Beyond the Vapor with Robert Stark
Robert Stark interviews Anti-Racism Advocate, Alexander Ohnemus
This is The Stark Truth, hosted by Robert Stark, brought to you by StarkTruthRadio.com. Robert Stark is an American journalist and political commentator. You can listen to his podcasts at www.starktruthradio.com. [Music] Robert Stark here, I'm joined here with Alexander Onomus. Alexander, it's great speaking with you. Likewise, Mr. Stark. To start things off, can you give a brief background information about yourself and explain? You contacted me, we were talking about an interview, but if this may come as a surprise to a lot of the audience and kind of the subject matter who listened to the show and followed my sub-stack, you're a supporter of critical race theory and more like racial leftist ideas, which may seem at odds to a lot of people who generally follow the show. But if you want to just kind of like give a brief introduction and kind of explain how you came to the conclusion of support for CRT. Okay, well first of all, I really don't like big trends. I am a Californian, lifelong almost, and I support died, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and all of my political views are socially acceptable, and more philosophically, I am a proper re, and meaning that I believe in negative utilitarianism and amazing suffering and open society as Karl Popper did, and critical rationalism also what Karl Popper believed in. So do you also accept HBD? HBD depends, I am definitely not a racialist, I think that there are no racial genes, but there are some genes that have separated a population since the Sub-Saharan, some of them left Africa and became modern day non-Sub-Saharan people. How do you think CRT relates to HBD, because would you say that both the CRT argument and the more colorblind, meritocratic argument, do they think they both hedge upon blank slateism? No, I wouldn't say so. You see, no one can ever know 100% if a gene is going to become a trait. So when someone is born with genes or two people reproduce more specifically, no one knows what the offspring is going to be like, because genetics are fundamentally probabilistic. No one knows how a gene is going to become a certain trait or not. What do you see as the main problems with the colorblind, meritocratic arguments? Well, like I said, I am a very orthodox, politically correct person. I stand firmly against raceblind conservatism as did Martin Luther King and presently as does Kim Wise, the anti-racist activist guy. For one, a lot of social stratification has to be explained directly through race. A lot of the current unions are not as strong because people are divided along racial lines as is the case with a lot of welfare state things. I think Kim Wise pointed this out that people don't want to pay certain amount of taxes because the beneficiaries are not going to look like them. That is paraphrased I think with Kim Wise tweeted in time. Do you see irony in that both woke people, more woke people, and more kind of alt-right types end up coming to some of the same conclusions? Because a lot of alt-right people would actually probably agree with a Tim Wise statement that people don't want to pay for people who are different. They'll just say, "Yeah, I don't want to pay for them." That's a good thing. Do you see irony in a horseshoe theory how both sides might end up coming to the same conclusions that the colorblind middle would not? No, I actually think that Europeans, as I've explained in some of my writings, are better off in an open society than in an exclusive, like white nationalist society. Like I said, I am an anti-racist advocate. All my beliefs are politically acceptable. I think that the Northwestern Europeans are much better off in an open society than in a fascist, the ethnote. What are your thoughts on the whole concept of implicit bias? That it is inherent to all people in that the implicit biases of the most powerful group are the most problematic because they could hurt the most human rights. So you take implicit bias. The concept is definitely legitimate. Everyone does things by implicit subconscious motives that they're maybe not explicitly aware of. Question is, should they be shamed or corrected? Or could you make a case that because they're more intuitive, that they're more rooted in what's natural? So obviously implicit bias is legit, but how should people deal psychologically and politically socially with their implicit biases? We should deal with them not in an authoritarian way, but in an open societal way that tries to summon the best out of all people. And if someone is caught having an implicit bias, they should, depending on the thing, they should maybe get a slap on the risk that they should be corrected. Let's say it's a Northwestern European person that is very implicit bias. I oppose the death penalty and I think that, depending on what it is, they should be reminded that Northwestern Europeans are better off underneath an open society than a closed one. That would be like the first thing and then they should maybe get therapy or they should somehow be revealed to be abilitated. How does CRT relate to the declining white population and does the progressive project need a certain amount of the Northwestern European white demographic to remain viable? Well, for one, a lot of the declining white population is because whites really don't want to be subject to their own mediocrity as every race has some level of mediocrity, but white mediocrity is a big dangerous force as is white discetics. And if whites really clung to a homeland, they would inevitably greed to be more conformist and not as, unfortunately, not as intelligent that or the environment would cause that. And they would become more, their civilizations would lose their value that they currently have. So do you think in a future where, say, whites are a minority, do you think whites will become more ethnocentric or reactionary as a response to that? I think they will and I think there's a good and there's a bad way to do that. You're against using the term eugenics, but what you say is you're for some fusion of CRT, but with transhumanism. So basically using artificial wombs in the future to make, create more Northwest European whites to pay tax revenue for slavery reparations. Is that basically what you're advocating for? Not necessarily just slavery reparations. I think that a lot of current issues are the fault of Northwestern Europeans on some level and the pacifistic way to get them to pay reparations is through the artificial room mass reproduction. Some could argue the current Israeli-Palestine conflict is somewhat the British's fault. Therefore, mass cloning Anglo-Saxon door willing to pay reparations and willing to have their phones pay the reparations is the right move. So both Israelis and Palestinians get a good chunk of money and that we can start having some real healing. So that's just one example, but it's not just for slavery. Do you think having more socialism and more social programs means like more, does it work? I mean, you initially said that you sort of reject this hyper hereditary viewpoint, but just speaking hypothetically, like would, do you think to have just like a stronger social safety net in general, you would need more people like white people and especially more well off white people to reproduce more to sustain a more socialist society? We would definitely need more liberal and progressive, more progressive North. We need a tax base that is of a guilty dissent. So we need a tax base that is progressive and willing to pay reparations. But much to the contrary, conservative whites are leading kind of the genetics of their or mediocrity their own group and thus are the big obstacle for progress. So more progressive liberal whites less of the conservative one. Do you think the whole proposal about using artificial wombs to increase the numbers of Northwest European whites could win over more right-wing people or more ethnocentric white people to your position or do you think they would just vehemently have a reaction? Like we don't want to be like used to like pay for people who hate us. Like do you think that would be the reaction or do you think you could find some common ground on a compromise? Probably we could find some common ground but they would have to admit to their history of white guilt and they'd have to accept them white guilt. And hey I say I reject the eugenics because I don't want anyone castrated against their will and I completely support I and the whole thing is a group can't pay its own reparations and the money's got to come somewhere hence start official will mass reproduction ideas. Should the left and will and do you think the left will allow for whites to pursue like a positive white identity politics under the framework of liberalism and is progressive white identity politics legit like some people were talking about this with white guys for Kamala. Well that's an example right there I think so long as it does not have unchecked white power I think that it's considered but nine and it's considered in some ways even a positive way plus if you listen to Biden's speech one time he said that the white Europeans are becoming a minority and they deserve respect so that's pretty much how it's going. Can you give examples of policies where the left is better for whites than conservatives? I read one in your article one time how to stay at home policy of being allowed to work from home is good for women that work to have kids that that's one clear example. Remote work but I don't even I don't know if I think of that as left wing I think that's just sort of a technological change that happened during the pandemic. I know Elon Musk is very against promote or he's like the big chief on the right these days so that makes me want to make me associate at least in my head remote work as with left wing politics. So what happened is it did it did have a very modest boost to white fertility the whole war from home thing. I learned that from you yeah. You're from Sacramento. I like one thing I noticed about visiting Sacramento it strikes me as more like more racially integrated than other parts of California like LA or the barrier. Do you see the future being more like racially integrated or do you see the future as being more ethnic balcony station. And what has been sort of your experience from California. It depends, not all I think racial integration is a great thing if it is for reciprocity and harm avoidance. But if it causes issues like the shaven and Freud thing. I think that what that shaven should be thrown in jail they should go with he but, or he should definitely get seriously punished for that. And that's an example that integrate has necessarily a good thing but if it's for harm avoidance and reciprocity then yes I think integration is a good thing. And being in Sacramento now I think we're one of the more progressive parts of California definitely more progressive and acres feel acres field I think so. Yes, Sacramento. Maybe is kind I don't know for that integrated. What do you mean by integrated. I mean, seeing different groups in the same geographic proximity but it could have just been that I don't know if it reflects the Metro could have just been reflecting that I was in a downtown area I don't know but that was just my general impression. So you have to figure downtown is full of immigrants and people that different cities coming through California for like the first time where I live it's mostly white. Is that the suburbs. Yes. So it's like the white flight thing is why it looks like that. So you would say that reciprocity is the key foundation for race relations and politics. And harm avoidance, those are two of the key values on the left. So the right wing. Their their response would be that CRT is a rejection of reciprocity. How would you make the case for CRT on a pro reciprocity grounds to counter that argument. Well, for one, whites are the most powerful group so they, we can criticize them the most without any of them getting hurt. So from a negative utilitarian minimize suffering point. CR it's just fine to criticize whites is they're the most powerful. You wrote about neuro diversity. Can you explain why you think the left is better on neuro diversity than the right. For one, an artistic person might get more lenient sentence or more lenient play deal than with a more liberal judge and with a more conservative. Let's say an artistic person has an anger management moment and slap someone under a conservative judge. They might go to jail, but under a liberal judge, they might have to just do some community service. What do you think about the argument that autistic people are. Are harmed by speech codes that some on the left support. Unfortunately, that is very common and. In the end, if an artistic person makes an honest mistake, I think most people on the left would be understanding if it's like something foolish is slipped out of him. But if it's like that, unfortunately, there are instances where they don't give enough direct warning so that I just take people and they are just. And then of course, I don't want to over generalize that. I think there should maybe be maybe will be making a social security or disability checks just for a district because it's very hard to get a job. And keep it being an artistic and social security disability checks are definitely a left wing thing. So do you think conservatives are more likely to support like austerity on those programs. What do you mean I stare at I was scrapping scrapping those programs getting rid of them. Unfortunately, yes, conservatives are really big on scrapping social security. And if they're not, it's going to raise inflation because they would cut taxes, but that's what happened under Trump. They cut taxes, but they kept the benefits. So that just caused a lot of inflation. Why do you think there's a perception that autistic people are over represented among the alt right. Do you think it does show like a failure of the left to address neurodiversity. I'm not familiar with with statistics being all represented on the alt right. Who told you that? I haven't seen specific stats, but it's sort of as I'm saying, it is kind of a stereotype. Do you think it's true? And if there is truth to that, do you think it does show some failure of the left? So I mean the left, I wouldn't say they attack neurodiversity, but you do hear these complaints that more liberal figures will show disdain for say alienated young men, which could, which is not explicitly an attack on neurodiversity, but could be interpreted as such. And I don't know liberal figures will also be more lenient if those alienated young men get legal issues. Well the thing is in Charlottesville, in the case of Charlottesville, who is the alt right figure, the perpetrator, who I don't really want to go into all the legal details, but from what I've heard there's allegations that he had that the, I think his name is James Fields. I forget his name, but that he had autism, and that basically the book was wrote at him and he was given, well I think like a full on like consecutive life sentence. So I'm not sure that might be given. I've heard that case brought up. Okay, I'm sure in liberal. It was very politically charged. What? It was obviously very politically charged but yes, but under a very liberal system they might commit, they might commute his sentence or lower it to maybe sometime in jail then he might have to understand the rest of his life in a more humane mental asylum, whereas under a more conservative state you might just give death penalty off the bat. Unfortunately, he got, he got life in prison. Okay, I don't know the case, but I think that that's better than the death penalty. I'm against death penalty. Other specific policy issues that relate to neuro diversity that you can think of. There's a growing stereotype that a lot of transgender people are autistic as far as transgenderism goes, I support it. And I think that gender is definitely a social construct, whereas sex is biological. So therefore, there is no need for anyone to undergo surgery or purity blockers, what they just, they can change their pronouns, their names and dress, however they want, but I do not see a need for any of the puberty blockers or surgery because gender is a social construct through and through and sex is, there are infinite genders, but there are approximately three sex is a proxy. And you also wrote about asexuality, do you want to talk about that article? Yes, I myself am an asexual, that is a member of the LGBTQ+ community. And the two ways are a romantic and asexual at the end, some people abbreviate that as LGBTQ double LGBTQ I and I just stands for identity. That means I am not attracted to anyone physically or sexually and I need to stop making sounds. Do you still have, so do you still have a sex drive, it's just not attracted to any particular person or you have no sex drive whatsoever? I have no sex drive whatsoever and I desire a mechanical or artificial wound therefore to have my children. What do you think the asexuality is seen as a more progressive issue while the incel issue is treated with disdain by the left? Incels, I wrote an article about that too on research gate. The big mistake with the incels is they blame the people who reject them. If they just blame the society as a whole and maybe became aromantics, that would be better off for them. Then they could join the LGBTQ double A plus movement and maybe they could even use artificial wombs to have children or they could use surrogate birth to have children. Can you explain your article about how aesthetics can lead to social Darwinism? How do social Darwinism is often conservative? I'm a mix of constructives and a constructivist, I acknowledge that ability is erristically true. The law is constructivist. This genetics may lead to people whether by environment or by genetics or maybe both to become excessively conservative and conservatism can lead to lower IQs and less social, less artistic ability and other deficits. Can you talk about your spiritual views and how they intersect with your political views? One disagreement we may have is that I don't believe in reincarnation whereas you do. I generally say I'm agnostic about reincarnation. I'm open to it but I'm agnostic about it. I see it as reincarnation, maybe true, so we should make the world as good of a place as possible. So if people do reincarnate there's a nice place to go back to. There are other problems though I see with reincarnation, whether such as the collectivism and social stratification may lead to India's taxes or as played over public. Plato believed in reincarnation by the way. Therefore I deduce what I think is proved spiritually and what is not officially. I wrote an entire book called the highly theoretical differential equations of the afterlife and I'm a universalist pretty much. I'm a universalist Christian, Judeo-Christian I'd say. You go ahead now. Oh, so if you want to talk more about your book, that sounds interesting. What your book is about in spirituality? It's on research, Yea. I have another book called the Respectfully and Unfortunately the Improbability of Endangered Believing in Reincarnation. The book is like a hundred and thirty-two pages long, the book arguing against reincarnation belief and it is a hundred and thirty-two pages long and it also is structured different equations in a very idiosyncratic manner. Nine people recommended it on research, Yea, so I have found my audience, I guess. And what is your interest in Neville Goddard and your thoughts? Are you a proponent of new thoughts? Some what? I think people can positively and negatively manifest, but people should not bank on positively manifesting. People also should recognize the risks of negative manifest. We're getting close to the end of the show. Do you want to, do you have anything else you'd like to add and do you have any websites that you'd like to plug? Well, this has been a very nice interview, Mr. Stark. I can not thank you enough. I think I have spoken pretty fluently. What do you think? Yea, it was a great interview. Thank you so much. Okay, and I have a research gate website. I'm Alexander Onamis on researchgate.net and I can send you that link, by the way. Okay, great, I'll link to it. And I'm on sub-staff where we met and Twitter and also on Twitter. And those are the only three I would like to share right now. Thanks, Mr. Stark. Thank you, Alexander Onamis, a great show. Have a nice day. Thank you for tuning in. You can follow Robert Stark on his sub-stack at robertstark.sub-sack or on his website at starptruthradio.com. See you next time. [Music] (upbeat music)