Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Saturday, December 7, 2024

Reflecting on Israel/Palestine Debate: Grumpy Groyper Lawrence Roche, aka Laurence of Europa

Lawrence Roche, Grumpy Groyper

                                                            

On October 30th, 2024, I had a debate on the broad Arab-Israeli conflict with Nick Taurus of Laguna Hills.

We had debated the topic last year:


Nick wanted to bring me back to discuss the issue again, this time in a public forum before an audience. Yes, the debate was recorded, too:


I wrote some brief comments about the debate last month, but now I have time to comment on one key issue that erupted--disrupted--the debate.

And that was the grumpy moderator, Lawrence Roche:

Grumpy Groyper tipped his hand
in the Arab-Israel debate with Nick Taurus



He also goes by the name Lawrence of Europa. Seriously. That is the name that he uses on Instagram. 




He is a rabid anti-Zionist, and after you read his comments below, we can safely conclude that he is an anti-Semite, as well. Of course, it's getting more difficult to separate the two.

He was charged with moderating my debate with Nick Taurus on October 30th, 2024.



He was an immoderate man who repeatedly interrupted me and shouted at me and others in the audience. He was tipping his hand from the beginning, and that is understandable.

However, that did not stop me from speaking the truth.

He allowed a member of the audience to argue and interrupt me, when everyone was supposed to be quiet and listen once they asked a question. He told me to be a "debater" and let him run the debate, which he did not do very well.

Here is the lowest of lowlights of this immoderate moderator: (Click here)

During the Question and Answer period fromteh audience, I confronted Andrew the JQ guy about his reference to the Lavon Affair. During that exchange, Roche jumped in to stop me from speaking. At that point, Nick and I had tacitly understood that we could answer questions posed to us and respond to other questions or comments previously. But Lawrence did not like my confronting and correcting Andrew regarding his hostility to Israel!

It got better, of course, because when I called him out on it!

Roche Interrupting me


You will notice in the last video, Nick Taurus literally had to moderate this Moderator: "Let him finish!"

Yes. The moderator lost his cool. He could not control himself, and he felt justified interrupting the debate.

What is this?

What I have noticed is that this interruption culture is a constant with pro-Palestinian acolytes. They do not want to debate this issue fairly. The moderators all too often tip their hands. The only time I have seen an experienced and effective moderator was the debate between Robert Barnes and Nick Fuentes on InfoWars. 

At the beginning of the debate, I had given Grumpy Groyper Lawrence the benefit of the doubt. Nick Taurus invited and expected two moderators, but the pro-Zionist moderator did not show up.

At the end of it all, I am glad that I could debate sometimes three people at once.

When I posted the debate on Instagram the next day, Lawrence Roche swept in and pushed his short-lived revisionism:



Here's his entire rant, in an attempt to justify himself:

You're a liar, Schaper. The debate hall & atmosphere was very fair & you had every accommodation afforded to you. So much so that after the meeting you took home all the remaining food without it first being offered to you! What a leach [sic]! And yes, I stood & watched this transpire. lol

This guy is supposed to be an educator, and he spells "leech" wrong. Also, Nick and his team offered to let me take food home, or it would have been thrown away, so there's that. Notice that he does not discuss the substance of any issues, but just attacks people personally. Why? Because he has no facts or basis for criticizing someone.

Schaper kvetched: "The moderator would fight with me, but I learned from @jdvance how to fight back, and even Nick took my side at one point."

All of this is true. JD Vance had to debate Tim Walz and two moderators during the Vice-Presidential debate earlier that month. During the last question of my debate with Taurus, I had to fend off Lawrence, Andrew (the JQ conspiracist) as well as Nick.

No one was fighting you Schaper, just attempting to counter your disruptive behaviour. So I did, as I did with the Barking Jews you brought as your "cheering" section (cheering, as in loudly barking & interrupting Nick). I had to forcefully overpower your attempts to disrupt the debate & shut it down.

See the videos for yourself. He argued with me, and he got upset when I called him out for not enforcing the rules of the debate. Grumpy Groyper literally interrupted me when I called out Andrew over the Lavon Affair. There was no justification for that, and Nick Taurus had to correct Roche and tell him to calm down. When members of the audience interrupted me, Roche didn't care. In contrast, when members of the audience chimed in or asked if they could clarify or add to the discussion, I told them that they could not. And some of those people were my guests, but even then I did not let them break the decorum.

Of course, who can ignore Grumpy's rant in his comment above: "Barking Jews." Seriously.  We are talking about a grown man here, and he is writing such dreck. Besides, most of my guests were not Jews, and I knew five of the people in the audience. Everyone else was a new face tome.

Roche is physically grown, but not matured, to say the least. That is a common trait among pro-Palestinian agitators. They don't display emotional maturity (or intelligence).

Content-wise, you were pathetically comical as all Zionists are when trying to justify the GENOCIDE going on in Gaza today. Your retarded, long ago de-bunked Dennis Praeger-tier takes will live forever as comedy gold(stein). My favorite moment? Perhaps it was when you praised Israel's strategy of bombing hospitals in Gaza! Typical depraved Zionist morality.

When someone uses "genocide" to denigrate Israelis protecting themselves, you know that that person has completely lost the argument. He loves to talk about Dennis Prager, whose name he misspelled. Nick told me that Roche was an educator. I think his students should sue him for breach of contract.

I am glad the videos are out & about for all to see, so please refrain from editing them!

Yes, indeed, I have not edited the videos at all. I encourage everyone to watch them. A number of people commented a month after the debate that they liked what I had to say, they enjoyed the debate, and they complimented me on standing for truth.



Sunday, November 3, 2024

FREE SPEECH DEBATE: Arab-Israeli Conflict (Nick Taurus v. Arthur Schaper)

                      


Here's my full debate with Nick Taurus, a pro-Palestinian Trump supporter from Orange County, CA.

Some people consider that an oxymoron. How can someone support the Palestinian movement, since so many of them are Leftists? Of course, his side, and many of his supporters, counter that Israel and Zionism are the greatest threat 

The debate took place at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024.

Nick reached out to me in the middle of Summer 2024. He was hoping to pair me off against another anti-Zionist speaker. He reached out to a number of left-leaning, pro-Palestinian groups, but none of them would step up.

I was glad to step in and stand for truth, stand for Israel, and expose the truth about the so-called Palestinian movement.

This was not as daunting a task, since I had debated Nick on the Arab-Israeli conflict shortly after the October 7th, 2023 Hamas massacre:

             

For the October 30th, 2024 debate, Nick provided all the questions in advance, which was great, since that gesture allowed both of us to study, research, and prepare more effectively.

He also provided ground rules, which included no interruptions. I admit that that is my weak point. CRINGE! It's true, and I can laugh at myself about that.

There were supposed to be two moderators, a pro-Zionist and an anti-Zionist, but the pro-Zionist could not make it at the last minute.

Lawrence of Europa served as the moderator, and like CBS or NBC moderators, he broke the rules and interrupted me a few times, but that conflict did not stop me from speaking out.

Some of my friends joined the event, including Rachelle Mand, a Persian Jew who fled Iran before the Ayatollah took over. Keith Hardine of South Los Angeles, John Willis of Upland (both former members of We the People Rising), and Eli Komai of the John Birch Society also attended.

It was a pleasant surprise to see Eli, who is also a friend of Nick Taurus.

GROUP PHOTOS!




The debate was fun!

It was great to stand for truth, to refute a lot of the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist talking points.

Nick was definitely the more reserved debater, standing behind the podium the whole time. I was more active, moving around a great deal. I don't recall any rules of decorum regarding our behavior, so there is that.

I really enjoyed stepping forward and speaking to the audience directly. For the first time in a long time, I felt really confident about this subject. It was good to interact with people.

Nick referenced a great deal of books, resources, and authors. That did not bother me, since truth is truth, and if lots of information is based on a false premise, everything else is invalidated. I also referenced some books, websites, and authors. I will say this much: I want to work on memorizing more names and more sources for future debates.

Let me get the worst and the missed opportunities out of the way:
  • Nick pointed out that there are Jewish people in the Biden Administration who are part of the open borders agenda. But who put them there? Joe Biden! I should have responded to that, but there were so many other things I wanted to respond to.
  • He talked a great deal about "Jewish" NGOs pushing mass migration and open borders. Who funds them, though? Most of the funding comes from rich white liberal Gentiles.
  • He mentioned the Appollo Affair. Yawn. I had challenged that in the last debate, in which independent American and Israeli investigations confirmed that Schlomo Solomon did not steal any uranium. A third party, Seymour Hersh, did his own investigation and wrote his findings in The Sampson Option.
  • I neglected to point out that Amin al-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, along with other Arab interests in the Middle East and Muslims in Southeastern Europe, collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews in Europe instead of expelling them to the Middle East.

Some of the best moments (for me) in the debate:
  • Pointing out that Israeli police officers arrest hyper-Orthodox Jews when they spit at Christians. That fact deflated the whole talking point from the anti-Zionists in the audience.
  • Using the phrase "so-called Palestinians" and undermining the legacy and veracity of that term. It felt really good to inform the audience that Zionist founders like Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion were also Palestinians!
  • Not breaking a sweat when one of the anti-Zionist members of the audience asked me about the Haavera Transfer Agreement. At that moment, I had not heard of that phrase, although I know that Hilter initially wanted to expel the Jews to the Middle East. Instead of getting flustered, I got to the heart of the issue: "Do you think that justifies pushing 6 million Jews into ovens?" I also stated, "Whatever that is, that does not delegitimize Israel." That's what all these obscure references are really all about.
  • Refuting the "Dancing Israelis" conspiracy by using the phrase "Dancing Palestinians." I wanted to underscore the reality that it's the so-called Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim allies who are harming this country. I really thank God for having that phrase on the tip of my tongue.
  • Referencing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who served in a foreign military in order to supporting allow American citizens to serve in Congress. Nick acknowledged that point as a good counter-argument, and I respect that.
  • Repeating the fact that Israel offered the so-called Palestinians a state FIVE TIMES. None on the Pro-Palestinian side can bellyache about fairness or lack of return, when so-called Palestinian leaders just want to push the Jews into the sea.

My favorite moment was turning the tables on a groyper wearing an American Flag jacket during the Question and Answer period. I think his name was Andrew, although I could be wrong. He referenced the Lavon Affair, which is a common anti-Zionist talking point. He went off about the USS Liberty, which I had mentioned before he did. He tried to interrupt me a few times, but I was relentless in pushing back on the anti-Zionist tropes. 

I really like that I held him accountable for exploiting those veterans, and I also like that I could get the truth out about Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the most consequential--and the worst--Presidents in our country's history.

Frankly, I think that the biggest problem for many of these anti-Zionist guys is that people simply do not let them talk, and they do not respond with simple facts or evidence. People get easily offended because of the controversial nature of the subject and just shut off all discussion. That is not the way to win (back) hearts and minds.

I liked that I was able to confront other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the audience, and Lawrence could not stop me. The whole situation reminded me of JD Vance, when he confronted the CBS moderator for "fact-checking" him, when the corporate media moderators were just lying. Nick backed me up when the moderator got out of line, which helped a great deal.

Post-debate was great, too. A number of people came up to me and thanked me for coming, including the pro-Palestinian groyper (?) wearing an American flag on his jacket. He came up to me and shook my hand, praising me for stepping into hostile territory and taking a stand for Israel.

I let him share his views on "The Jews did 9-11," and I was able to refute his arguments. 


              

 I think it's quite telling that during the Question and Answer period, Nick did not want to spend too much time responding to his question about invading and destroying Israel. Even for anti-Zionists, the American-Flag jacket guy's arguments were way too much!

Nick was very magnanimous and praised me efforts after the debate. I am grateful that I could come and speak up, too!



Friday, October 11, 2024

Torrance School Board Debate, 2024: Very Disappointing




On October 11, 2024, The Torrance-area League of Women Voters hosted a debate for the school board candidates running to replace Jeremy Gerson (who was elected to the city council) as well as for the two candidates running for state assembly.

I was really surprised to hear about this. Last year, Al Muratsuchi didn't bother debating George Barks for the state assembly seat. I assumed he would just ignore Barks again and "coast" to re-election. However, there is a growing unease among Democrats across the country, including in California, so it seems.

Not only that, but it seemed as though there was very little notice for this debate. Normally, I am pretty well on top of information like this. Someone in Hermosa Beach had to inform me about this debate, and it was only the day before!

Why are Democrats like Al Muratsuchi participating in debates? Adam Schiff debated Steve Garvey, as well. Are things more competitive on the ground than I had realized?

California is a battleground state, at least as far as the Congressional races are concerned. Kamala Harris is not as popular as people think she is, and she is bleeding support with key Democratic demographics. Add to that the fact that the California Democratic state legislative supermajority basically defied and dismissed the Black Supremacist movement and rejected all the major reparations legislation this past session ... and Democrats are feeling nervous!

Before I talk about the state assembly debate, I want to comment on the school board debate for Trustee Area E. David Zygielbaum, Tony Yeh, and Charles Deemer are all running to replace Jeremy.

Tony Yeh



That debate was ... disappointing.

It's clear that Zygielbaum is the establishment favorite, based on all the endorsements has has racked him, which he repeated at length. He spent so much time talking about his endorsements, including from the hostile Torrance Teachers Association, that he failed to answer a significant question: how did he feel about California AG Rob Bonta's lawsuit against Chino Valley Unified School District regarding their transparency policy about student identity issues?

Dave Zygielbaum



He refused to answer the question, but dodged with the empty pablum about making schools "Welcoming for all students."

Of course, how can a school be welcoming for anyone if biological males are using female facilities on a campus? He also dismissed that concern as a "national issue," even though candidate Tony Yeh clearly addressed the issue, and that parents in the district were raising alarms about this issue.

Charles Deemer


I will add, however, that Yeh spent so much time focusing on the transgenderism problems in the school district, that he spent very little time explaining anything else. Yes, I am glad that he wants children to be safe, and I am really pleased that he directly answered the question about Rob Bonta. On the other hand, I was really unhappy with the lack of preparation or attention to school issues evinced by the candidates, aside from Zygielbaum.

 Charles Deemer may be a perennial candidate, but he sure didn't act like one tonight. He seemed unsure of his answers, or unfamiliar with the school district. He actually said that he would visit all the schools in his trustee area if he gets elected. Zygielbaum boasted that he had already visited the schools and the principals (and the teachers union--can't forget that!), and Yeh informed the audience that he had spoken with parents about issues with the school district.

Zygielbaum was certainly polished and prepared in his presentation. The only problem is that he wants to keep the status quo of moral lassitude in our schools. He is not a leader. He will just do whatever the teachers unions tell him to do. That's that basic trend in Torrance: people line up behind the person with all the big name endorsements, and hope that he won't make any noise or any real improvements.

And another issue about endorsements ...

Tony Yeh shared that he was endorsed by the Torrance Police Officers Association. Then Dave Zygielbaum countered and contradicted him, stating that since both of them had been endorsed by the TPOA in the city council elections in previous years, that neither one of them was endorsed. I followed up with the TPOA after the debate tonight, and I am waiting for them to get back to me about this controversy.

All in all, the candidates seemed either very polished (and fake) or unprepared or unfocused: a very disappointing debate.

Saturday, July 6, 2024

MoveOn.org Announces the Obvious: "That Debate Was Tough"

 Even MoveOn.org could not paper over the obvious.

Joe Biden did very badly in the debate!

Dear MoveOn member,

This is Rahna Epting, MoveOn's executive director. I want to level with you. Thursday's debate was very tough—and we still have an election that we absolutely must win, together. More could not be on the line—freedom, democracy, justice, our shared humanity, dignity, and hope.

And just four months before the most important election of our lifetime, MoveOn's fundraising is also hundreds of thousands of dollars behind our target.

But here's the good news: With just ONE day left until the end of this quarter, MoveOn's fundraising is finally starting to surge—in response to our plan to scale up a team of social media influencers to respond to Trump's dominating lead on TikTok and help combat Trump's surge with young voters.

When Trump joined TikTok in June, he amassed 5 million followers within three days—14 times as many as President Joe Biden has.1 This is a huge problem because about one-third of people younger than 30 regularly get their news from TikTok.2 And now, the most recent polling shows that support for President Biden among young voters is low and trending in the wrong direction.3

To reach young voters where they are, MoveOn has big plans to build our presence on TikTok and other social media platforms. We're scaling up a team of social media influencers to spread the word to young people about Trump's terrifying plans. We're partnering with influencers to flood social media with compelling, persuasive content to combat the right. These influencers have hundreds of millions of followers on social media sites where young people get their news and are already engaging on these issues.

But we can go all-in on this only if we can raise the funds.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, one of the few progressives with a large following on TikTok, has warned that "progressives need many more voices with many more followers on TikTok, Discord, Instagram, and other social media." And that's exactly what we are doing.

This is crucial now, especially as we sound the alarm about Project 2025—the right's nearly 1,000-page blueprint for turning America into a fascist police state, by executive order and without an act of Congress, if Trump is reelected.

After a difficult first half of the year, MoveOn just received a burst of donations from members like you—so many of your fellow MoveOn members are excited about this campaign. I want to go all-in on this new micro-influencer program without making cuts to our other critical work, which includes phone-banking, canvassing, postcards, and other efforts to reach voters. But to do that, I need to know that we can start the third quarter of the year strong.

Will you start a donation of $5 a month by midnight tonight, so that we can start the third quarter strong?

Yes, I'll chip in monthly.

No, I'm sorry, I can't make a monthly donation.

Your donation will help MoveOn inform young people about Project 2025 and Trump's agenda on social media, via SMS, through digital ads, and more.

We need to do so much, and quickly. Your support couldn't be more critical.

Election Day feels far away, but the reality is that it'll soon be too late to launch new major initiatives, to book online advertising inventory, to build up our infrastructure … And too late to go all-in on our efforts to effectively combat the unprecedented pro-Trump propaganda that's poisoning the minds of Generation Z on TikTok and other social media outlets.

Our end-of-quarter deadline is this Sunday, at midnight! And the third quarter will be the last full quarter before Election Day.

Please start a $5 monthly donation, TODAY! Help MoveOn end the quarter strong, to fight back against Trump and the MAGA influencers who are spewing propaganda and hate to young voters.

Yes, I'll chip in monthly.

No, I'm sorry, I can't make a monthly donation.

We can't do it without you, Arthur. It's not about what you give, but that if you can afford to, you give right now, today, so that we can start the third quarter of the year strong.

I hope that you have a great summer, and thanks so much for all you do.

–Rahna Epting, Executive Director

Sources:

1. "Trump quickly surpasses the Biden campaign on TikTok," NBC News, June 4, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194139?t=6&akid=396089%2E29788095%2ElQhEXh

2. "More Americans are getting news on TikTok, bucking the trend seen on most other social media sites," Pew Research Center, November 15, 2023
https://act.moveon.org/go/194140?t=8&akid=396089%2E29788095%2ElQhEXh

3. "The Voters Who Don't Really Know Donald Trump," The Atlantic, May 21, 2024
https://act.moveon.org/go/194195?t=10&akid=396089%2E29788095%2ElQhEXh


All of this is part of the calculated plot to replace Joe Biden. He is more than outlived (literally?) his usefulness to the Marxist cause.

He is a drag on the Democratic ticket (so they think). One has to imagine, then, that the voter fraud machine is not effective enough to overcome the lack of support for Joe Biden. All of those uncommitted votes sent a loud message to the Democratic Party. They don't have enthusiasm, and that includes the enthusiasm to Cheat the Vote.

Friday, November 18, 2022

Rebel News Avi Yemini Serves the Public, Exposes and Debates Globalist Shill Nas Daily to the Floor

This was really refreshing.

Rebel News is some of the best, hard-hitting journalism out there!

Avi Yemini called out globalist shill Nas Daily a few months ago, and since then Nas has been playing defense, trying to cover his tracks and restore pretense that he is a down-to-earth content creator.

As if!

Then Nas had to agree to a debate with Avi Yemini, who had exposed him before, and Yemini just demolished Nas.

You have to check this out for yourself!

WATCH: Nas Daily calls Avi Yemini DANGEROUS but should look in the mirror

Rebel reporter Avi Yemini debates popular influencer Nas Daily

 Remove Ads

Prolific vlogger Nas Daily has accused Avi Yemini of making the world dangerous by encouraging people to think critically.

However, after stunning news of the collapse of crypto exchange FTX, which Nas Daily enthusiastically promoted to his millions of followers, many of whom would have likely been grateful for Yemini's scepticism before investing in the failed scheme.

"Financial advice? Do not take it from someone who is a crook," the influencer said during their debate in Dubai last week.  

“Trust scientists and listen less to people like you,” he added.

Yemini fired back, arguing we should listen to everybody and evaluate what is said before making up our minds about things.

“If we’ve learned anything from Covid-19, it is that experts get so much wrong,” Yemini answered.

“I didn’t need to do all that study to call bull on Covid-19 two years ago. The people who said I was spreading misinformation, it turns out they were wrong.”

When challenged to name even one thing Yemini had said about Covid that was incorrect, the influencer responded by insisting that the Rebel reporter had no right to say anything about Covid – correct or otherwise - because he was not a biologist.

“Who says what matters,” Nas Daily argued. “You don’t understand biology to be able to have an opinion on vaccines.”

Yemini denied giving viewers medical advice, instead arguing he gave censored experts a platform.

“My message would be to listen to everyone. I don’t want people to take my word for anything. Critically think. When somebody tells you something, don’t just believe it. Take all the facts into consideration. As for the experts and the fact-checkers, well, today it turns out they were wrong.”

Nas Daily uploaded a heavily edited version of the two-hour debate, with most of his own audience in the comments believing Yemini won.

Stay tuned to NasDebates.com over the coming days as we release parts of the debate that didn't make the final cut in Nas Daily's video.


Nas Daily tried to make himself look like a victim at the latest Davos Conference earlier this year. He wanted to shame Avi Yemini for engaging in so-called "guilt activism." The truth is that Nas Daily is the pre-eminent proponent of this guilt-trip activism on his YouTube account, going to great lengths to shame anyone and everyone who eats meat, who drives a car, and who does not worship the planet.

Avi Yemini called out his scam, and the world should thank this Rebel News reporter for his service.

Wednesday, October 26, 2022

Occupy Democrats Jumps the Shark

Chunk Fetterman in the Debate last night
Someone get him a Snickers bar!

Occupy Democrats will say and do anything to help Democrats win in November.

Yes, they lie.

Yes, they cheat.

Yes, they will steal ideas and promote theft in the streets.

But they have gone beyond mere lying, to absolutely beclowning themselves.

Look what they had to share about the Pennsylvania US Senate debate between John Fetterman and Dr. Mehmet Oz:

No. He. Didn't.

John Fetterman could not string together one cohesive sentence.

John Fetterman mispronounced words repeatedly.

A few times, he just straight up paused and said nothing. Those kinds of silent moments are a deadly for a political campaign, especially during a political debate.

He was confronted with a straight up contradiction on his stance on fracking. Four years ago, he opposed fracking. He was on record declaring his opposition to fracking. The two moderators during the debate confronted him about this stance. Then, four years later, Fetterman says that he supports fracking. Confronted with this glaring contradiction, Fetterman straight-up lied and said: "I have always supported fracking."

He is dead man walking at this point. Of course, Occupy Democrats can't tell the difference between someone who is alive or dead, as long as they are Democrats who will do whatever their political handlers tell them to do.

John Fetterman was Joe Biden with a beard.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Quote of the Day: Arthur's Fighting Hard in SoCal



This is great!

Thank you to all my supporters out there. These comments of support mean a great deal to me!

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Final Commentary on "Race Realism" Debate with James Allsup

The days of debating on the Red Elephants YouTube channel are over.



Debate is not a matter of interest, it seems. The commitment to seeing white identity or race of any kind as the key determinant for any civil society is all wrong.

At any rate, I was so unhappy with the arguments that they had been sharing, that I had to speak out. Vincent James offered for me to debate someone on this issue. I had never heard of this James Allsup guy until the day of the debate, which took place the same day as the San Dimas City Council meeting to discuss potential steps against SB 54.

Here's the video of the debate with James Allsup (Click the link)

This write-up was very complimentary towards me.

After dinner last night, I went on YouTube to catch up on my subscription feed. I noticed that the Red Elephants were live streaming, which was unusual. Even more unusual, James Allsup and Arthur Schaper were debating each other on the topic of “race realism.” I never expected to see that, but I do know that both James and Arthur are friends with Vince from the Red Elephants. The debate was well underway by the time I tuned in, and I was immediately intrigued to hear what was happening. I then went back and watched a replay so I could catch the debate in its entirety. I’ve been a fan of the work of both of them in the past. James’s position was that differences between races matter. Black Americans will never achieve parity with white Americans because they have a lower average IQ. Arthur’s position was that religious and cultural values have much more to do with a civilization's achievements than race and IQ.

I am astonished at the degrees to which alt-right figures, or paleonconservatives, or "whatever-cons" will go to make the race the focal issue of political thought.

Pat Buchanan, one of the foreign policy nationalists with a grave distrust of Israel, wrongly predicted that the Georgia US Senate seat would go to a Democrat because the demographics are changing. He hasn't paid attention to the fact that more "minority" voters are voting conservative, voting for policies that make America Great Again. Why?

Because the stultifying imposition of race and identity politics is not working anymore. More people are recognizing that they can vote anyway they please, and they no longer have to be accused of "Voting against their race". That's the primary reason why minority voters have been seduced into voting Democrat.

One of the pillars of James’s argumentation was that white civilizations far surpassed anything achieved by black civilizations. He also cited statistics showing that white and Asian students score higher on average on SAT exams than blacks and Hispanics by a sizable margin. Arthur retorted by saying that the achievements of European civilizations had more to do with the culture and civilizing values brought about by Christianity and Judaism. 

Chad B.'s post was a massive summary of what James and I debated.

This part was the most pertinent for me:

James later fired back that there are African countries that are majority Christian, yet they haven’t been progressing much at all. They haven't even been putting up tall buildings since the end of colonialism. Arthur asked how intellect should be defined. Is intellect based on artistic talent or scientific rigor or something else? He noted that IQ tests aren’t always accurate and that being a good test taker doesn’t mean that you can run a business, create a great work of art, or write a book. James responded by saying that SAT’s and IQ tests are meant to prove an ability to solve problems rather than demonstrating memorization skills.

David Brooks affirmed my view that intellect is far more than passing a tests:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Fc4Vpikdg

Responding to James' assertion that African nations have largely floundered despite being given significant amounts of monetary aid, Arthur said that family and values matter more than aid money. The money often falls into the hands of warlords and dictators and gets squandered. He also noted how unfortunate it is that so many black children grow up in broken homes and how many blacks face generational poverty due to the governmental policies of the Democrats.


Then Chad offered his comments about these alt-right views:

When I hear some of these Alt-Right personalities continually bringing up race and a hope for a future ethnostate, I start getting turned off. I agree with some common stances on the Alt-Right, but not this one. Yes, there are obvious physical and maybe even intellectual differences between races, but there are also many other factors at play, such as culture, climate, values, and religion. All human beings have far more in common than they have differences. Outward racial appearance is only a small part of what comprises an individual. Similarly, IQ is far from being the most important predictor of success in life.

I would further add that these differences are the crucial distinctions.

The intelligence of people could easily be offset by laziness, lack of focus, or lack of common sense. People with lower IQ’s might have a good work ethic, a strong ability to focus, and abundant common sense. I bet that we could all think of someone who has plenty of book smarts, but they can barely figure out how to program a TV remote or row a canoe. 

Or even change a tire. There's street smarts as well as books smarts. Intellectuals have offered a number of predictions, and they have often been wrong. They are out of touch with the varieties and vagueries of real life. Many intellectuals are in bondage to this false notion that just because they are well-read, and surrounded by other academics who are well-read, that they are smarter than everyone else.

Yet the sailors on Christopher Columbus' ships knew more about the New World than the wild and crazy fantasies of academics in elite universities. Some of them were writing about men with heads in their chests, for example, and still peddling other Aristotlean myths about natural laws and sciences.

Similarly, we could probably think of people who only have a high school diploma, yet they successfully manage a store or do well in sales. Some people with high IQ's cannot perform well under pressure. Some people with low IQ's are skilled at a particular trade. This irony is exemplified on reality TV shows like Undercover Boss. On this show, a CEO or president of a large corporation goes undercover and works a menial job at their business. Often times, despite their multi-million dollar salaries and top positions, they struggle with assembling tacos or successfully dealing with customers.

In a sense, then, IQ doesn't really amount to much of anything. It's almost meaningless, then.


Regarding an ethnostate, if the United States was hypothetically fractured into smaller ethnic countries, people would still face the same issues that afflict all human beings: food, water, sewage, housing, an electrical grid, trade, law, crime, taxes, education, poverty, transportation, and finance. Plus, you would still have a wide spectrum of political ideologies. I just don't see an ethnostate as the panacea to life's problems. White people definitely don’t all think the same way, and I’m far from certain that there would be a clear majority way of thinking.

Human nature and human struggles have an inescapable, universal aspect about them. That does not mean, however, that nations and citizens should strive at all costs to erase borders and remove nations. Nations are the spice of life, and God's plan for mankind.

I’ve known far too many dumb white people, including ones with college degrees, to ever believe in inherent white supremacy. I’ve also known far too many smart Africans, Asians, and Latinos. Of course, this anecdotal evidence would be dismissed, but even when looking at average IQ’s across races you would still have to evaluate people at the individual level. 

One of the chief arguments from Allsup and others who push this race realism argument is that speaking about individual contacts is ultimately "anecdotal". Those statements do not make the point any less true. Widespread judgments about people based on their skin color, the shape of their eyes and heads, or other superficial genetic features does not add up under scrutiny.

When James brought up specific inventions of white people, they’re creations of individuals – not a collective. Claiming that on average certain races have more inventors than others doesn't seem to matter across an entire population. As Arthur started naming black inventors, James chuckled. At some point, judging which inventions matter and which ones don't would start getting subjective. Arthur said that differences between ethnic and racial groups have become more nebulous, but James stridently disagreed.

The very concept of race is falling apart with further research and discovery into human genomes and genetic findings. What is race, exactly? Certainly it matters, from a political perspective, but as the political and cultural differences become greater and wider among people with fundamentally the same skin color, it becomes clear that every person has too much diversity within himself to be lumped into any one group or race.

Arthur really nailed James when he asked him, “Do you think black people are stupid because they're black?” He never answered that question with a direct yes or no. Arthur noted that the founders of our country wrote that “all men are created equal.” James then quoted Thomas Jefferson who pondered future racial strife between blacks and whites in America. Arthur said that people often change their views as they receive more information.

Indeed, they have. At one time, Abraham Lincoln agreed with then Speaker of the House Henry Clay's repatration program, which would have freed all the black slaves then sent them back to Africa.

By the time the country was founded, however, these slaves were not African in any way. They have dark skin, and all of them were of African descent in some way, but they were Americans! Eventually, Abraham Lincoln formed a different set of views on the matter. Part of what makes America Great--and what we need to Keep America Great--is to hold onto the promise of the Founders and the natural laws on which this country is founded: that all men are equal, that anyone can come from another country and assimilate into the wonders and culture of the United States.

E Pluribus Unum is our nation's motto, after all.

By the way, James never answered my question: "Do you think that black people are stupid, and that they are stupid because they are black?"


Arthur then got to the crux of the matter. If James is an agnostic who doesn’t know whether or not God exists, there’s an irreconcilable difference in their worldviews. For a believer in the God of Christianity and Judaism, every person has been created in the image and likeness of God, meaning everyone has an intellect and a will. Each human being has intrinsic value. For the atheist or agnostic, human beings evolved from lesser creatures and are ultimately comprised of stardust and carbon that somehow came to life. It’s much easier to put down entire races of people if we’re all just some cosmic accident. They truly believe in the survival of the strongest and smartest.

This part of the debate was fundamental to me. Worldviews do matter, and the logical or illogical bases of a man's understanding will affect for better or for worse their appraisal of his fellow man, whatever his skin color may be.

Here's the final downfall of the debate for James:

By the end of the debate, I lost some respect for James Allsup. His good debate points were peppered with childish name calling that made him appear egotistical and smug.  Here’s a list of some of his insults:
  • "Hold on, old man. I know it’s probably past your nap time."
  • "Boomer"---I was born in 1980, so this Boomer talk simply gets funnier every time I hear it!
  • "Stop crying. Stop whining, old man.” 
  • "I'm trying to have a debate, and you're losing your mind sitting in your car."
  • "How many lines of coke today, Arthur?" The only Coke I take in -- I drink.
  • "You really can't be this f**king stupid." He was really losing at this point.
  • "Vince, I'm disappointed in you guys. I didn't know that you and David just went out and found like homeless people and gave them a bunch of crack and like told them go and debate James Allsup. Jesus Christ."

After watching the debate in its entirety and digesting its content, I have to ultimately side with Arthur. 

At least one debate that went my way ... I guess.

I have no problem with people being proud of the accomplishments of their race or ethnic group. I grew up in a region that was nearly all white, but there was always a strong sense of ethnic identity tied to religion, food, language, and history. 

Culture, not color. Heritage, not hate.

I don't even have a problem with people wanting to live around people of their own race or wanting to marry within their race. When it comes to demonizing entire races of people by saying that their average IQ is too low to function in society, I have a problem with that. I also see more important ideals to strive for in life than racial pride and purity. Feel free to watch the debate here and to come to your own conclusion.

Final Reflection

All the data in the world to push one point of view does not amount to much when it's all based on fundamentally flawed premises. The definitions of race and the proper ways to define and measure intelligence as so varied and mired in controversy and challenges, that the very debate falls apart.

One part that I hammered at length on James Allsup was this simple question:

"Define an average African." I asked that question three times, but was smeared as "sperging out". He refused to answer that question, which goes back to my chief challenge with the whole argument. What is race? It's getting harder to define, and therefore to peg IQ with race is an every more slippery argument altogether.

Thanks for watching and sharing your views, Chad B!