You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

We say it quite a lot around here- if you are taking flak, you are right over the target. Next on the hit list for some very powerful people are two YouTubers in Canada, who have gotten a little too much attention for their debate shows. There are ideas that cannot be allowed to be spoken. To prevent these ideas being heard, the speakers them must be destroyed as publicly as possible- a story as old as Christianity itself.

Andy Warski is not Jesus Christ. I have come to accept this now. While he is not the son of God, he did strike upon a golden idea. Like most ideas, it happened to him rather than being a moment of divine inspiration, but credit where it is due; he capitalized. Internet Bloodsports is Jerry Springer for a generation that has more interest in discovering identity than discovering the identity of trailer trash baby-daddies. Internet Bloodsports is a no-holds-barred live debate slugfest with few rules, no topic off marked as off limits and no mercy.  Monetizing the YouTube live streams with super chat donations has garnered Warski and his co-host J.F Gariépy with a windfall of cash that the platform had sought to deny conservative content creators; demonetizing videos has been used as an ideological weapon to clean up YouTube.

When the audience can give money to the channel host in real-time and ask questions that go out on-air, we see a synergy between creator and consumer that most media empires can only dream of. It is a system that works, and the people love it. Classical liberals have debated race realists- and lost. A Jewish lawyer exposed ingroup preferences within Judaism in a three-way tussle with two other Jewish guests. Vegans, libertarians, Black identitarians- you name it, Warski and Gariépy have hosted engaging discussions on it that often descend into all-out screamers.

The fans love it.

Personally, I love it, too. Of course, this means that progressives are frothing at the gills, trying to steer people away from high-quality TV that makes you engage your brain. If you like this sort of content, not only are you a Nazi, you pretty much endorse raping the mentally infirm.

The People for the American Way funded Right Wing Watch is a hard-left partisan group that is pro-immigration, pro-Democrat, anti-Trump, anti-gun and generally anti-White. It will shock no-one to read that George Soros funds TPAW heavily. It should be no surprise at all then, that rather than engage with the issues brought up on Warski Live, Jared Holt goes straight to personal attacks.

Note: whenever you see 'Alt-Right' on Right Wing Watch, feel free to substitute 'this person is not a literal communist' in your mind. You will learn nothing else about the person being smeared. According to this site, liberal YouTuber Carl 'Sargon' Benjamin is also a White nationalist.

As you see, misrepresenting reality is Holt's stock in trade. How then, did Andy Warski become a sex criminal with no judge or jury? On another channel's Bloodsport show, Warski regaled a story online of removing a poorly-fitting condom while having sex with his then-girlfriend, while both were drunk. His girlfriend had no problem with this and stayed in a relationship with him for months afterward. Naturally, a reasonable person can only conclude that this is sexual assault and Warski must be jailed- though no crime was reported. Can it be permitted that Holt can make such fraudulent accusations of serious crimes scot free? It is ridiculous to make such a misrepresentation of reality, moreso that what Holt does in effect is to muddy the waters of what sexual assault is as a crime.

This double standard is that which allows soy-imbued sub-par intellectuals to claim that Sweden is not experiencing disproportionate levels of rape because rape is not reported in the same manner as in other countries. Despite this being true, it does not debunk reality- that the rape crisis in Sweden is very real, and is not being exacerbated by ethnic Swedes.

Blurring the lines of what sexual assault means is incredibly dangerous. If we consider a drunk 20-year-old couple fumbling their way through sex as sexual assault, then we devalue sex crimes in our culture and make prosecutions all the more difficult for our legal system. It is irresponsible of Holt to do so, not to mention incredibly callous towards genuine victims of sexual assault and rape.

Compared to his co-host, Warski can consider he got off lightly. In a three thousand word hit piece, Kelly Weill of the Daily Beast has gone so far beyond the pale of what reasonable critique looks like that I am more impressed than disappointed.

Wow, what a fiend this man must be. What a ne’er-do-well. Alt-Right. YouTuber. Spencer. Autism. A Plot! A White nationalist! Literally Hitler!

I would love to hear the definition of Alt-Right from the mouths of Holt and Weill, to see what they think this terrifying Nazi monolith looks like. If Warski is popular with the Alt-Right, and Gariépy is the Alt-Right, do they just mean "White nationalist"? I am genuinely curious as that would be an incredibly incorrect assumption. More to the point, the utter lack of consideration from these alleged investigative journalists that perhaps there are some ideas held by the "Alt-Right" that are not only valid and worthy of discussion but may even be true, is nothing short of intellectual bigotry of the worst kind.

If you can dismiss Gariépy -who appears to be an unusual character possessed of phenomenal intellect- as a racist and abuser of autistic children, then you may be able dismiss his arguments at the same time. The fact that there is no evidence of his racism or that his alleged victim was in college at the time of their relationship is clearly neither here nor there. Most curious to me is that at a time when the left is attempting to out-woke itself by justifying sex with children, the consensual sex-lives of consenting adults is attacked in order to hand-wave away the arguments they make. A six-year-old can consent, but a college student cannot? That makes no sense to me.

Did the Daily Beast ever criticize Hillary Clinton for defending a rapist? Not to my knowledge. Can we discount Hillary's entire career by making the allegation? No, we could not. Despite anti-GamerGate journalists going to jail for sex crimes on what feels like a weekly basis, has the Daily Beast ever used this fact to debunk their positions or even admit fault? No, because the Daily Beast has never commented on these criminals and continues to promote Brianna Wu and other "victims" of GamerGate as important voices.

Whether you agree with how Warski and Gariépy live their lives is irrelevant. No crime has been committed by either in their pursuit of happiness, so it really is none of our business. What is important is that these two e-celebrities are posing such a threat to the narrative of what we consider the regressive-left hegemony. This is why the chum has been tossed into the water, in the hope that bigger sharks -such as YouTube's SPLC Trusted Flagger operatives- will come sniffing around these deviants who dare To Say What Must Not Be Said.

Indeed it would be a fascinating event if Kelly Weill and Jared Holt were to take part in a live discussion of their allegations and criticisms on Warski's show. Instead of muck-raking and quote-mining like yellow-press shills, why not put your money where your mouth is? I have no doubt that Warski and Gariépy would be only too happy to find an impartial moderator and donate proceeds to a mutually agreed charity.

This debate will never happen. Weill and Holt are intellectually bereft cowards who serve agenda, and not the truth.

The Editor

by The Editor