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.

Yeah.

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.


Debate: National Socialism II

DEBATE: Andrew Anglin vs Vox Day on National Socialism (Saturday 11 am NYC Time)

Listen live here.

So, that was slightly less of a clown show than I expected. Although it was the first debate I’ve seen that the moderator lost. One thing I thought was interesting was the way Anglin did not reveal his Google pageviews. Based on the difference between his pre-prepared statement and his ability to argue from it, I would guess that several people were involved in writing it.

He provided a few informative statements. I don’t recall them all, but I did note these:

  • “Nobody cares about the historical context of left and right.”
  • “Everything that Hitler did served to support the order of nature.”
  • “Liberalism was invented by Jews.”
  • “I have never commented on your blog.”
  • “Everywhere I look, behind every problem I have, I see hook nosed jews.”

In my opinion, the actual debate ended here:

AA: Understanding Right wing is preservation of the natural order through tradition. Left wing is the push for equality to override the natural order.
VD: NSADAP Munich Manifesto, Point 9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

While the meta-debate ended here:

AA: Don’t be Vox Day, Don’t attack people on the same side as you.
VD: We’re not on the same side.

My favorite take: “It’s just bad PR for Vox Day, even if his rant was correct and Hitler was left wing, that has literally nothing to do with Andrew Anglin.”

True enough. I can’t argue with that.


No mercy for the Alt-Retards

I suggest you keep this in mind the next time you ask me to lay off the grunting, low-IQ left-wing trolls that make up the Alt-Reich.

Spacebunny isn’t the least bit fazed, of course, she’s been blowing off losers like this her entire life. But that’s the reality of what the Alt-Retard is. It’s not an accident either. Here is advice from the Anglin’s Style Guide.

Women should be attacked, but there should always be mention that if it wasn’t for the Jews, they would be acting normally.

So, you see, these nasty little creatures are not merely disgusting, they are strategically hopeless. They actively repulse women even when they aren’t openly trying to sexually harass them. As Nate and other Men of the West pointed out from the start, they are observably worse than useless.

Don’t bother trying to argue for them here. To quote Ivan Throne, your cries for mercy fall on deaf ears. VFM, he’s all yours if you can track him down. Send me the usual dossier when you have it.

On a not-entirely-unrelated note, Andrew Anglin claims that he’s going to show up for the debate at 11 AM Eastern on Saturday. Tara has yet to confirm that works for her, but I have agreed to it. I was merely planning to beat him before. Now, I’m motivated to actually do some preparation for it.

UPDATE: The post was deleted and the account was suspended. Which changes nothing.

UPDATE: Tara McCarthy announces the debate: Join us for a LIVE debate between @AndrewAnglin and @voxday on National Socialism and the Alt Right at Saturday 11 am Eastern time.


No debate tomorrow

Oh dear. I am informed that Andrew Anglin will not be showing up for our debate tomorrow. Quelle surprise.

I don’t know if he’s running or if he intends to reschedule. Perhaps he just needs more time to actually learn about the history of the Third Reich.


Taking down the Fake Right

On Wednesday, September 6th at 7 PM Eastern, I’m going to be debating Andrew Anglin, the Fake Right phony behind the Daily Stormer, on whether National Socialism is of the ideological Right or Left.

One of the various Anglins had been repeatedly crying about being shut out of the chat when I debated Greg Johnson on the same subject, so, being the kindest of Dark Lords, I graciously decided to give Mr. Anglin the opportunity to do the same. He accepted, despite many of his fans claiming that he was too busy, or too important, to do so.

Tara McCarthy will host and a similar format will be utilized. Since I have already made a public case with which at least one Anglin is familiar, he will have the opportunity to go first.

These Fake Right individuals are nothing more than attention-seekers trying to utilize the Jon Stewart strategy of hiding behind their clownishness whenever they are called out. They erroneously believe their popularity will protect them, and fail to recognize that their much-cherished “brands” are of no interest or importance to those who are only interested in the truth and philosophical coherence.

To paraphrase the man himself, Andrew Anglin is just a crybaby who can’t take the heat. He asked for it and it serves him right. He didn’t understand how the interwebs worked and he paid the price.

Some of the more interesting responses to my offer of a debate. It is more evidence of Vox’s First Law in action. What I find particularly amusing is the way the Swastika Parrots so often regurgitate certain terms in a manner that indicates they have no grasp of what the words they are using actually mean.

Will To Power@ImperivmEvropa
You aren’t even white, faggot. You don’t have a say in our movement. Go shill somewhere else.

American Nationalist@American_Nationalist
My only response is you guys are in for a rude awakening. I’ve tried debating VD anonymously about this exact subject. He responded, came after me hard, and I did better than Greg Johnson, but nowhere near close to victory. Anglin has no chance. None of you guys do.

Clayton Elmy@Cledun
Your retard Glenn Beck political spectrum is the failed branding. No one gives a fuck about that shit but retarded boomers. All the young smart kids who you think you can capture will see through your empty arguments and see ours are superior. They will come to us because the truth belongs to us.

3yrsin@3yrsin
Calling them out, indeed. This should be done any time the political Right gathers in public. Let the Nazis that show up know that they are not, never have been, and never will be part of the Alt-Right (or any part of the American Right). They need to be publicly ridiculed and cast away.

Tom Tomo@Tomo
Lol. Dude, all you do is backstab people on the right.

MrAnonymous@MrAnonymous
Nobody wants to buy you’re cucked book on Amazon. Fuck off and attach yourself to the next big thing and move on.

Skout Icus@Iamscouticus
Yep. @voxday isn’t nearly as sharp as he LARPs, or he’d be more self-aware. Everybody but him sees what a sad lil sack he is- motivated by envy in the SF scene, and here. He whines about John Scalzi, George RR Martin, and Anglin, because they’re all more successful than him.

Niccolo Machiavelli@theprince

I don’t think this is a good idea. It’s just a cerebral version of punching a Nazi.

Fabius Maximus@Fabian_Nazism
WOW You are worse than the enemy. You and all those like you are getting sifted.

Lee Rogers@infostormer
Interesting that this @voxday character posts all sorts of insane ramblings and lies to counter signal @AndrewAnglin and the Daily Stormer right in the midst of today’s Gab controversy. He’s either nuts, intentionally trying to misdirect people’s attention, or both. You pick!

Folk@Folk
Have you tried being a less dissatisfying failure? Maybe the problem isn’t them, if there are so many dissatisfied conservatives for them to market a Fake-Right-That-Wins to. Perhaps the problem is you.


When smart guy meets smarter guy

The result often looks like road kill, because far too many smart guys, and girls, rely upon nothing more than bluffing and credentials, which only serve to intimidate the midwits and prevent them from noticing that they haven’t actually backed up their arguments.

This is straight out of The Autism Spectrum Handbook For Winning Online Arguments, 3rd Ed. and it shows a common weakness of the inadequately socialized: they are rarely satisfied with anything other than a FLAWLESS VICTORY in a discussion despite the relative rarity of said victories. I think it probably goes back to when Zunger was the smartest kid in his classroom and he could easily demolish any argument with a list of pre-memorized facts and figures, seasoned liberally with the I’m-smarter-than-you-and-you-know-it attitude. Many people, including both commenters and authors at this blog, have fallen prey to that temptation, because most people of above-average intelligence have, at one time or another, been the smartest person in the room. Of course, to be the smartest person in your Ohio State Classroom you probably need to be a 95th-percentile intellect, while to do the same at Stanford maybe you’re one in a thousand — and that means there are still more than seven million of you out there.

1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect, and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
This “I’m not enough of an expert to explain why I’m right but I’m enough of an expert to know I’m right” business is a smart-guy boilerplate response. It can be ignored. There is plenty of scholarship out there that shows innate differences between men and women in nearly any category of which you could readily conceive. Here is just such a paper, which should appeal to Mr. Zunger because it is both a front-page Google result and a product of Stanford….
It’s plainly obvious from Zunger’s essay that the primary function of Google, as he currently understands it, is to cooperate and collaborate for the social good. It has nothing to do with writing good software or effective software. Anybody can do that now. Code doesn’t matter.
Mr. Zunger is a very smart man, and he is a scientist to boot. But here’s the thing about modern scientists: they are only trained focus on very small things. The days of the Victorian gentleman chemist are past us now. All of the big ideas that could possibly come to a classically-educated man relaxing on the Louis-Quatorze-era chair in his family estate’s library have been discovered. Today’s science is done by putting laser-like attention on finite areas of effort.
The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.
Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.
Which brings me to the funny part. From what I’ve read, Mr. Zunger’s primary accomplishment at Google was…
wait for it..
Google Plus. Which is
a) utter garbage
b) currently serving a user base that is 74% male.

I think one of my biggest advantages as a debater is that I grew up with a best friend whose IQ exceeds mine. I could not say anything without him playing devil’s advocate, and promptly ripping to shreds any baseless posturing or unsupported assertions.
Zunger’s empty posturing is remarkably common among the cognitive elite, particularly the professionals, who are frequently inclined to opine about matters on which they are not sufficiently informed. That, of course, is why they are so defensive when called out; they realize that the whole edifice will come crumbling down if deference is not paid to them, thereby allowing them to avoid their bluffs being called.
Smart people usually construct their arguments to impress midwits and normal people. Smarter people construct them with an eye to hypothetical critics who may be smarter than they are.


When rhetoric doesn’t work

As I pointed out in SJWAL, the best rhetoric is based in truth. Conversely, the worst and least effective rhetoric is based in falsehood and posturing to uphold an obviously false narrative. In light of which observation, the following exchange on The Zman’s blog struck me as more than a little amusing.

First, a wounded libertarian tried to play a rhetorical fast one by striking a superior pose and resorting to a common meme:

I’ve reading some of your anti-libertarian rants lately. And the phrase that comes to mind is:

“show me on the doll where the mean libertarian touched you”.

Seriously – pretty much every person you’ve ascribed libertarian leanings to in your recent columns – with the exception of Charles Murray – is somebody I have NEVER heard of before , and I’ve been reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now.

I’m starting to think this whole ascribing “libertarian” leanings to a bunch is another episode of that long running mini-series: “Look at me – I’m a conservative and I don’t know what the &%$! conservatism is”.

Previous seasons have given us a bunch of conservatives who filled up the Republican party with Neo-conservatives.

Apparently nobody went to look up what “neo” means.

Looks like we might be playing the same game again – except this time we’ve got a bunch of liberals calling themselves libertarians. Apparently because the words begin with “lib” everybody stopped thinking it out and thinks they’re one and the same.

The Zman didn’t need to respond, because the commenter’s pretensions were punctured, and his rhetoric was destroyed, by a single question from another commenter.


You’ve never heard of Reason magazine and Nick Gillespie?


That made me laugh. What sort of “libertarian” who has been “reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now” is unfamiliar with the #1 libertarian magazine and what was ranked the #4 libertarian site back in 2012. Of course, the sad state of libertarianism can probably be best understood by the realization that this very site was ranked #51 that year. Or by simply reflecting upon the last two Libertarian presidential campaigns.

It’s over. Let reason – and Reason – be silent when observation and experience gainsay its theories.

What libertarians need to ask themselves are these two questions: One, is my ideal of maximizing liberty in my society, the human society in which I actually live, presently dependent upon the core libertarian ideas of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Sovereign Individual? And, two, at this particular moment in history, do those core libertarian dogmas tend to expand or to reduce human liberty in my society?


Mike Cernovich – Sam Harris debate

Cerno has accepted Harris’s challenge:

Sam Harris, who said on Joe Rogan’s podcast that Hillary Clinton would win the election (and also that Trump “terrified” him) wants to debate me….

One topic could be this: How could Sam Harris support Hillary Clinton when it’s Clinton who wanted to import radical Islam into the U.S. with her open borders policy?

Whatever, I accept Sam’s debate challenge. I suggest Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report moderate it on neutral territory.

Interesting that Harris’s fans want him to debate Mike. They probably underestimate him; I have no doubt at all that they don’t want him to debate me. I doubt Mike will have much trouble with him, though. Mike is smarter than most people think, and Sam, although smart enough, is very intellectually careless, and habitually leaves very large holes in his arguments.

I would expect Mike to be able to spot those holes without too much difficulty.


Too fab, too strong

They can’t handle the Milo:

Bill Maher is making no apologies for booking Milo Yiannopoulos on HBO’s “Real Time” this Friday, saying Jeremy Scahill’s refusal to appear on the show out of protest of the conservative firebrand is one of the reasons why Democrats lost the election to President Trump. Mr. Scahill, founding editor of The Intercept, posted a lengthy statement on Twitter Wednesday evening announcing that he was dropping out of his scheduled appearance on Friday’s show because he disagrees with giving Mr. Yiannopoulos a platform to “spew his hateful diatribes.”

What a shame that Jeremy Scahill is such a horrible homophobe. This should be interesting, as I’ve seen Milo run rough-shod over UK TV journalists who are much smarter than Bill Maher. Maher isn’t verbally slow, but I will be very surprised if he can keep up with Milo. I think it’s fascinating that he’s even willing to try.

It is true, however, that the Left’s complete cowardice in this regard doesn’t fool anyone except the low-IQ true believers. Who does the Left have in the media that can possibly hold their own in a debate with Mike, Milo, me, or Stefan? They don’t have anyone. That’s why they run.

The idea that Maher is “giving Milo a platform” is absurd. Milo doesn’t need a platform. Milo IS a platform.


Of false dogmas and founding myths

Now, I love and respect John Wright for many reasons. He is, among other things, a science fiction and fantasy grandmaster, and one of the three best writers of his generation. But I am in complete intellectual harmony with no man, and his civic nationalism – which I will note that other men I respect such as Mike Cernovich and Donald Trump share – is one of them. The problem is that their civic nationalism is almost entirely based on myths and falsehoods, as anyone who has done the necessary historical research already knows.

America has a dogma. America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal. Anyone learning and loving that dogma, who comes here, is a candidate for becoming an American, and, upon legal naturalization, will be as much an American as the man whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower.

America does have a dogma. It is, like many national founding myths, a false dogma. There is no more truth to the idea that America is based on the proposition that all men are created equal than there is to the idea that Rome was founded by Aeneas and the Trojan refugees. John clearly has not read Cuckservative, or some of the relevant writings of various Founding Fathers.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?
—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson happen to disprove the romantic notion of the civic nationalists as well. They believed foreigners could assimilate, so long as there were sufficiently small numbers of them, and their blood literally intermingled with the English blood of the actual Americans in time.

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.
—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The Left, in order to destroy this concept, wrote immigration laws and misinterpreted constitutional principles, to make it so that anyone with an anchor baby, or any relative, living here, could be welcomed here. This was done by enemies of American and is alien to our entire way of life.

Now, this part is correct. But recall that the Left achieved its goals by appealing to the very founding myths to which the civic nationalists subscribe.

America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are. We are exceptional. We are a new concept.

If America is not a nation in the sense that nations in the Old World are, then it is not a nation at all. There is absolutely nothing new about the idea of giving citizenship to small numbers of foreigners or permitting entry to immigrants in the futile hope that they will strengthen the nation without transforming it into something that it is not. And the Swiss confederation preceded the American by more than 500 years.

Why do I need to be explaining to you something we have both known since childhood? How can anyone American or not, who is aware of America, be unaware of how America works or what is the secret of our unparalleled success?

The difference is that I understand that the national founding myth is a myth, of no more truth than George Washington’s famous cherry tree. If America’s civic nationalists were Romans, they would insist that the secret to Rome’s strength was that the blood of Trojans flowed in their veins. Immigration and equality have very little, if anything, to do with America’s success, as the previous success of the British empire should suffice to show. America was successful because it was founded by one of the most successful peoples in the history of Man, and founded on a vast and wealthy continent protected from the powers of the Old World by an ocean. Moreover, Australia has hardly been a failure; its success can certainly be described as being reasonably comparable to the USA’s, especially given its relative geographic disadvantages.

This reminds me of the very popular view among economists that the secret to the USA’s post-WWII economic growth was the massive amount of government spending during the war, forgetting the considerably more important fact that the USA was the only industrialized country whose population and infrastructure was not devastated by the war.

Now, certain loudmouths on the Alt-Right heaps contempt on all these ideas, but never says anything that actually addresses or casts honest doubt on them. Aside from the emotion of scorn, there is no argument there. It is shouting, but no words underneath the noise.

I leave it to the reader to determine the veracity of those words. What aspect of John’s argument for civic nationalism have I failed to address? Point it out, by all means, if you can, and I shall do my humble best to amend any failures in that regard. One reason the Alt-Right’s rise is inevitable is our intellectual ruthlessness and our determination to accept even those truths that are most painful to us. We are not at war with the civic nationalists; they are not the enemies of the West. But if we are to see  the situation as clearly as possible and understand the current challenges as deeply as we can, we cannot permit ourselves to be hampered by their conceptual baggage.

If you want to get up to speed on this subject, I strongly suggest you read Cuckservative, by John Red Eagle and me. We learned a lot in the writing of the book, so it is safe to assume you’ll learn something by reading it.