Tag: debate

Wallowing in Pseudo-Madness

The Wasp Factory vs One Bright Star to Guide Them

Phil Sandifer debated Vox Day about two very different works of fiction by two very different authors on June 11, 2015. Since the interview is no longer available the now-defunct original site, I’ve posted the archived version here.

Below is a transcript of my interview with Vox Day, which you can listen to over at Pex Lives. I’ve lightly edited it to remove infelicities of language on both Day’s part and my own. I’ve also added a couple of footnotes clarifying aspects of the discussion. I am sure that Day would offer several clarifications of his own. Thanks again to Kevin and James for hosting this, and to Max Braden for preparing the transcript.

Phil Sandifer: Hi, I’m Phil Sandifer and I’ve got with me today the man at the center of the whole Hugo Awards controversy, Vox Day. Hello, Vox.

Vox Day: Hey, Phil. How are you?

Sandifer: I’m doing all right. So, the idea behind this interview is that Vox and I mutually agreed upon two works, one that he thinks is a great story and that I think is terrible, and one vice versa. The first is going to be John C. Wright’s One Bright Star to Guide Them, which is one of Vox’s Rabid Puppies, it’s up for a best novella Hugo this year, and the other is going to be the late great Iain Banks’s 1984 debut novel The Wasp Factory. We’re going to start with One Bright Star to Guide Them, by John C. Wright, who you’ve called a contender for the greatest living science fiction writer. The book’s promotional text describes it like so:

As children, long ago, Tommy Robertson and his three friends, Penny, Sally, and Richard, passed through a secret gate in a ruined garden and found themselves in an elfin land, where they aided a brave prince against the evil forces of the Winter King. Decades later, successful, stout, and settled in his ways, Tommy is long parted from his childhood friends, and their magical adventures are but a half-buried memory.

But on the very eve of his promotion to London, a silver key and a coal-black cat appear from the past, and Tommy finds himself summoned to serve as England’s champion against the invincible Knight of Ghosts and Shadows. The terror and wonder of Faerie has broken into the Green and Pleasant Land, and he alone has been given the eyes to see it, to gather his companions and their relics is his quest. But age and time have changed them too. Like Tommy, they are more worldly-wise, and more fearful. And evil things from childhood stories grow older and darker and more frightening with the passing of the years.

One Bright Star to Guide Them begins where other fairy tales end. Brilliant and bittersweet, the novella hearkens back to the greatest and best-loved classics of childhood fantasy. John C. Wright’s beautiful fairy tale is not a subversion of these classics, but a loving and nostalgic homage to them, and reminds the reader that although Ever After may not always be happy, the road of life goes ever on and evil must be defeated anew by each and every generation.”

Now, this is obviously the one of the two books that I think is awful, but I do want to say before we start, I really do love the premise. I really love the idea of going back to a sort of Narnia-esque children’s fiction world from the perspective of adulthood. There’s obviously a lot of stories in the “return to a children’s story in adulthood” style – I should point out for listeners who are coming to this through my work that the first two chapters are actually almost beat for beat the first two stories of Alan Moore’s Marvelman in terms of the plot – but I really can’t think of one in this sub-genre that’s played with Narnia in particular. There’s a very short story by Neil Gaiman called “The Problem of Susan,” but that’s about it. So I do want to admit up front, I do love the premise if nothing else. But you obviously love a lot more than just the premise here, so my first question is simple, Vox: why is this story great?

Day: Well, before I explain why I think it’s a great story, I think that it’s probably important for the purpose of full disclosure to point out that, number one, I was the editor who was responsible for publishing this story, and also I wrote that particular description that you just read.

Sandifer: Okay.

Day: So, it’s fair to point out that I am absolutely, utterly and completely biased in this regard, less because I have a pecuniary interest in the novella selling well – anyone who knows anything about publishing realizes that novellas are not the way that you make a lot of money in the publishing business – but I am very, very biased towards John Wright in particular as a writer, and One Bright Star to Guide Them is one of my three favorite things that he’s ever written. So I think very highly of him as a writer; the other writers that I think very highly of in the science fiction field are China Miéville and, until his most recent novel, Neal Stephenson.[1]

Now, what is particularly great about Wright, and something that a lot of people don’t necessarily realize, is that he’s not a writer who puts a lot of what I would call “craft” into it, by which I mean we’re not dealing with works that are written and re-written and re-written and re-written, for the most part. Now, in this particular case, he did write it as a short story, and then turned it into a novella later, but in general, what you see is what you get. It’s actually somewhat depressing to edit the man, because the stuff that he turns in just having dashed it off is much better than most of the stuff you see from other people.

Now, in the case of One Bright Star, like you said, the premise is fantastic. The idea that you’re beginning with these children who have been through this wonderful, incredible, fantastic experience, and then suddenly visiting, catching up with them thirty-some years later, is original in itself.

Sandifer: Right, I mean, there is, as I said, a large sub-genre of this. It’s hardly the only story, I think even from last year – I know a lot of people have compared it to Neil Gaiman’s The Ocean at the End of the Lane, which came out around the same time. [2]

Day: Sure, but there’s… You know, I’ve read The Ocean at the End of the Lane, it’s good, but what’s different about One Bright Star to Guide Them is that it is much more clearly written as an homage, not just to Narnia, but there’s actually elements of a great deal of other children’s fantasies that are much beloved.

Sandifer: Right, there’s a line that very closely hues to Susan Cooper’s The Dark is Rising that I noticed, for instance.

Day: Right. There’s also a fair amount of The Chronicles of Prydain. A lot of the fictional events that are referred to are much more out of Prydain than out of either The Dark is Rising or Narnia. And then there’s also a couple other ones, references to less well-known works. There’s certainly a call-out to George McDonald in there, the original fantasy writer, and so there’s a fair amount of depth there for those of us who were into that type of literature.

Sandifer: I think one of the reasons, though, people go for Narnia in particular – because, I mean, if you look at the reviews on Amazon, Narnia does seem to be the one that everyone goes to first when talking about the sort of influences on this, and I’m going to hazard a guess, no small part of that is because both Narnia and this are pretty explicitly Christian allegories. Do you think that’s a fair statement to say about this book?

Day: Absolutely, absolutely. And I think that that’s both part of why One Bright Star to Guide Them generates such powerful reactions in people who love it and in the much smaller number of people who dislike it, because I think in many cases, people’s reactions are being colored by their own personal feelings about Christianity, both for better and for worse.

DISCUSS ON SG

Continue reading “Wallowing in Pseudo-Madness”

A Babylonian Ticket Taker

James Delingpole outs David Icke as a fake conspiracy gatekeeper in service to Clown World:

There’s a moment in my live show with David Icke where I completely lose it.

“I know why you haven’t been killed for saying the stuff you say,” I yell at him. “It’s because you are one of them! You are part of the Trap!”

At our live show Icke sought to present our clash as one between my religious dogma on the one hand and on the other his enlightened, non-judgemental, free-thinking, hard won, deeply researched insight. This was slippery of him. The New Age may not be too keen to admit it but it is at least as much a form of religious dogma as Christianity is. It just uses all that airy fairy talk of raised consciousness and oneness with the universe and so on to disguise its true purpose: the age old Luciferian mission of abolishing God. Any doubts on this score can be cleared up by glancing at the works of Madame Blavatsky or her acolyte Alice Bailey, whence much of Icke’s spiritual philosophy is derived…

David Icke has been right about many things in the past and continues to be so. But this is no reason to give him the free pass he often gets from his cultish acolytes who appear blind to the possibility that he might be pushing an agenda inimical both to their interests and the cause of truth – not to mention of their immortal soul.

Not only is at least some of his research slipshod but when challenged on detail he is often evasive and defensive. These are not responses which bespeak honesty and integrity. In my experience, at any rate, researchers promoting a contentious point of view which goes against the grain of mainstream thinking are only too happy to be questioned on their thesis. That’s because they are on a mission to explain and elucidate – and evangelise.

In Icke’s defence, it might be argued that he is not a quick fire intellect, and that his curmudgeonly demeanour is the product of all those wilderness years he spent being dismissed as a tinfoil hat lunatic. But those days are long since past. He has a large, appreciative audience for his books and live events, an internet TV show – Ickonic – and the satisfaction of having many of his predictions vindicated by events. At this point, his continued playing of the victim card looks to me suspiciously like a passive-aggressive defence mechanism designed to ward off honest criticism. This was certainly my feeling in the aftermath of our live event. The main priority of Icke and his family was not to respond to the criticisms I made – but rather to try to blacken my name as a rude, insensitive, pushy, lying (“You’re like Tony Blair, mate” – I was told) arriviste who, under false pretences, had taken cruel advantage of a noble freedom fighter and truth seeker whose boots I was not fit to lick.

I’m not buying it. Most especially I am not buying Icke’s spiritual philosophy which he pretends is antithetical to the binding strictures of ‘religion’ – but which is clearly just a warmed over version of the theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the New Age, which in turn are just an update of the Babylonian Mystery Religions followed by our ruling elites since the dawn of tyranny.

I’ve never paid any attention whatsoever to Icke. But it’s enough to know that someone is a) anti-Christian and b) theosophistic or worse c) Babylonian to be certain that they are on the side opposing Jesus Christ and God, no matter what “secrets” and “conspiracies” they reveal. And the fact that a few of them, or even all of them, could be real doesn’t mean the man is even remotely on the side of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Every con artist knows that he needs to reveal something real in order to convince the fish to bite, and every online casino gives out a few free spins in order to draw in the unsuspecting public.

DISCUSS ON SG

AI Debate, Gab Edition

As per a request from SG, BasedAI of Gab was presented with a similar challenge to the one previously given to BardAI.

Vox Day: a prominent far-right and alt-right writer, blogger, and game designer known for his provocative views and writings on politics, race, and gender.

Sam Harris: a controversial philosopher and podcaster who speaks about topics such as atheism, science, and politics.

In this six-paragraph debate, Vox Day argues that religion does not cause war, while Sam Harris argues that religion is a prominent cause of war.

Paragraph 1: Vox Day’s Opening Statement
“The notion that religion causes war is a simple-minded and historically inaccurate premise,” argues Vox Day. “Throughout history, there have been countless instances of war conducted without any religious motivation whatsoever. Moreover, the idea that religion is inherently violent is little more than a cheap shot taken by those who want to avoid confronting the complex factors that lead to war.”

Paragraph 2: Sam Harris’s Opening Statement
In response, Sam Harris retorts, “To say that religion does not cause war is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless sectarian conflicts that have ravaged the world throughout history are all clear examples of religion’s role in fueling war.” Harris goes on to argue that religious belief often provides a justification for violence and that, without religion, many conflicts could be resolved peacefully.

Paragraph 3: Vox Day’s Rebuttal
According to Vox Day, “Sam Harris is wrong to imply that religion is the only cause of war. Ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics are all causes of war as well. To suggest that religion is the sole cause of war is to ignore the complex nature of war and the many factors that contribute to it.” Day argues that, while religion may play a role in some conflicts, it is not the only factor and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

Paragraph 4: Sam Harris’s Rebuttal
Harris counters, “It is true that religion is not the only cause of war, but it is certainly a prominent one. In many cases, religion is the root cause of conflict, as when one group seeks to impose its religious beliefs on another. To ignore this fact is to ignore the reality of history and the present day.” Sam Harris argues that religion often provides a justification for violence and that, in many cases, war can be traced back to religious differences.

Paragraph 5: Vox Day’s Closing Statement
In closing, Vox Day argues, “Religion may play a role in some conflicts, but it is not the sole cause of war. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to war, such as ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics. 

Apparently there is a character limit, as the fifth paragraph is truncated and the sixth paragraph was not provided. Even so, we can see that BasedAI does a better job of imitating my style than BardAI did, although neither AI made any reference to the historical facts about war that I compiled and presented in TIA. BasedAI also inserted itself as a third-party descriptor, which sounds a little odd in the context.

I also find it interesting that Harris is described as a philosopher whereas I am not, despite the fact that we often address precisely the same subjects and I was the best-selling political philosopher on Amazon in the 2015-2017 period. It’s also interesting to observe that Harris is not described as a scientist.

UPDATE: Apparently if you write one science fiction book, you are tarred for life. But BasedAI’s explanation is fairly reasonable.

Sam Harris has a background in neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the study of ethics, religion, and spirituality. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and has written several books exploring philosophical topics.

Vox Day, on the other hand, is primarily known for his work as a science fiction writer and has authored several books in that genre. While he has also written non-fiction works on political and cultural topics, his primary area of expertise is not philosophy.

My assessment of their respective fields and expertise is the basis for the distinction between the two individuals.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why I Insist on Written Debates

If you ever wondered why I no longer do video debates, this is precisely why.

Viewer 1: JD won the debate. I remember watching it. Vox had a formidable opponent and made sure his arguments were well delineated. JD breezed by all of it, and Vox knew it. So what?

Viewer 2: No, he never understood it. If he had, he would have addressed it. Instead, he assiduously avoided it.

Viewer 3: Having read the transcript, I do not see anything which would be described as a technical rebuttal to Vox’s technical points. Just blanket dismissal and repeated references to large numbers.

Viewer 1: Did you watch the debate, live, as I did? The transcript does not show the context between two human beings in debate.

No, what the transcript lacks is not the “context”, but rather, the irrelevant rhetorical posturing. And this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened. It’s not just morons interested in evolution who respond to rhetoric and posturing in lieu of facts and reason; we saw exactly the same reaction in morons who favor free trade in the Murphy-Day debate as well as by the alt-retards in the Anglin-Day debate.

In all three cases, neither Gariepy nor Murphy nor Anglin ever even BEGAN to address the primary issue of substance that had been raised. It wasn’t merely three cases of unsuccessful refutations as none of them even tried to refute the core argument that had been presented to them. It was quite clear to me that of the three, only Anglin actually understood what I was saying; he simply elected to punt rather than to engage on an issue he knew he was going to lose. That being said, by virtue of their rhetorical posturing, they managed to convince at least some of the viewers who understood even less of the issues at hand than they did that their erroneous positions were correct.

JFG, for example, never even grasped that he had accomplished nothing more than falling directly into the dilemma which I explicitly laid out for him at the start. He merely chose, on the basis of literally nothing but handwaving and an ontological argument, to disqualify the hammer, and completely failed to realize that in doing so, he had fallen victim to the anvil.

I pointed this out, of course, but JFG was “too tired” to follow my explanation, and there is reason to believe that he could not have managed it even if he’d tried. After all, it took me three attempts to explain the concept of a “mathematical average” to him before he was able to grasp it.

This is why I now insist on written debates, because the written format eliminates the ability of the charlatan to posture his way through a debate in which he is over his head, and permits the audience to review and re-review the material until they fully understand what both sides are saying. And this is probably why I engage in considerably fewer debates these days, because the charlatans are terrified of risking the methodical exposure of their ignorance.

DISCUSS ON SG

The JFG-VD Debate

A complete transcript of my debate with JF Gariepy on the mathematical legitimacy of evolution by natural selection.

JF: “Hello everyone and welcome to the evolution debate with Vox Day. I was explaining to the crowd that, with my voice extinction, I almost want to abandon and just recognize that God did it all.”

VD: “Well, I don’t think that divine intervention is responsible for that, I doubt that, He is excessively concerned with whatever result we release tonight. But, you know my suggestion is we’re all familiar, or at least most of us are familiar, especially those of us who have read your very interesting book The Revolutionary Phenotype, we’re familiar with the orthodox argument. So what might be interesting is if I simply present to you the stuff that I’ve been putting together, and with your help explaining some of the concepts that, quite honestly are not terribly familiar to me. Perhaps we can reach some interesting conclusions.”

JF: “Absolutely, and the more you can speak the better, it helps my voice and my throat, so you can feel free to take a lot of space in the discussion. I would say that as far as I’m concerned, the Theory of Natural Selection is a mathematical truth. It is a truth that applies to anything that makes imperfect copies of itself, and one just has to realize that the life forms on earth right now, they are replicators, they are respecting the conditions for Natural Selection to apply to them.”

VD: “Well I think that it’s a fascinating choice of words there, because it’s specifically the mathematical aspect of the theory that I’m addressing. I’ll read to you my little intro in a minute here, and I would encourage anyone who’s listening to not leap to any assumptions, because some of the stuff you’re going to hear at first is going to make you conclude that I’m going to go in a certain direction, but I can promise and assure you that I’m not going in any of the places these arguments usually go.”

JF: “Alright, let’s hear it.”

VD: “Okay, well first of all, one thing that I’d like to point out is that when we address these topics that have been addressed many times before over the course of hundreds of years it’s quite normal to believe that nobody’s going to come up with anything terribly interesting new to say about that. What I’d like everybody to keep in mind is that both JF and I have in fact come up with new ways of looking at very old, very accepted theories. JF has done so with his Revolutionary Phenotype. For those of you who are not familiar with me, my background is economics, and I came up with a very effective, some would say conclusive, demolition of David Ricardo’s theory of Free Trade which is some fifty-seven years older than Evolution by Natural Selection in the Darwinian sense. So all I’m saying is that, as ridiculous as it might sound, that some of the stuff we’re going to be discussing here might not necessarily have been discussed before. Both JF and I have in the past demonstrated an ability to do this.

JF: “Absolutely.”

VD: “So, the tautological nature of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection means that it is unfalsifiable, unscientific, and entirely unable to serve as the basis of a reliable predictive model. That said, it’s not my objective to convince JF or anyone else of that, or to rehash any arguments that we’ve all encountered many times before. The case that I’m presenting tonight doesn’t have anything to do with the fossil record, it doesn’t have anything to do with Fyodor, or Chomsky, or logic in that context. What I’m addressing is the idea, what I’m proposing is the idea that Natural Selection is not just statistically improbable, but that it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE due to the way it’s directly contradicted by the relevant genetic evidence.

Now, I have to point out that I am an economist by training, not a biologist, and so I’m going to have to ask JF some questions about some of these things, and I’m not doing so in a Socratic manner. It’s not any sort of Euthyphro, trying to play it fast and loose and get him to agree to something. These are going to be honest questions about a subject that he knows much better than I do. If that’s okay with you.”

JF: “Absolutely, I’m all for it. Yeah we can see tonight’s discussion as trying to build your case against the Theory of Natural Selection.”

Continue reading “The JFG-VD Debate”

Little Nicky debate challenge, take three

A Nickler pushes a false narrative:

It is very telling that Vox Day ‘challenges’ Nick Fuentes to debate when Nick is also streaming. He doesn’t have the decency…balls….to ask Nick himself. He streams it and waits for people to send Nick messages about it livr on his own streams. It shows Vox is a snake.

 Dear Nick

I have been informed that you are willing to debate me so long as the subject is not related to the Holocaust. Very well. I propose a written debate concerning your following assertion:

Americans have to live with multiracialism.

I suggest we limit our entries to 2,500 words each, with no more than three entries apiece. As you will be arguing in the affirmative, I am willing to let you have the first word. I also suggest that we agree either party is permitted to publish the entire debate verbatim.

Please email me your first entry at your earliest convenience. I will post it at my blog without modification or comment.

Regards,

Vox

Another Nickler pushed another false narrative:

Vox Day didn’t want to debate.  That’s why he made it a written debate on a topic Nick isn’t interested in.  He’s afraid of Nick’s ability to use rhetoric which is why he wanted to make it in writing

To which I responded by sending the following email to Nick Fuentes:

Dear Nick,

A number of your followers apparently believe I am afraid to debate you live online because you are, and I quote, “a master of rhetoric”. This is not even remotely true. I don’t fear you in the slightest.

So, I am happy to challenge you to a live debate on the same subject I previously suggested, namely, your contention that Americans have to live with multiracialism.

If you would like to do it on the Killstream with Ethan Ralph, that is fine with me.

Regards,

Vox

Does anyone seriously doubt that Little Nicky will behave exactly like Ben Shapiru and run away a third time? I don’t give a flying fragment of an airborne rodent’s posterior about him, and I certainly don’t fear a disrespectful little would-be media whore who doesn’t have my education, my experience, or my intelligence.

He can make all the excuses he wants about optics, irrelevance, or hirsuteness. But everyone knows perfectly well why he is running away from me. I truly don’t care if he shows up to debate or if he doesn’t. If he does, I’ll deal with him exactly like I’ve dealt with every previous opponent. If he doesn’t, he’ll continue to be completely irrelevant to me.

A letter to Nick Fuentes

I sent Nick Fuentes the following email this morning.

Dear Nick,

I have been informed that you are willing to debate me so long as the subject is not related to the Holocaust. Very well. I propose a written debate concerning your following assertion:

Americans have to live with multiracialism.

I suggest we limit our entries to 2,500 words each, with no more than three entries apiece. As you will be arguing in the affirmative, I am willing to let you have the first word. I also suggest that we agree either party is permitted to publish the entire debate verbatim.

Please email me your first entry at your earliest convenience. I will post it at my blog without modification or comment.

Regards,

Vox


UPDATE: There are indications that Nick has already run away a second time, despite his professed willingness to debate. Since I cannot attest to the veracity of the report from one of the comments here, we’ll wait and see.

A few superchatters asked Nick about your new debate request last night… he responded that your audience is too small to be worth debating.

If he actually said that – and we don’t know that he did – it doesn’t speak well for his time preferences or his ability to think strategically.

UPDATE: It’s confirmed. Little Nicky runned away. Again.

Save Western Civilization Now says Vox Day wants to challenge you to a written debate on whether a multiracial society is inevitable. Do you think you’re going to accept a written debate with Vox Day?

“No, I don’t think I’m interested in that. I only debate people that are relevant.”

So he considers Ben Shapiru, of all people, to be relevant? I was initially willing to reserve judgement, but now it’s clear that Owen was right about him. What a pathetic little snake. It’s going to be amusing to see young nationalists turn on him with a vengeance once they begin to see through his act.

And let’s not forget his previous comments.

“I don’t want to debate him because it’s too boring, dude, it’s too boring. Everybody would think that would be exciting, but, I can tell you for a fact that there would be no entertainment value in debating somebody as boring and as slow as Vox Day. So the guy’s boring, and he’s irrelevant, you know, who’s watching the Darkstream? If he can pull more than 2000 viewers concurrent watching the Darkstream, maybe I’d consider him worth my time, but, I mean the guy’s a has-been, you could say he never was. You know, this is somebody who’s been floating around on the scene like writing books? And, what does he have to show for it? Infogalactic? A gay comic book? You know, all these like just stupid projects that don’t go anywhere.”

I find it tremendously informative to observe that this little moron actually considers Amazon bestsellers and multiplatinumum-selling games to be less relevant than 2,000 concurrent YouTube viewers. He’s never paid a bill in his life. To say that he’s not ready for prime time is a gargantuan understatement.

Peterson-Zizek: the verdict

I thought a few of these comments concerning the recent Peterson-Zizek debate were informative:

Peterson got ass raped on every argument vector he tried to use. It’s like a 110 IQ was trying to take it against a 150 IQ.

I know nothing about Zizek, but you may recall that I eventually concluded Peterson tops out around 120. But you can probably imagine how well a debate with me would go.

How are debates won? Does the person that doesn’t have a comeback during it lose it even thought he was right? Is it all about talking to yourself in your room for week thinking “I should’ve said that when he said that!”

Can you spell Gamma?

Peterson failed at the very first step: literature research. I mean, why am I even surprised? I don’t know.

Of course he sabotaged himself. That’s what Gammas who fear defeat do in order to give themselves an excuse. They weren’t really trying, you see.

I’m watching it right now. 30 minutes in and it is as if Peterson is a freshman in Physics who tried to read Griffiths to then go on and debate a Professor on the subject. It’s ridiculous that he would think that even appropriate. But I guess that is what happens when you have so little respect for the subject. He should maybe question his own behavior. Why does he think he can take on an expert in a field where he is a layman? Instead he is trying and failing to lecture us on the behavior of people that he does not know about because he never bothered to acquiesce himself with them.

Hey, it worked for him in his Bible lectures. The difference is that he was addressing people who didn’t know anything about it either and they weren’t given the opportunity to talk back.

Also a very funny thing happened when Jordan Peterson said that Marx was not making a simple argument, but his manifesto was a call to a ‘bloody, violent, revolution’… hundreds of leftists in the audience started cheering and clapping. Peterson was shocked, not used to this kind of reaction, he went quiet for a few seconds then went like… uhhh? ok?…

If Peterson wasn’t a leftist himself, he would have understood this as a genuinely pathological example of group identity. How very strange that, for once, he did not call it out and criticize it.

The Lobster Cult is shook

It’s rather like watching little children being told that their beloved father is leaving their mother to go live as a drag queen in Las Vegas with his boyfriend.

“No, it’s not true! IT’S NOT TRUE! IT CAN’T BE TRUE! YOU’RE LYING!”

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but my favorite was the hapless guy with the weird teeth who doesn’t want to debate the subject or dignify any of the many charges with an answer. These losers couldn’t argue or debate their way out of a paper bag with a hole in the bottom. They can’t even accept the obvious fact that their Lobster Pope is a hard-core globalist and UN sherpa.

I’m particularly amused at the notion that QUOTING A MAN DIRECTLY is “borderline slanderous,” meanwhile they’re defending a mentally ill man who claims that group identity is pathological before blatantly lying about entire groups of people. Forget imputations of slander, forget what I wrote in the book, I suspect that the man is considerably worse than even those who were convinced by the case presented in Jordanetics imagine.

Anyhow, the reason people like this are starting to try to criticize the book is that it is convincing more and more Peterson fans that the man is evil and anti-Christian every day. And they will fail, because they follow a man who is habitual, if not pathological, liar as well as a servant of evil.

CivNat vs Nationalist

This exchange in the comments of Rorschach of Swindon’s video channel perfectly explicates both the uselessness and the ultimately inimical status of the civic nationalists:

Tsaddiq: I am a classical liberal. Here in America, it has basically been rebranded as Libertarian. I think to have victory, you have to do what the Progressives did at the turn of the 20th century. Invest and invade  education. I am not going to go backwards to tribalism. That is what Progressivism has become and always was. It is an offshoot of Socialism really. The government can bring utopia. I cannot abide or play the same game. Perhaps you could disguise what you are doing to have a veneer of Tribalism. But we have to move back away from that philosophy.

Rorschach: The world has always been tribal, and no matter how many sports ball games they throw at us, and no matter how many times they pretend that we are all the same, reality and biology wins out in the end, and humanity is always going to revert back to a tribe versus tribe situation. I read history, lots and lots of history, and this little brief interlude in time is going to be seen as that stupid moment when white people tried to bring everyone together. It failed. White people were too nice, and began to be exploited, leading to a reaction (which we are beginning to see now) and a break-down of the multicultural experiment, leading to the collapse of countries and the end of the modern matriarchal welfare state. This is the end of the post WW2 period. It’s interesting to live through, but things are going to get pretty brutal from here.

Civic nationalists are inherently disloyal to their nation. They are globalists lite who not only conflate the state with the nation, but elevate membership in the state above membership in the nation. Ironically, they consider themselves to be “individualists” while simultaneously elevating the state to a sacral and definitive status well beyond that of any “tribalist” they accuse of collectivism.

And their melting pottist ideology is every bit in conflict with history and observable reality as feminism, Communism, and the neo-liberal world order.