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.


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.


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.


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.



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.



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.



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.

Cucks always crumble

Jordan Peterson is befuddled by a journalist comedian throwing out a basic appeal to civil rights.

Making people make a cake for a gay wedding.

Making them do it? I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

Here’s the argument. Should they be able to deny making a cake for a black couple if they don’t like black people?

Allowed to? Probably. That doesn’t mean it’s right.

Okay, so we had the Civil Rights movement, where they said, black people, we had to serve them in your restaurants and stuff like that, and it did work, and it did make our society better.


But you still argue that wasn’t right?

No, that was right.

Why is that different to now, if you didn’t want to make a cake for black people?

Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s not different. Maybe I was wrong about that.

So much for the right of free association in the eyes of the grand champion of individualism. Remember, this leading philosopher of the 21st century, this irreplaceable man who believes only he can save the world with very important thoughts never thought before, previously managed to lose a debate to SAM freaking HARRIS over what the meaning of “true” is.

What a joke.