are a part of religion. But also class,ethos, spirit, civilization. Specifically the Warrior Class.
During the Italian Renaissance The Gentleman was allowed to carry and own a Smallsword or Rapier. So long as he followed the Gentleman Code of Honor.
In Italy this did allow non Nobles to attain some status and respectability.
It came with responsibilities and codes to live by.
Such as the willingness to duel if necessary. The Gentleman was always a warrior first.
You can also read Galateo by Giovanni Della Casa. This goes into Manners.
These two Italian books were very important of the time.
One of the reasons why liberals stopped noticing behavior is because
A) It reveals truth and reality
B) It's innate and this Heresy to them.
Deep down they know it's true.
C) They fear what that means for a civilization.
D) They fear they may have lived a life of a lie. Liberalism can't handle that type of error. As that leads to introspection and a whole new change. Which they would have to include race and genetics. And that scares them. They fear God ( truth/reality as a metaphor) .
New England had official State sanctioned religion for a long time. Now it's not a legal entity but the culture is the same. The population still believes it. Does that matter? Not really.
Just because a region makes themselves secular doesn't mean the religion goes away. Secularism is a smokescreen to hide that religion.
Atheists do believe in gods, devils ,angels and demons. Just not THE God. Atheists do think they are God themselves. As Anointed Ones.
Separation of Church and State was never an ideal. It was mentioned once in a letter I think.
All Atheists descend from Protestantism.
See How Dawkins Got Pawned video
The phrase "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" was originally submitted to a joke book.
I think “no 2A in Year Zero” was Wokal’s weakest argument.
Wokal believes if a dog is born in a stable its a horse
What do you mean dogs aren't horses
I normally like Wokal, but he just didn't make good points. You can admit that the truth lies somewhere between "race exists, and anywhere multiple races coexist they will inevitably compete against each other to the point where it escalates to genocide; therefore a state must be racially homogeneous" and "there is no such thing as race, and anywhere there is race competition it is actually a facade for deeper issues; therefore race must play no factor in immigration and state-building". The fact that he's unwilling to go between these positions and instead chooses to loudly double down is frustrating. Dave is making good points, and insofar as Wokal thinks those points slippery-slope into the former view above, that itself is worth debating. Maybe Dave does a disservice by saying that "people generally like to live with people who look like them", because that's a great oversimplification. It's the liberal tabula rasa view that thinks everyone is a clean slate and can magically assimilate to a culture without any future conflict. Africans who were brought to what is now the U.S. 300-400 years ago and haven't had any meaningful relation to their original African heritage can be seen wearing supposedly traditional African outfits and adopting colors of the African flag in their dress in 2023. It's like the scene in White Lotus where the family goes to their traditional home and gets cursed out, but 100x worse.
Also, Sally Hemings was not a "small part" black; she was 25%.
bruh really said canada has good immigration policies 💀
they still havent even assimilated the french lmao
I live in a place that has seen an insane amount of immigration from South Asia and South America in the past 15-20 years. It is almost impossible to go into a semi-densely populated area and *not* not hear a foreign language.
1:47:17 - I think it's a lot less that liberals have chosen not to push back, it's because they can't. The liberal answer would be that race doesn't exist, that it's a social construct, and insofar as you experience race, it's your brain's pattern recognition systems getting fried. The problem is that existence is experiential, and however hard rationalism and liberalism try to tell people that what they're experiencing is just their dopamine receptors tricking them, they are still going to experience it and thus it will exist.
It is really cool to see Dave challenged, makes the times he gets a word in edgewise very satisfying. I would really like to see him debate a conservative with a cooler head...Glenn Loury? Douglas Murray?
Douglas Murray probably is no better after his meltdown over the war.
If I'm not mistaken, the original video was about 4 hours long, right?
4:20, linked in the description.
I hope we can become a more arrogant people in matters of the culture we have created.
Wokal’s closing statement was very good and left me with a much better impression of the man.
7:12 - 'guns did not exist'... but weapons and arms did, and the second amendment states clearly 'the right to bear ARMS'. Not 'Guns'. Meaning Arms and weapons are an 'umbrella term' under which 'guns', as he is implying (that is fire arms) exist. A sword is an arm, a weapon which did exist in the year zero, meaning the Second Amendment would still apply. Correct me if I'm wrong.
that's correct, and even with our 2nd Amendment, it includes cannons and whatnot of the founding fathers' time. However, a better way of looking at it and some constitutional lawyers are approaching the 2A this way - is RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (no matter the weapon or no weapon). As you'll witness, Soros DAs and the Left in general are using the justice system to punish their political rivals. This is why there are J6 political prisoners while antifa and BLM are allowed to burn, beat and kill and get off scott free or near to it. The Left legal establishment has gone after those who defend themselves while giving favorable treatment and decisions to criminals. Far Left cities are allowing shoplifting. This is on purpose. The top law schools are virtually all woke, so this will continue unless lines are drawn (some judges are rejecting any clerks who are woke or who simply come from woke schools). 2nd Amendment needs to be a right to self defense.
I love Wokal, but this was like watching a forty-year-old man trying to convince you and himself that Santa Claus exists. Does Wokal even truly believe what he's saying?
Why do you love him? I think he's almost literally "the worst".
@@Vingul My comment was 6 months ago. I now agree with you. People like Wokal must be held accountable. What does he truly stand for? It certainly isn't truth or moral consistency. Unfortunately, Wokal seems to stand for tribalism for his people and a parasitic subversion of the West.
1:24:25 I like Wokal, but I'm sorry, this point he tries to make here is just plain stupid. What the Hell is he talking about??
Didn't you know that racism and ethnic political conflict was only invented in the 1970s? Gangs of new York and machine politics built on Irish ethnic grievances was started I. 1970, not 1870.
“Why race?” Because “race” has become a placeholder for a complicated mix of challenge which are not necessarily related.
It seem that due to the prevailing liberal elite cultural norms, such as “Race doesn’t matter” or being “color blind” they have largely withdrawn from making distinctions between healthy/beneficial ethnocentric ideals and expressions and unhealthy ones.
For example, one could have a preference for an environment in which one shares language, culture, religion, and potentially race with the other who are present. One may love that experience, and feel deeply nurtured, supported, and protected by that familiarity.
This is not the same as “hate”, “a phobia”, racial supremacy, or ethnic nationalism. The progressive/postmodern left is largely reacting to this absence by means of promoting an explicitly anti liberal, “anti racist” ideology.
The far and alt right is largely reacting by attempting to rehabilitate past conceptions.
Both are asking a useful question (“what about “race?””) and attempting to address genuine unmet needs, but the underlying structure informing these reactions on both left and right, are almost identical and profoundly unhealthy.
Ethnocentric drives exist in all people, and until we have a large enough social consensus around what healthy ethnocentric development looks like and how it behaves, we will continue to wrestle with these issues.
To me liberals seem focused on how they think people should act while NRX is focused on how people actually act. The problem with liberalism is that it has no answer for people who don’t give a damn about your values that fits within the liberal framework as I understand it
Good discussion but I think Wokal needs to listen a little better but his submersion in PoMo is getting in the way. Things going on now in the government, prosecuting political opposition are extremely common, almost the norm for most of our history. Definitely the norm in the third world. Post modernism just opened the doors because liberalism refuses to acknowledge the tribal aspect of human beings.
Even as someone who really likes Wokal on Benjamins channel and dont like the Distributist in general, I think Wokal went into this very hostile and deeply against either The Distributist or neo reaction to the point of almost ruining it for trying to corner or prove a problem with neo reaction. (I'd still like to see Wokal talk to another neo reactionary some time though)
But thumbs up to The Boyce for realizing it wasn't a compatible conversation and reining them in
Which is ironic because Dave showed immense restraint and decorum even though he clearly finds Wokal repulsive for participating in the cancellation campaign that looms large over their "No Enemies To The Right" discussion.
is he usually this cringe? ive never heard of him before this. like, i can tell he’s read some books but his worldview isnt sorted out at all. imo someone like this has no business putting his opinions on blast like this.
@@areyoutheregoditsmedave oh please, you say that like the standard isn't at an all time low, Distributist is just not a debater and Wokal very much came here to internet debate and be against neo reaction
@@1dustbranch111 i have since checked out other wokal appearances. he is cringe usually, yes.
@@areyoutheregoditsmedave hes a little different, but you do agree he knows his theory, right?
At the 3 hour mark around culture and you can Dave wants to live in a studio Ghibli world while Wokal is fine living inside a McDonald’s advert. Ilke feel Heidegger, Guenon, or Baudrillard each could have added something of value here. Something about the authentic pre modern experience of life versus the enframing of modern consciousness to see everything as standing reserve or quantity or hyper reality. The revelation of this is Dave represents the best of the past and the future while Wokal is a mere reactionary for the by gone days of late 20th century liberalism.
Wokal has no qualms about throwing away his culture, which is why he expects the same from everyone else.
but not jewish culture. that must be protected at all costs.
Why is he shouting?
Because he has nothing to say.
I think it's because deep down Wokal knows he is wrong, and that's causing him painful cognitive dissonance. We all react differently when we realize the scale of the problems we are facing in the West.
Why is the reupload an hour shorter?
Editorial decisions. Full recording is in description.
Edited for nudity
Wokal, where you at right now?
Hmmm I don’t know? Where do I need to be. What a hell of an answer to a first question.
I still can’t get passed the smoke rings.
Wokal has forever convinced me that hookas are bad form
Wokal cannot justify his prejudice against white nationalism
What exactly is the program of white nationalism?
@@BellBeakerBlokeach to the third power. Some of these kinds of comments flirt with some weird stuff. Oy vey. Oy veying and aching
@@BellBeakerBlokethis kind of comment is where I get a bit lost in the sauce with these ideas.
Because it’s against his own self interest to advocate for that. If ethnocentrism was to sweep the west people like Wokal would be loose out on a lot of power and money. Race blind secular liberalism is the optimal condition for the thriving of his group largely at the expense of the ethnic peoples of their respective nation.
It's all been said, so I'll just add that it's "tenets!*
Tenets.
Say it a few time - tenets.
Not tenants.
Drives me mad that one. A good 99% of people say tenants when they mean tenets.
Say it to yourself 50 times.
Tenet.
Tenet.
Tenet.
Tenet.
Not tenant.
Wokal is such a joke…glad we had Greene to put his silliness to bed.
Who was it they were talking about having been fired earlier in the video?
Thomas Achord, who anonymously posted on twitter some controversial things like race realism, but then Rod Dreher exposed him and he got fired. I think he was a teacher at a Christian school.
@@gulanhem9495 thanks
2:58:18 all you need to know
People like Wokal Distance are the fruits of Protestantism. The way in which he finds culture to be disposable is par for the course. But what do you expect when one’s examples of culture are the blues and Nickelodeon? He’s racking his brain to try to understand why it would be so bad to lose his culture. What he doesn’t realize is that he has no culture. That’s the sad part.
Thanks for all the hard work Benjamin!
48:00
2:44:30 - this can also be said about immigration!
I have determined to never get a hookah.
While I mostly agree with Wokal Distance, I think he sometimes forgets the ambiguous degree to which values are carried along in a culture. Just because poetry changes but is a transitory expression does not mean that the changes in poetry are trivial. Note the difference in values between Rudyard Kipling's "If" and Irwin Allen Ginsburg's "Howl".
While both poems use the same language but the values are fundamentally different. The interpretations of Christian theory depends on secular ideas about linguistic interpretation or the moral standing of due diligence versus assumed innocence.
Wokal trying to drag liberalism out of the dumpster by name dropping and appealing to void abstractions, is an ethnocentric attempt to rescue the system that empowers his particular group, by sputtering against particularity. This was hilarious; good show. Congrats to Dave.
16:05 Does he say "at some point we should get into Netter"? Who is Netter?
No Enemies To The Right
@@BenjaminABoyce
Wow. So unnecessary to abbreviate it like that lol 🤭
@@gulanhem9495 Charles Haywood should have joined the Infantry. He would love the acronyms
@@robertpatter5509
lmao.
So this NETTR thing is Charles Haywood's invention?
49:07 if there are seemingly two types of nationalism, one that is mono-ethnic and a second that is multi-ethnic, then it seems like there should be two separate terms. Rather than group them both under nationalism and try to discuss it as a single concept. I hope that TD further elaborates on the differences of nationalism and implications from there. So far it seems like he is arguing that we should be for ethnic nationalism but there are historical examples of other situations.
People cringe at the terms but civic nationalism and cultural nationalism are apt for this. Personally I care far more about someone's lifestyle, moral beliefs, and community identity in relation to mine than their exact genetic makeup and how close it is to mine. Perhaps this is just the influence of being an American, I wouldn't argue that the same approach should be taken by some European nationalist in a far smaller country.
Wokal is one calmversation away from, “real communism has never been tried.”
Is wokal the bass player?
Deep down he's a Bolshevik. We can draw it out of him. It's not hard to do
I always knew Walter Williams was a vicious racist for only dating black women. He talked about it on national radio. Cancel him. He has ulterior motives Wokal doesn’t approve of!
And I appreciate wokal doing this as I think he does good work. I just have some areas of disagreement.
There's no such thing as a conservative intellectual - only apologists for right-wing power.
This is basically a re up of the other days discussion?
With fixed audio, as promised.
@@BenjaminABoyce Cheers Benjamin. I must admit I listened to the entire original and didn't notice any audio problems 🤣
the way you he/him/his's throw the jargon around is disturbing. Weird phenomenon: you went from naming concepts in your discourse to naming authors (metonymically) about half way through. Why was that? Is there a difference between a meta-analysis and a meta-narrative? sincerely asking
I like how intros are morphing into almost like concise mission statements, I sense soon I will be asked to join some kind of militia, and I will politely decline until/unless Wokeists literally attack my neighborhood. Also, why employ a video editor, when u can employ cats? I think we all know the answer: no reason at all.
Flat fifth is on its way out? Right…. ROFL
It would make me blue, if we would no longer have that note.
Wokal needs to go deeper into Bandcamp
Wokal uses some really sleazy techniques, I'm sorry. Like at 2:18:10 , where he says "when (reactionaries) say the average black IQ is 80, that's just wrong and we have the data to back it up". I've never heard them say 80, I've heard them say 91, which is lower than average (the entrire point), and completely non-controversial among intelligence researchers.
The fact that he's doing that sleight of hand in the context of shrugging off race as non-existent before literally making yet another carve out for Jews that makes it ok for them to prefer the company of other Jews and expect their children to marry Jews... it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.
Oy Wokal, what are ya smokin’? In year zero itmwould have simply been the arms of the times….duh!
I suppose theres room for all this philosophizing. I mean Nero philosophized while Rome burned or was that fiddled? Oh, whats the diff.
Some American think world is America from movies ,Dave is not one of them this guy Wokai is. Wokai you hate humans and reality . Wokai is to abstract and he is book worm . People bleed to form nations for themselves that is history , forget about migration last 20 years . Europa and Asia are lands of peoples fighting for they land ,tribes. Other continents are disrupted but still ethnicity is nation by itself , Americans forgot that.
Wokal wasn’t calmversating :(
ben i hope you will be on the yule show for a one Scottish celebrator. i put in the word for him to invite. great shows in any case. i'm glad to be abreast. thanks.
Sup
🏆
I thought supporting limited, pragmatic redistributive economic policies alla Andrew Yang for example, was one of several indications that I would be best described as a Center-Left Liberal. But if these convos are a suitable reflection of the culture, then by today's standards I might instead be categorized as a Center-Right Enlightenment Liberal. I dunno, it kind of also seems like Conservatives don't rly exist as much anymore, and no viable politic exists anywhere Left of Center. In conclusion, we're all going to die.
You are probabaly a small c cinservstive of sorts, like the vast majority of people, rhis isn't left right or center, but.. they will all attempt to draw you toward their side.
Being a lefty myself I'd like to see ppl gravitate toward center left positions. But of course, people make up their own minds quite often b4 the choice is made for them.
I think the better way to look at it is that the US is going through a political realignment. "Liberals" and "Conservatives" aren't going to be the two sides anymore, we'll look back on those categories the same way we look at the Greenback movement, the Temperance movement, or The Federalists, etc. The old categories are no longer useful.
@@DJWESG1 Yeah, I'm probably still best described as a Center-Left Classical Liberal.
@@derekded Yes, in fact I watch The Realignment channel. In the mean time though, are we all just nothing? We have these tenuous interim categories.
There are way too many american think tanks around.
Is Wokal Smoking dope?
Achord was right to be fired, and, Wokal is wrong about everything else.
Am I crazy or is that mouthy buddha?
Wokal is not Mouthy Buddha. They are different guys.
Abstractionist BS.
Wokal is still based even if the racists are mad at him
He is literally a 2004 liberal how is that based? He is just a run of the mill conservative who only wants acts as a police dog for the left. Do you think David French and Rod Dreher are based too?
@sameash3153
I bet you thought you were very clever. 🤭🤗
@@gulanhem9495 I think you're the one trying to be snarky and clever here. I just like Wokal.
Calling half the commenters racist is pretty snarky.
@@lemaindefemme4858 I don't mean the term with snark, I believe a good third of these commenters are actually racist, and not in the "dass rayciss" accusation, but as a true description of their beliefs. I've been in these circles for years, I know the difference between what liberals call racism and what neoreactionaries actually believe.