Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: the illustrated shiv

VFM #7634 wasn’t entirely sure to whom Literally Who’s self-outing as… something was referring.

I’m confused… is this another post about Scalzi?

No, as it happens, THIS is a tremendous post about the most important author in science fiction history, the Fifth of the Big Three, the biggest, baddest, bestselling dog at Tor Books, the man with more Hugo nominations than Arthur C. Clarke or Jerry Pournelle and more Hugo Awards than Ray Bradbury, A.E. van Vogt, Lester del Rey, Gregory Benford, Norman Spinrad, Terry Pratchett and Iain M. Banks combined, the writer whose innovative “he said, he said, he said” structure has shocked and awed and intimidated the entire science fiction writing community and forever altered the way it approaches writing dialogue.

Our case study today is John Scalzi, a quisling male emblematic of so much that has gone haywire with White American men (and their beards).

Exhibit A: This is Scalzi’s Christmas card. He signed off on it. He approved of it. This is how he wants the world to see him.

Exhibit B: Scalzi in love. Here Scalzi is in the submissive position, an obvious inferior looking up to his wifely better.

Exhibit C: Scalzi smooches. Kissing upward and nuzzling his doughy face into hard manjawline, eyes closed as his hunky lady peers into the middle distance looking burdened with the weight of the world (or for an escape from her husband’s octopus lips), Scalzi eagerly inverts the sexual polarity, taking on the role of the woman in his marriage, ceding all the T to his wife.

Exhibit D: Serious Scalzi. Scalzi tries to look serious (ie like a normal man), but is still out-mugged by his wife, who looks more serious, and tougher, than him.

People have mostly given up trying to sell the narrative, but I always found it bizarre when people tried to claim that I envied John Scalzi. On what planet, and for what reason, would I, or any man, ever envy a gamma male like that?

I find the most interesting thing about Scalzi to be the fact that he somehow managed to delay the inevitable gamma self-implosion until he reached a much higher level of success than is conventionally the case. This suggests that his implosion, when it inevitably comes, is going to be absolutely spectacular.

The best part of the Chateau post is the comments from the women there.

  • What I really despise about this guy is that he’s contributing to the further ruin of science fiction. So why do these mannish women latch on to these beta guys? Seeing stuff like this out of a man makes me hurt inside. It’s instinctive, like being scared of rattlesnakes. How do women kill them in themselves, and why would they want to?
  • Exhibit B made my ovaries shrivel.
  • Who’s that gay bloke standing next to the giant woman?

Some might fear that the lack of compassion and respect shown in this post might cost Heartiste any chance of being nominated for the Vox Day Mutual Respect Award from The Vox Day Center for Mutual Respect. However, I would observe that the metric for the Vox Day Mutual Respect Award given out by The Vox Day Center for Mutual Respect is “showing compassion and respect” for one’s “fellow man”, and therefore, due to the subject’s observable lack of any identifiable signs of actual manhood, it would not be correct to hold this post against le Chateau.

Thank you for caring.

Mailvox: siding with Obama

Does John C. Wright really believe that everyone who sets foot on U.S. soil should automatically be granted U.S. citizenship? Or only those who are citizens of countries he describes as a “slave state”?

I recall the days when you referred to yourself as a libertarian, Vox. Now your obsession has reached a point where, given a choice between siding with Castro’s slave state or rethinking your position on racial matters, you side with Castro. Given a choice between siding with Obama, who fundamentally hates every thing you love and who desecrates everything you hold sacred, and rethinking your position on race, you side with Obama.

On a personal note, the Left stopped seeming like humans to me and started seeming like remorseless enemy monsters in human form was when I heard them applauding the midnight military style raid on the house of Elian Gonzales, and cheering the news that the child would be returned to the island sized concentration camp. They hate liberty that much, the Left. They hate humanity, hate life, hate reason,truth and beauty.

Yet each of them was born as an innocent wee babe,cute and cuddly and poopy as were we all.

What changed them? What turns men into monsters?

I suggest that it is the lure of simple, elegant, powerful ideas which become like idols to them. The idol demands a small sacrifice at first, then more, then more.

I have always wondered why the first time one of them found his powerful idea and his cause was leading him into siding with what he himself despised and knew to be wrong, no friend warned him.

First, even when I described myself as a libertarian, I was always careful to reject the capital-L. And even though I voted Libertarian, I did not join the party. Why? Because I rejected both abortion rights and open borders, two strongly held Libertarian positions.

After reading Ian Fletcher’s book, then going through the actual free trade arguments of both the classical and Austrian economists and realizing how outmoded and riddled with flaws they were, I began to understand that libertarianism was every bit as utopian, and every bit as impossible, as communism. It’s not an accident that adherents of both ideologies rely heavily upon Panglossian hypotheticals, because real-world observations reliably illustrate their total dysfunctionality.

It was possible to argue for communism before technology replaced human labor. It was possible to argue for libertarianism before technology made it possible for immigrants to cheaply travel from one continent to another and remain in contact with their homelands. Now, both ideologies are obviously false and incorrect.

Second, consider the logical consequences of Mr. Wright’s stance. Should fathers be deprived of their children and relinquish their paternal rights because the late mother happens to live in a different country? Should all natives of oppressive governments have the right to automatic legal residence in the United States? After all, there are worse governments than the Cuban government; Cuba is only one of 50 countries listed in the Not Free category by Freedom House.

Cuba’s freedom rating is more than twice as high as the Central African Republic, five times higher than that of Uzbekistan, and virtually identical to that of China. How can Mr. Wright morally justify offering automatic residence to 11.2 million Cubans while denying it to 31 million Uzbekis and 4.7 million Central Africans who are objectively worse off? Given his reasoning, how can he possibly deny the right of residence in the USA to any of the 1.3 billion people of China?

There is absolutely no reason for me to even begin to consider rethinking my position on race. My position relies entirely on observable facts, sound reason, and the current state of science. The fact that I might, in this one instance, happen to think Obama acted in the American national interest, even if he did so for the wrong reasons, is not in any way relevant to my rational perspective on racial matters. If anyone has a racial obsession here, it is certainly not me.

Indeed, I found it to be both interesting and informative that Mr. Wright looks at this as a question of race rather than one of justice, national interest, or even demographic pragmatism, especially in light of the observations of Osric Pearl, a second-generation Cuban immigrant, in that particular regard.

American of Cuban descent, second generation. I have a few thoughts.

First, I agree with Obama’s decision even if I think it was done in bad faith. The US has enough people and it doesn’t need any more. The ones who have been arriving as of late have not been the best and the brightest, and have added nothing to the US except for more debt through social services and depressed wages.

Second, I know that this was done because of the elections. Obama is a petty man. Had Hillary won, Obama probably would have sat this one through and let Hillary take it down. Cubans hate the Clintons anyway, so there would be no love lost there. But Steve Sailor has this right, Cubans went for Trump 54%. They voted for him with the same percentage as white women. So yeah, a petty move by a petty man. Although good was done, it was still done under false presences. Had this been an honest move, he would have done it before the election, right around the time relations with Cuba were normalized.

Third, and this isn’t something anyone here is going to like to hear, but it must be said. For the poster who stated that the “Exile” should now go back, the “Exile” is dead. Literally. Those Cubans who considered themselves “The Exile” were baby boomers/greatest generation of which most have died. The last member of that generation is my grandmother who is so old she can neither speak nor move. Their children, the Baby Boomers, either came to the US as young children or were born here. They are somewhat culturally Cuban, but this is the gist, the Cuba which they are culturally a part of is no longer alive. CUBA, is dead. Dead dead dead. They may think they are Cubans, but most Cubans don’t acknowledge them as such. Indeed, they are very different in values and appearance.

And this is connected to my Fourth point. It’s very interesting that in a blog like this, and others, where race matters and where differences of race are considered, few people consider this dynamic in another country, like say, Cuba. If anyone were to scan the faces of those who went to Fidel’s funeral, one would see a sea of black people. When one of my family members visited in the 90’s, she came back with rolls of tape and a sad heart. “It’s just not the same,” she said. I wonder why. A great aunt, not quite so PC, asked while watching the video of the trip what “all those black people are doing there.” The people who made Cuba what it is, the White/mostly white Spaniards are gone. That means Cuba is gone. This is a tough pill to swallow because no one likes to admit these things since to admit them, one would have to discuss difficult issues about race.

It’s been white flight since ’56. I know this because the Cubans I grew up with don’t look anything like the majority of Cubans who live in Cuba right now. There is no way that second and third generation children will go there and fell at home. This is very different from going back to Europe and being surrounded by a people and a culture who are familiar. As a comparison, my Aunt who found Cuba too Different to visit again goes to Spain all the time and thinks its great.

I am honest enough to admit this, but most Cubans are not. Instead, they will find some excuse or other to stay here. A few recent arrivals who can’t cut it may go back, but those who were born here of the original three waves will be in no hurry to go. I suspect that the man whose half-Cuban niece considered going to Cuba after Castro’s death will have a mysterious change of heart if she ever seriously entertains the idea and does a few preliminary visits. She may never speak the reason, because to do so will mean she will cross the bounds of social respectability, but she will know it in her heart. Namely, that the Cubans who live in Cuba look nothing like her Cuban parent and extended family. She may as well move to Detroit, with nicer black people.

Race matters. Even in Cuba.

Fifth, Socialism isn’t dead there. Castro’s death changes nothing. The family is still very much in power, and a successor has been named upon Raul’s death. The majority black/mulatto population backs and happily does their bidding even though the ruling class is almost entirely white.

Cuba is dead to me. But it isn’t just dead to me, it is dead, period.

From a recent review of Cuckservative:

It’s truly mind-boggling that a so-called “conservative” would support open borders, since immigrants typically vote Democrat, and support things like higher taxes, a higher minimum wage, more welfare, hate speech laws, gun control, and even Sharia law in the case of some Muslims. Immigrants also typically have a higher birthrate than the native white population of the United States, the GOP’s main voting bloc. But fear of being called racist (or xenophobic, or white nationalist, or nativist or some other magic word) is enough to make people like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, Jonah Goldberg, and Bill O’Reilly (who actually supports birthright citizenship) kowtow to the left’s immigration agenda. That, or some of these cuckservatives are financially beholden to corporate donors who benefit from cheap foreign labor. Either way, cuckservatives remind me of a quote paraphrased from the Roman orator Cicero:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

I submit that if anyone has made an idol of any ideas, it is those who still have faith in the demonstrably false notions of human equality and propositional nations.

Mailvox: the slow death of Mozilla

Brendan Eich is going to outlast the company that pushed him out.

Got
an email at work today saying that Arena the software we use for
document tracking is no longer supporting Firefox going forward due to a
lack of use by users. So it would seem the terminal deathside is beginning in earnest. 

No doubt it will be particularly satisfying for Mr. Eich when companies like this start adopting Brave as their browser of choice. 

Mailvox: get over your cognitive capabilities

Some Guy is trying to learn how to stop thinking that being smart is somehow worthy of accolades:

I am and have been in the VHIQ spectrum for the majority of my life. About 2 years ago a situation in my marriage sent me reeling into therapy and I have spent a little over a year in a special form of therapy.

The reason that I bring this up is that although I have a relatively high IQ, I naturally attach too much personal worth to my intelligence and the imagined respect that it brings to me. After having dealt with a few, but by no means all of the underlying issues, I am now at a place where (even though I still react the way a VHIQ would reflexively) I can at least back up and see the situation for what it is when I review new information.

In our therapy, we refer to these as “programs” that are installed at an early age, and that run without any cognitive thought occurring. These are mostly self-defeating tendencies that plague people like me our entire lives. It has indeed made a qualitative difference in my ability to understand information, because I am not emotionally invested in the outcome (although I have to try very hard for this to occur most of the time). Do you think this could account for some of the difference you are noticing between the two groups?

Nearly everyone wants to be smarter, better-looking, wealthier, healthier, more athletic, more popular, and sexier. (Virtually no one is willing to actually do much about any of those things either, but that’s neither here nor there.) And yet, for some reason, smart people seem to have an incredible amount of trouble understanding that the “respect” they are due for being more intelligent is about as significant as the amount of respect they harbor for someone else being more attractive, more athletic, or more popular.

My first piece of advice for anyone who is intelligent is this: get over it.

Intelligence will get you nothing but a free ride at a US university if you’re sufficiently good at taking tests. That’s it. It means that you’ve got a larger caliber intellectual gun than most, but if your ammunition (education) is deficient, you don’t know how to aim it (discipline), where to aim it (wisdom), or you’re unwilling to pull the trigger (laziness or fear of failure), your intelligence means precisely nothing.

Part of the problem, I think, is that high intelligence manifests itself during the formative years, and therefore tends to become an intrinsic aspect of one’s self-identity in a way that pther characteristics that require more time to take shape do. I think of it in much the same context that the girls who are unusually pretty when they are little girls; they tend to still believe they are great beauties even when they are overweight or surpassed by later bloomers.

One of the most valuable things anyone ever told me wasn’t actually addressed to me, but to a smart girl I knew, who told another girl that she felt like she had all these great thoughts circling through her head, but she just couldn’t articulate them. The other girl told her that she didn’t have any great thoughts, she just had a feeling. One’s thoughts, such as they are, don’t mean anything and cannot be judged until they are articulated, preferably in writing.

So, no one should be enamored of one’s intelligence or proud of it. Be proud of what you have done with your intelligence, if you have actually accomplished anything, instead. That doesn’t mean one should engage in false modesty or hesitate to wield one’s intelligence as a weapon if the situation calls for it, only that one should be aware that it is nothing more than one of the many tools at one’s disposal.

As for programs, Mike Cernovich discusses this in MAGA Mindset. The self-narration with which provide commentary on our own thoughts and actions tend to have a powerful effect on the results we produce. Mike makes use of particular mantra he explains in the book; I don’t have a particular mantra, but I do have a set of phrases to which I turn from time to time when I need motivation. Mine probably would not work for most people, since I thrive on negative and competitive motivation, but they are a similar form of cognitive self-programming.

But no, these programs do not account, in any way, for the differences I have observed between the conventional high IQ mind and the unconventional high IQ mind. It’s akin to asking if someone who is color-blind can motivate himself into seeing green properly.

Family SJWs and the holidays

Remember, SJWs have no respect for decorum or regard for their families or the holidays:

In a discussion with my son and his girlfriend, I said that their city’s homogeneity (it is almost all white) was behind the low crime rate when it was mentioned that there was a stabbing behind a bar the other night. This led to an accusatory, ‘What do you mean by homogeneity?’ by the SJW girlfriend and so I spilled the next fact – that blacks are more likely to commit crimes. The SJW girlfriend of my son quickly went nuclear and said I was a racist and that when controlled for socio-economic factor blacks do not commit crimes at higher rates than whites and that discussion of racist ideas was not tolerated in her house. The evening was ruined. The relationship with son and girlfriend is forever changed.

I have read SJWs Always Lie, and would appreciate your advice on how you suggest to use rhetoric instead of dialectic with known SJWs that are also family? Any suggestion on how I recover from this?

You don’t “recover” from unmasking an SJW. Remember, they always lie, they always double down, and they always project.

At this point, the correct thing to do is to refuse to have further contact with her, or to allow her in his home until she apologizes for calling him a racist. Most people won’t do this, of course, especially when faced with the inevitable female pressure for everyone to humor the most volatile member of the family in the interest of a false peace. I would have laughed at her willful ignorance, told my son that he really needed to rethink the wisdom of potentially allowing an idiot like her to contribute to the family gene pool, and left.

Yes, family is important, but girlfriends aren’t family. And life is far too short to waste any of it on putting up with SJWs. Tolerating SJWs is the intellectual equivalent of putting up with someone who insists on using the living room as a toilet. Why would you even consider doing it?

Nearly everyone makes the fatal mistake of trying to be reasonable with them. That is a category error. SJWs respond only to emotional pain, so the only way to get them to stop doubling down on their misbehavior is to make them feel more pain by failing to behave as members of a civilized society. The more one apologizes and negotiates and pleads, the more intransigent they get. The harsher you treat them, the more likely it is that they will sheepishly return to the fold.

However, in light of how family SJWs are going to be even more easily triggered than usual this year due to the imminent Ascension of the God-Emperor to the Cherry Blossom Throne, I would recommend not only avoiding political conversations, but refusing to permit others to start them in the first place. If a family SJW does insist on bringing up politics, especially if they do so in that passive-aggressive way that assumes agreement with the speaker’s statement, the best thing to do is probably to express your delight about the Ascension of the God-Emperor – in those precise terms – and begin a debate concerning whether Donald Trump will be the greatest U.S. president since a) Ronald Reagan, b) Andrew Jackson, or c) George Washington.

The shock of the cognitive dissonance should be sufficient to put your family SJW in a socially catatonic state, which will be appreciated by everyone else.

In general, I find that smiling, refusing to back down in any way, and treating their antics like an indulged child usually works best.

Mailvox: the ontology of existential idiocy

Wild Man keeps blithely repeating the same argumentative nonsense over and over again despite the fact that he can’t even construct a basic syllogism or correctly understand what Western civilization is.

VD – you said – “Give it up, Wild Man. I already told you that you’re full of it. You keep trying to work your false narrative of Western civilization being based on equality in there, which a) is not true, and, b) the Alt-Right openly opposes.”

VD – you also said – “You’re not (mystified). There are no deep contradictions, you’re simply either a) a liar, or b) a stubborn idiot.”

VD – In all fairness, I don’t think anything I said implies that I am lying and therefore trolling and baiting around supposed mystification. My mystification with regards to fully groking the alt-right (particularly your conception of it) is real – and I am making a real effort to try and understand your position on this – and by way of this effort I have observed some deep contradictions ….. and these are the source of my mystification (nothing weird going on here with me – just straight forward rational discussion is what I am hoping for).

I also think you are wrong about anything I said implying I’m a stubborn idiot (but they all say that – right?) – but I try to be open minded and we’ll see – I’m always hoping to learn something new, and maybe you will point me in that direction, but “idiot”! …. you know what they say about extraordinary claims …. but hey maybe you will show me something worthy of a face palm slap sufficient of the “idiot” voice-over. If so I will do my best to admit it!

Here are the reasons for my counter-claims:

1)Your claim that I keep trying to work in a particular narrative around western civilization, namely that it is partly based on some sense of equality, is true in general, with respect to many of the comments I have posted on previous threads – i.e. – I do believe that as per the 4 underlying precepts of the western egalitarian as I have defined, particularly as per precepts #1 + #2 ….. some sense of existential ontological equality does arise, by way of each man and woman enjoying, or perhaps suffering if you like, the same existential and ontological conditions around the operation of self-agency – namely the belief in the ever present power to choose, and the belief in the implied personal responsibilities that entails.

It’s not a claim, it’s a straightforward observation that Wild Man keeps saying the same thing over and over, then asserting a nonexistent contradiction on my part on the basis of his own false narrative, which action, you will note, he has now admitted. It is apparent that he is a low midwit enchanted by the fact that he actually has an idea. This is exactly the sort of behavior Mike Cernovich warned against, and is an object lesson in the importance of jettisoning bad ideas.

Wild Man doesn’t realize that he’s defined 2+2 as being equal to 37, then attempted to criticize everyone else’s math on that basis. Worse, he’s attempting to claim everyone who is doing math correctly is contradicting themselves, which is not possible since no one accepts the idea that 2+2=37 or that there exists a sense of existential ontological equality intrinsic to the West.

What part of “equality does not exist in ANY meaningful and material sense” is hard for the moron to grasp? If he had the ability to construct, or deconstruct, a logical syllogism, he would attempt to demonstrate that a) equality does exist, and, b) this equality is integral to Western civilization. He would fail, of course, since both statements are false, but at least he would stop subjecting every reader of this blog, and worse, me, to this interminable, nonsensical salad of words he observably does not understand.

Note to the midwits: using big words that impress you when others use them does not make you correct, convincing, or intellectual, particularly when you use them incorrectly.

In a previous thread I have outlined these 4 underlying precepts of this conception of the western egalitarian, which I could copy and paste here again on this thread if you like. You say it is not true (you are contending that there is no such sense of human equality – I discern you judge this as a fallacy) but you have not yet engaged as to precisely why the common existential ontological conditions of personhood do not support some sense of equality, so …. how can I possibly know your mind on this, if you don’t engage on this topic and tell me? I assume your judgment as to the fallacious nature of my contention also conditions your conception of the Alt-Right. As such I trust you now see that this absolves me of the charge of lying about my mystification about your conception of the alt-right ….. now implying perhaps, that the charge, by default, is instead one of “stubborn idiot”.

Oh Sweet Darwin, no, you’ve already done enough copy and pasting here. And no, you clearly understand perfectly well what the 16 Points mean, you’re just too determined to cling to your egalitarian nonsense to accept them. This mewling “I’m so mystified, please prove the obvious to me or I’ll post another thousand-word screed that says the same damn thing” is contemptible. So, I have concluded that the dichotomy was false and you happen to be both a) a liar, and b) a stubborn idiot.

The conditions of personhood are too trivial to support any sense of equality that is relevant to Western civilization, and moreover, have never served as a basis for any form of observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual equality in the West, or anywhere else. The fact that corporations are legal persons in the West should alone suffice to demonstrate the fact that Wild Man’s “common existential ontological conditions of personhood” argument is a complete non-starter.

OK – You think I am a stubborn idiot for reasons that I am apparently too dense to see, I guess you are implying. Well humor an implied underling (by intellectual brilliance standards) then, good sir. Please now address my quandary. My prior discussion with respect to the underlying precepts #1 + #2 of the western egalitarian, as defined, implies some sense of existential ontological equality does arise by way of the condition of personhood. People are the same in some sense. The necessary conditions of personhood implies a sense of categorical equality. What are the necessary conditions of personhood? We all are going to die. Well prior to adulthood we all come to know this existential fact. We all are faced with the same challenge ….. as to grok the best way to conduct one’s life. We each sense and undertake this challenge because of our common human belief in self-agency and the personal responsibility so implied. Where is this conception of the categorical equality of the existential ontological nature of personhood fallacious?

This is false on its face, and contains several false foundations as well. Corporations don’t die, and yet they are legally recognized persons. Human embryos and fetuses do die, and they are not. Dogs and pigs and monkeys and plants are all going to die too, and they are not considered persons either. Many humans do not believe in self-agency or in a subsequent implication of personal responsibility; the current state of cognitive science specifically denies even the theoretical possibility of conscious self-agency. The conception of the categorical equality of the existential ontological nature of personhood is observably fallacious from start to finish, which is one reason why it is not, and has never been, recognized in any legal system in the history of the West.

Your more direct claim, that the particular narrative around western civilization that I have implied, namely that it is partly based on some sense of equality (as discussed in #2 above), is actually OPENLY opposed by the Alt-Right, is also, more directly, mystifying, given #(15) of your outline of the Alt-Right principles (i.e. – The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.) Well what is the negation of supremacy so implied? Given that you stated principle #(15) in terms of racial/national existential preservation – does it not imply the negation of supremacy so implied, is some sense of equality (given what we know about the operation of darwinian evolution)?, and furthermore via the paraphrase of the embrace of the scientodific (alt-right principle #8) I provided in comment #72 above, the racial/national cultural profile is obviously contingent on the the make-up of the in-group individuals ….. and as such, the sense of darwinian existential equality implied by the principle of racial/national existential preservation as implied by Alt-Right principle #(15), is contingent on the make-up of the individuals ……. now what precise qualities expressed at the individual level might well account for said cultural darwinian existential equality implied by the principle of racial/national existential preservation? – well the categorical equality of the existential ontological nature of personhood is certainly a good candidate to account for that – is it not? Or, more succinctly ……the spirit of which can be summed up as “all men are created equal in the eyes of God”, or the spirit of which could also be summed as “perhaps even God knows not (and certainly no man can know) the future existential conditions of nations and races”. So VD – please tell me precisely how I am a stubborn idiot by way of being too dense to see how your conception of the Alt-Right is OPENLY opposed to some sense of human equality?

Wild Man is an idiot because a declaration of an absence of belief in SUPREMACY is not synonymous with a declaration of any sense of SAMENESS or EQUALITY. Quite the contrary, in fact, as the further from sameness one goes, the harder it is to even compare two things. What is supreme, a penguin or a satellite? It’s a category error to even ask the question! Now consider the intrinsic dishonesty of the language to which he is forced to resort to even begin to try making his idiotic case.

  • “does it not imply” (no)
  • “the sense of darwinian existential equality implied” (there is no such thing, ergo it cannot imply anything)
  • “might well account for” (and yet does not)
  • “is certainly a good candidate” (it can’t be, since it doesn’t exist)
  • “could also be summed as” (no, it can’t, and it isn’t)

Very well, Wild Man. You are a stubborn idiot who is too dense to see that you have constructed a false narrative, claimed that because that false narrative can be imagined, it actually exists and thereby negates a vast range of material observations which have led me, and many others, to conclude that equality is an abstract concept which does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

That being said, I will grant you that the common existential ontological conditions of personhood support equality in an imaginary sense. In your head, if nowhere else.

Now …… if you happen to now agree with the conceptions around some sense of human equality that I have now repeatedly outlined, here and in prior threads, (which aren’t my original conceptions in any event – these are simply the western egalitarian principles of the enlightenment period – wasn’t it John Locke that fleshed out these ideas?) …… then ….VD some of your conclusions don’t follow.

I don’t agree with any of the conceptions Wild Man has repeatedly outlined. And Western civilization long preceded the Enlightenment, nor does John Locke or any other Enlightenment philosopher define Western civilization, which is why the entire argument has been so prodigiously and obviously stupid from the start.

You had your shot, Wild Man. Now give it up and stop trying to argue your nonsensical point. If you are still mystified, then you will simply have to remain that way, because I have zero interest in continuing to explain the observable and the obvious to you.

I trust this explains why I am seldom inclined to do more than simply tell midwits and those of normal intelligence that they are wrong, and if egregiously so, stupid. My curt dismissals are not evidence that I cannot dismantle their arguments and demonstrate in detail why they are incorrect, they are instead an indication that doing so is so trivially obvious and easy that only long and painful experience of MPAI has made it possible for me to believe that it could ever be necessary.

Mailvox: recount and consequences

Apparently the Michigan recount is pulling back the veil on Democrat vote fraud. An email from an anonymous insider.

People have known for years that Democrat-controlled Detroit has been rigging elections. During the Bush/Kerry election they had GOP poll watchers arrested and ran up 100 percent voter turnouts. It was so bad the Federal judges had to allow voter ID laws they had been blocking for years to take effect in Michigan.

The Hillary/Jill recount didn’t help Hillary, but it has hurt the Democrats’ reputations and may hurt them badly going forward. The count has been stopped but the state has now ordered an audit as to how 20 Democrat-controlled locations had a lot more Hillary votes than voters.

We use drivers license scans now for a computer record poll book, so they know how many voted. The worst location had 300 Hillary votes cast by 50 voters.

As the Alt-Right is demonstrating, all that is necessary for the Right to win is to show up and fight. Who would have imagined that anyone could come up with a strategy more effective than rolling over and playing dead?

Not all windows are open

A reader asks about the possibility of disrupting YouTube:

I just finished Stefan’s podcast with you about Capitalism. The thing that really struck me is that one always has to be on the lookout for opportunities, something my dad always told me, but you resurfaced. And the example that struck me was Gab. In hindsight, it was an obvious decision. Everything lined up perfectly for its launch.

Which brings me to Youtube. A few months ago they launched their Youtube Heroes program, which is nothing more than an attempt to censor wrong groupthink under the guise of “preventing harassment”. However, alt-teching Youtube would have a much larger capital requirement than Infogalactic or Gab. I could easily see burning through $20k in hosting fees per month with no end in sight. So I was wondering:

  1. What is your opinion on such an endeavor?
  2. Technically its not too difficult, but without external VC, what would be a valid startup strategy?
  3. What happens when the SJW police deem it to be “Youtube for racists” and advertisers are bullied to pull out?
  4. From the financing side via donations do you see a donation model working with the much larger capital requirements?

I know that Vid.me made some passing comments on freedom of speech after Heroes was launched. However several high-profile accounts were suspended or shutdown this week for wrongthink. And they have yet to jump on such an opportunity.

 In answer to his questions:

  1. I think disrupting YouTube is biting off more than the Alt-Tech community can presently chew.
  2. Backers with deep pockets. This is the sort of thing that the rich Republicans who finance think tanks and political action committees should be doing, but they’re not, because they fail to understand how technology and culture drive politics. For the money that was wasted on Jeb Bush’s futile campaign alone, both YouTube and Facebook could have been disrupted. The reason the Right has been losing the culture war for decades is because it has been stubbornly determined to fight the Vietnam War with WWI tactics.
  3. Bully right back. Go after the competitors advertisers; it’s not as if they aren’t supporting pedophilia and a whole host of dyscivic and even dyscivilizational sins considerably worse than “racism”. Concerns about “racism” are so 1980s, they’re not even remotely relevant to a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious society now engaged in bare knuckles identity politics.
  4. No. It’s a chicken or the egg situation. Like VC, donations tend to flow most freely when they are totally unnecessary. For example, Infogalactic’s donations presently run about 1/2500 that of Wikipedia. We’ll beat them anyhow, thanks to the Original Galaxians, the Techstars, and the Burn Unit, but it’s a bit ironic that people are least inclined to donate when the Alt-Tech organizations need it most. Once Gab and Infogalactic have successfully disrupted Twitter and Wikipedia, that will be the time bigger prey can be targeted, because more people will believe it to be possible.
Timing is everything. It’s the right time to disrupt Twitter. It’s the right time to disrupt Wikipedia. It’s too soon to disrupt YouTube or Facebook. They’re simply too big and insufficiently vulnerable to credibly take on at the moment. But, it’s true, their censorious actions tend to indicate that they will be vulnerable to an alt-teching in the future.

And, of course, I would be remiss if I failed out to remind you that you, too, can be a part of the Great Disrupting by the Alt-Tech by subscribing or donating to Infogalactic. I’m informed that Infogalactic is currently at 8.5 percent of the Phase Two goal, and 15 percent of the inital goal of a 1000-strong Burn Unit. The good news is that the Techstars are getting close on the phase one speedups that Infogalactic needs to become functionally competitive with Wikipedia.

You know how everyone says “someone ought to do something?” Well, the Infogalactic team is doing just that. Be a part of it.

Mailvox: stuck on cuck

It’s clearly going to take more than the ascendance of the God-Emperor to get some conservatives unstuck from their cuckish clinging to increasingly outdated ideology politics. Consider one self-professed Alt-Right sympathizer on Twitter:

  • I think worldview is what’s important and race is a lazy proxy.
  • Race is just a proxy. It’s a lazy way to categorize. I think it’s important to do the hard work.
  • I know it’s hard but if the alt-right could substitute worldview for race, it would be more powerful.

Translation: if only reality would accede to my fantasies, what a wonderful world this would be! This sort of conservative tends to remind me of the white liberals who californicated Colorado and are now californicating Texas.

Sure, what I believed before completely failed, so I had to leave, and even though you haven’t asked for my opinion, I’m going to help you improve through making this place more comfortable for me by making it more like the place I just left!

The question from the emailer, who is a reader, is, as you would expect, considerably more intelligent.

Is a racial identity the only identity option, or merely the most reliable or probable given historical precedent? Put differently, is there a deterministic nature to it, or just probabilistic?

I ask this in that racial identity seems to be only an initial filter, and ideological identity always follows soon afterwards.

Is there a specific reason you believe the ideological can’t be the first filter?

Off the cuff it seems like it can’t because we don’t really know what people think or believe, and people can lie, so we sort first by the most obvious traits and then afterwards by the more subtle.

It feels like the effort to sort primarily by ideology and secondarily by race is at the root of the “proposition nation” concept, that there would be a nation unified by an identity which superseded racial identity.

If the failure of the “proposition nation” was that it had no identity, let alone one which superseded racial identity, then in spirit the idea could exist if an identity which superseded race actually existed.

I believe that identity could exist within biblical Christianity, but given that it is personal and not political (like Islam or Judaism which have detailed theocratic components built in), perhaps the only unity possible in this life even with a Christian identity is genuinely “in spirit”?

Racial identity is not the only identity option. The two primary identities are race and religion. Again, to quote the founder of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew,
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”



The recent presidential election demonstrates that race is a more powerful identity than religion, as more Mormons in Utah voted for Trump than for Evan McMullin, although the fact that so many Mormons were willing to vote for a no-hoper like McMuffin demonstrates the power of religious identity.

The irony is that those who desperately want to cling to the idea of a proposition nation fail to grasp that the only possible alternative to a race-based nationalities in the West is Christian theocracy, complete with a Department of Inquisition. I have yet to see a single person who cringes at the thought of nationalism and professes to be concerned about black and brown Christians endorse the concept of expelling every individual who does not share a Christian identity.

If you don’t like either race war or identity politics, then you should not have stupidly embraced immigration from other nations with competing identities. But it’s too late now, so it’s time to get unstuck from the cuck. You’re going to do it sooner or later, so you might as well accept the truth and spare yourself the embarrassment of having to look back on a series of desperate evasions and intellectual dishonesties to go with your previous mistakes.

And for the love of all that is good and holy, beautiful and true, don’t even think about quoting Galatians at me. Just spare yourself the inevitable humiliation.

Mailvox: diversity and dialectic

A reader whose existence would almost surely be denied by the Left shares his experience of gravitating towards the Alt-Right over time:

I have been reading your blogs –Vox Day and sometimes Alpha Game–almost daily for some time now; probably spent an entire day reading post after post on Vox Day once. For those reasons, and another I will tell you down the line, I thought you might be interested in my perspective. First, a little background information. I am of Black East African descent, the son of immigrants to the USA, and a citizen.

I was a leftist from most of that life until I stopped listening to the popular race narrative and picked up books on racial politics from the opposition (conservatives); to test my convictions, give the the other opinion a fair hearing. Following lots of discussions, frustrations and insults with conservatives, I quickly joined the “it’s not oppression, it’s culture” side of the debate.

This would also be my first lesson in the power of identity vs ideology. On the left, I had come to identify with “Black America”. As I realized just how retarded and economically illiterate the victimhood narrative is, I dropped the identity. The ideology followed soon after. First, I became a Milton Friedman/Thomas Sowell conservative; then, upon reading Hoppe, Rothbard and Mises a minarchist Libertarian. That’s pretty much where my ideological journey ended when I first heard about you.

On racial differences, I couldn’t bring myself to deny their existence. But I clung to the amorphous concept of culture to explain them away. Reading Thomas Sowell and Jared Diamond was enough for some time but the question couldn’t be erased from my mind: where does culture come from? I eventually got tired of the farce. A little research made it abundantly clear that the only thing holding the culture crowd together was sheer denial and ignorance of uncomfortable facts. It’s not culture, it’s genes.

That was way too long, but hopefully enough that you get where I am coming from.

Now, reading Vox Day has been the source of perhaps the greatest succession of Eureka moments I have had in my life. It has been my utmost pleasure to be intellectually challenged by your views, wrestle with them and ultimately understand them. Also, saying that your writing is excellent would be a gross understatement. I love it!

I have been amazed at just how reading you has gotten me to espouse opinions which I wouldn’t have ever considered before. It just works. If I were a little more inclined to the ridiculous African tendency for superstition, I might call it magic; we still disagree on a few things, of course. I am an atheist, for example, and I still hold reservations on free trade. Much less enthusiastically after reading you and yes, I realized long before reading you that I could only be a consistent thinker–as an atheist–by denying the existence of evil. Still struggling with that one. But I wanted you to know that I truly appreciate the work you do, and not just in my own selfish quest for the truth, but also for America.

As much as I hate to admit it, the only people in the world casting their vote for freedom are White Americans. America alone stands against the mindless, brainless slavery the rest of the world has to offer; the last hope of freedom lovers everywhere, the last chance to gift humanity with a land where freedom reigns (more so than anywhere else). Seeing Blacks, Hispanics and now Asians continually and cockroachly eating away at this legacy has me royally pissed off!

That’s why I wrote this mail. Today, I was with an Asian-“American” cuckservative arguing in favor of abolishing the electoral college, in the wake of the God-Emperor’s rise. My anger was enough that my inner reaction was some version of: “Bitch, this country was not founded for people like you! Shut the fuck up and stop trying to inject your foreign political influence into the nation!”. Of course, I never actually said it. I am as polite a gentleman as they come. But I realized that I had spent too much time on your blog, and how thankful I was for it.

I hope that the work you do, and that of others like you, will be enough to rouse up White America. And even if it doesn’t, should the worst come to pass, know that I consider it an honor to have intellectually stood with you–perhaps on the wrong side of history–but on the side of bravery, truth and freedom.

The reader answers the question that is often asked of me: why would an American Indian expat, or African immigrant, or South Pacific islander, or Chinese national, ever support the Alt-Right? As should now be obvious, we support the Alt-Right because the Alt-Right ideology, such as it is, is the only one that is in philosophical harmony with history, science, current events, and the truth as we best understand it today. It is the only ideology that is capable of defending truth, freedom, and Western civilization because it is the only one that is not dependent upon the adherent believing, and telling, provable lies. It is the only ideology that is presently providing predictive models being confirmed by events.

The Alt-Right lens is the only one that makes sense of the world as we observe it.

The reader’s email also highlights the supreme importance of rhetoric. Very, very few individuals, of any race, color or creed, are as intellectually courageous as the reader, or as ruthlessly devoted to dialectic. He was able to surmount the heavy influence of identity- to say nothing of being steeped in a lifetime of rhetoric – through nothing more than educating himself through information, but it took him a long time and it was a difficult and emotionally painful process. (For me, admitting the truth about free trade was a similar, though less painful intellectual baptism of fire.) No individual who is limited to rhetoric, or is even modestly susceptible to rhetoric, will ever intellectually survive that arduous process.

Pain is the path to truth. If a fact bothers you, if it triggers you, if it makes you want to shy away from contemplating it, that is the signpost indicating the way you will have to go in order to find the truth. As a far better philosopher than me once said, it is a hard and narrow path.

And the reader’s email also demonstrates why the Alt-West is likely to become the intellectual driving force of the Alt-Right over time. Those who support the Alt-Right for dialectical reasons rather than for reasons related to rhetoric, culture, and identity, those who can never be a part of the Alt-White due to identity, are generally going to be as intellectually formidable as they are emotionally courageous.