Tag: mailvox

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.

Mailvox: can’t you be nicer?

Robert imagines I would be more accessible if I only toned it down:

VD, I’ve read everyday for probably 18 months (and bought a couple of your non science fiction books). I agree with the overwhelming vast majority of what you have to say. I’m not thin skinned and I don’t mind confrontation. From school, to the business world to “around town” I’m considered well above average intelligence….

I still don’t always understand what you are trying to say 25% of the time. While my 38 years of life may prove me not in the fat part of the bell curve, here I most certainly think you would. Which is why when I read, and once every two to three days I think to myself “Vox sure can be an asshole. I don’t think that guy was trying to undermine or go gamma- just had an honest question because he didn’t understand” But I come back to read because you are also extremely insightful, even if I don’t also always understand.

Do you ever think you are turning away A LOT of potential allies because their IQ is 100, 110, 120, 125? The one time I took an IQ test back in high school mine was a little north of the latter. Maybe all those questions aren’t because they are trying to undermine what you are saying or making it about them with their gamma behavior. Sometimes us 100-125 folks just don’t get it. And yet I’m pretty sure if we are going to win, not lose, it’s going to take the 100-125 folks getting on board. I want to win. So in other words Vox, “I love your work. Please don’t always be such an asshole. Cause I want to win.”

I understand I said “I” about a hundred times in that, I’m a reader and not one who comments. Therefore you have no history with me and I no legitimacy with you- forgive my temporary trespass trying to build some cred to make a point.

This tends to remind me of the woman who argued that Ann Coulter would have so much more of an impact if she was just nicer. At the time, Ann had the bestselling nonfiction book in the country and was, as she is now, the most influential conservative political commentator in the world. It doesn’t actually apply as an analogy, since I’m not that successful, but you get the point.

Anyhow, while I’m willing to admit that I do occasionally misread questions that are asked in all innocence or ignorance, my read on a questioner is usually pretty good, having been honed by many years of receiving questions concerning my columns and blog posts. Spergs, trolls, and anklebiters have learned to try to conceal their intentions, and spergs, in particular, love to try to score imaginary points with pedantic, and usually incorrect, “corrections”. And frankly, I consider my response to that sort of thing to be restrained; I would favor capital punishment.

But I’m sure there are honest questions from the 0SD to 2SD crowd that simply don’t get something for one reason or another. It’s possible that I could try to slow things down in order to communicate better with them, or spell things out more, or stop skipping logical steps. I don’t see how that would make sense, however, as there are relatively few people doing what I’m doing. How many other people are introducing people to Fukuyama and Turchin and Taleb and tying their theories into something that can be coherently tied to today’s politics, just to provide one example? And I’m dubious that I have the personality or the patience to surmount the so-called communication gap that separates me from the 0SD to 2SD crowd. I’m not a teacher, after all, and this isn’t my job.

I’d prefer to see people do what the Men of the West have done. Take the ball and run with it. Rather than waiting for me to tone it down or dumb it down, why not write your own translations or impressions of what I’ve said and put it on a blog somewhere? Because, honestly, I don’t see things changing much. We are who we are, and if anything, I’m so busy these days that I am even less inclined to suffer questions and criticism that are less than substantive.

It is a good reminder, though, to think twice before dismissing someone as a troll, a sperg, or an anklebiter and treating them accordingly. Because not everyone who initially looks like one actually is.

Mailvox: the self-deportations begin

A reader reports from Texas:

Since Election Day I know of two people and their families who have self-deported back south of the border. Both were Hispanic and one I know was from Mexico. In both cases the families were middle to upper middle class. I know no details of criminality, anyone who asked them to leave, or told them to get out. One family pulled their kids out of school and vanished practically the next day.

I’m guessing that these families won’t be the last in this income bracket as moving back down south will be much easier if it is voluntary. Anyone who has lived in a border state knows that some from south of the border travel back and forth illegally with regularity. The narrative is that it’s just the poorest coming across, but that simply isn’t true. Many times they are here for the work, are educated, but with no intention of staying.

Please remember that almost two-thirds of Hispanics support Trump’s immigration policies. So don’t think that every Hispanic in the nation wants open borders. Far from it in fact. Part of the reason is that many of them did come into the country legally and spent a lot of time and money getting their citizenships. The idea that people who just happen to slip across get rewarded with a fast track to citizenship infuriates them.

Further demonstrating that the “impossibility” of returning the USA to the promised 1965 demographics is about as impossible as Donald Trump winning the presidential election.

Mailvox: but what about MEEEEE?

One thing that I’ve found interesting is the intrinsic solipsism possessed by many stranieri resident in the USA, some of whom actually think that pointing out the fact that their lack of an American heritage, or their children’s lack of an American heritage, comprises a coherent argument against my various observations and expectations for the future rather than underlining it. This email from an Englishman married to a Filippino is fairly par for the course.

I’m English and I moved to the States more than 20 years ago, as a young man. I’m a naturalized citizen. I voted for Obama twice and, this time around, I voted for Clinton, but I can understand why people recoil from the worst parts of her candidacy. Regardless, to me, as a European liberal, she was going to protect things that believe in. Not as much as Bernie might have, and I voted for him in the primaries. Anyway, this is all incidental and background. I wanted to ask you about the language of race ebing used by the alt-right and by Trump both during the election and afterward. And whether it makes you feel at all queasy.

As an empathetic person I’m always trying to understand both sides: I can see why someone in Virginia, or Pennsylvania, or Florida, or wherever, is upset that illegal immigrants have taken their jobs. And I understand, and have been outspoken in my way, about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism here, and everywhere. I understand it all. These are real threats, not imagined. But here’s my problem: how do we become unified as a country if some groups have been singled out to be treated differently? My wife was born here in the States, but her family is Filipino. Both her parents are doctors who came to the States in the 1970s. They have lived the American dream. They worked like dogs for years and now they own a big house in the middle of the country, and a house in California, and a house in the Philippines. They have their Audis and there Mercedes and their Porsches. Clearly, they deserve what they have worked for. We disagree politically. They voted for Trump, I think.

My wife is American. Speaks like an American. Went to school and got a master’s degree in America. Highly educated. And we’re waiting for the moment that someone who doesn’t know her walks up to her in a grocery store and tells her to go home. Where is home? She doesn’t speak Tagalog. She can’t go to the Philippines. And why should she. She’s American. Our children, we have three boys. I’m waiting for them to come home from school to tell me a classmate told them they’re different, not American enough, not good enough. That they are what’s wrong with America.

So I’m wondering, does the alt-right have any reservations at all about framing the discussion in this way. Identity politics is only okay if you can know for certain you’re getting the identities right. Isn’t diversity good? Right now, we’re wondering if we should take our American kids and try to get jobs in my native England instead. I’m not being egotistical but I think we have so much to offer America. We can’t do it if people look at my brown children and assume they have no place in shaping it. Do you have any concerns that demonizing the groups that people belong to instead of the bad actors within them will have negative results?

Taken to its logical conclusion: if Trump’s candidacy ignites a race war, would you be happy, or sad, or indifferent?

In answer to the questions:

  1. No, “the language of race” being used by the Alt-Right and by Trump doesn’t make me at all queasy. I think it has been remarkably restrained, considering the seriousness of the situation.
  2. Why would the Englishman be concerned about “the rise of Islamic fundamentalism” here and in England but reject the obvious American concerns about the invasion by people like him and his wife? Don’t Muslims have the same right to invade other countries and settle in them en masse that Englishmen and Filippinos do?
  3. The man’s wife and her parents should consider going home. Because it is home. They even have a home there! They’re not American. They are Filippino. That’s why they’re waiting for someone to tell her to go home. She knows she’s not at home in America and he knows it as well. It is no one else’s fault that she didn’t learn her native language and it is no one else’s problem either. His kids are not part of what is wrong with America because they are not American. They are invaders and settlers, just as the second-generation Muslims who have driven the native English out of Bradford are invaders and settlers.
  4. The Alt-Right has no reservations at all about framing the discussion this way. The Alt-Right does not hide from reality, whether we like it or not.
  5. Identity politics do not need to be “okay” any more than gravity or sunlight do. Identity politics are normal, historical human behavior that always dominate multiracial societies. And history shows that an angry invaded people fighting displacement in their own homeland tend not to be very careful about identities; the lines usually end up being drawn in a rather crude and binary fashion.
  6. No, diversity is not good. Diversity is very, very bad. Diversity destroys community. Diversity + Proximity = War.
  7. America neither wants nor needs what the Englishman is offering. Tens of millions of Americans would probably like to deport him on the basis of him being a foreigner who voted for Obama and Clinton alone. He and his children would have even more to offer the less-developed Philippines, but the truth is that he doesn’t give a damn about Americans, what they want, or what they need, he’s merely intent on living wherever he thinks it would be most beneficial to his family. He’s concerned now because he’s beginning to sense that the ground is shifting underneath his feet and it may not prove to be the most beneficial place in the future.
  8. Why should his brown children have any place in shaping America to their liking? They are not American and what they want is not what native Americans want. Geographic location is not nationality. I didn’t become Japanese because I lived in Tokyo, and I’m not Italian just because I reside in Italy and speak Italian. Nationality is not a difficult concept, it is not an abstract concept, and it consists of considerably more than official government paperwork.
  9. No one is “demonizing” anyone. To observe that the man, his wife, her parents, or his children have zero American heritage between them is not demonization, it is accurate observation. We can also observe that their behavior is very much in line with the Alt-Right’s predictive model for it. He’s not concerned that the Alt-Right is wrong, or evil, he’s concerned that we are correct.
  10. It is not Trump, his candidacy, his presidency, or the Alt-Right that will ignite a race war. What will ignite ethnic conflict in the USA is the same thing that has always ignited it everywhere around the world since the dawn of Man; the presence of different ethnicities in the same geographical location. This outcome has been the most likely one since 1965, and no amount of solipsism, handwringing, appeals to emotion, and searching for a Nazi bad guy is going to avert it.

BN has a rather different perspective:

Read your article today. On the train I dug out The Fate of Empires by John Glubb as it reminded me of what you were saying. It still amazes me the reaction one gets when it is shared with liberals. If they can move beyond coarsely dismissing the author they sputter and say “America is different. We are different.” Is there any scenario you see the identity politics and brewing ethnic tensions in the US de-escalates? I think if Trump utterly fails as president maybe it defers it. But just do not see him failing.

The fact is that only Donald Trump can significantly delay the inevitable strife, and he can only do so by accepting a lot more of it than most Americans are presently willing to accept. If Trump somehow managed to return the US demographics to 80-85 percent white in the next eight years through immigration restrictions and repatriations, that would buy the USA at least another generation, and possibly two, of relative domestic tranquility.

Even a return to the pre-1986 amnesty demographic balance would be a de-escalation scenario. But I find it very hard to believe that the God-Emperor Ascendant has the vision, or the nerve, to push that far ahead of the conceptual curve. The best we can probably hope for is that he will keep the situation from actually getting worse, and thereby stave off serious domestic conflict until an eventual financial collapse, which I anticipate in the early 2030s.

And finally, a reader from Bradford adds a somber note:

The community of my street doesn’t exist anymore. The social organizations don’t exist any more. It’s all been erased except that the stone, brick and mortar still stands.

Devastating. That is what the Englishman and his family have to offer America. Social destruction. And that is why all sane Americans should want them to go home, whether that is Manila or Bradford. It’s not about the quality of the immigrants, the scale of the mass migration has rendered that irrelevant now. It’s a simple and straightforward matter of quantity.

That is what the Alt-Right is standing against. That is why the Alt-Right exists.

Mailvox: material evil

An email from a reader who explains that he believes in material evil as a result of his youthful encounter with a pedophile:

People need to know about the extraordinary power that some pedophiles have over other people, and the damage they do. I will omit the strange story of my recovery. I’ve been trying to find more information on that for years. You are more likely to be able to shed light on it than anyone I’ve asked before.

When I was in high school, the headmaster hired a new school counselor, Kevin John Lynch, not knowing that Lynch was a dangerous and prolific pedophile.

Few people grasp the true nature of these creatures. Lynch had charisma beyond anything I have encountered before or since. Some were suspicious of him, but for others he seemed to radiate an enchantment field that gripped you viscerally. He had the headmaster wrapped around his little finger, fending off complaints about him for years without ever realising that there may be a reason for them. Lynch was a psychological chameleon; he could become whoever he needed to be in order to gain the advantage over his intended victim.

People who have never encountered a creature like Lynch cannot comprehend how dangerous and destructive they are. Lynch severely abused at least a thousand boys from the seventies until his downfall in the nineties. I have met some of these people, now grown men. Imagine that something had sucked the life force from someone, leaving behind a husk in place of the complete human being that they once were. Suicide is a common escape for these men. Many live in poverty and their lives are chaotic.

Lynch could make teenage boys do extraordinary things, not by force, but by telling them what to do. He made two boys, who didn’t know each other, perform a sexual act together in his office. Later they ‘woke up’ to the wrongness of it, found each other and reported the incident. For this the headmaster punished them.

The greatest problem for the victims was that nobody believed these things were possible. One mother, after her son told her what Lynch did years before, deposited him at a homeless shelter and cut off all contact. I met a man who’s lawyer had rescued him from a mental institution. The man had seen a psychiatrist, who committed him for being psychotic, believing that the things he spoke of don’t happen in the real world.

Lynch was active for over twenty years. Now the full story has emerged in great detail at a public inquiry.

Fortunately Lynch did not get very far with me. Still, being groomed by a pedophile authority figure was a disturbing position for a teenager to be in. I had severe psychological trauma after I left that school. And my brother, who also had ‘counseling’ with Lynch, and reported that Lynch never touched him, nevertheless ended up like the other victims — destroyed.

My recovery began suddenly, overnight, in my mid-thirties, accompanied by a profound personality shift. This remains unexplained, as I found that psychologists and others have either never heard anything like it or just find it weird. The sudden ‘awakening’ began a long healing process. The strangest part was that, every winter for three years, one day I would feel the need to retreat to my room, and there I would experience a grueling phenomenon, during which I felt the expulsion of something intangible from my body. Evil is the best word to describe my feeling about what was expelled.

I was so drained of energy after each of these events that I was ill for about two weeks after. In the fourth year it was mild, and this year nothing much happened at all. Now I feel normal for the first time since childhood, and seem to be embarking on a normal life, something I never expected to have.

I am not a Christian. My background is in atheism, science, rational thought and skepticism. After my first experience of this phenomenon, I realized the Christian notion of exorcism was the only similar story I’d heard of. However, I know little about exorcism in Christianity.

When you said that you believe in material evil, my first thought was of Lynch. He went about his acts of depravity with conscious, wilful intent. It was his day job. If anyone is wondering whether pedophiles could work their way up to powerful positions — yes, some have exactly the talents required. Lynch was small-time, but he was a shrunken, ugly wretch. Someone smarter, better looking and with better connections than him could go very far. I don’t know if Lynch was born evil or if others turned him into the creature that he was. But from what I’ve seen of the Podesta emails and the ‘pizza’ shop, I believe that these are the same kinds of people.

If you know of anything similar to this story, either from Christianity or elsewhere, please let me know. I have been pondering the meaning of all of this lately, including what you said about Christianity accounting for material evil. My experience suggests that it does exist. I am not an atheist anymore. I don’t know what I believe these days.

I suspect that Lynch was infested with what the Bible describes as “unclean spirits” and that he passed them off to the boys with whom he came in contact, whether he managed to molest them or not. The fact that he used to “hypnotise” them indicates his involvement with the occult; both hypnotism and drugs can serve as opening a spiritual door to the affected mind. I recommend that the reader, regardless of what he believes, behave as if the Bible’s account of Jesus Christ and demons are true, meditate on the Word of God, thank God for his deliverence, and pray daily for continued restoration for himself and the other victims.

As to why the reader got better despite his lack of belief, perhaps someone was praying for him, perhaps the unclean spirit got bored – they are varying degrees of intelligent, you see – or perhaps it was simply God’s will that he be cleansed of the spiritual filth. But his experience, and the inability of the average person to even begin to believe what he and the other victims were experiencing at the time, demonstrates how Lynch, and how people like the Podestas, are able to get away with their evil practices in full sight of a world that does not believe in evil.

If you think this all sounds stupid or ridiculous, that’s fine. You’re not the first to feel that way, and if one day you change your mind upon actually encountering the spiritual world, you won’t be the first to do that either.

I showed the video of Rosa’s exorcism to two of the world’s leading neurosurgeons and researchers in California and to a group of prominent psychiatrists in New York.

Dr. Neil Martin is chief of neurosurgery at the UCLA Medical Center. He has performed more than 5,000 brain surgeries and is regularly cited as in the top 1 percent of his specialty. On August 3, I showed him the video of Rosa’s exorcism. This is his response: “Absolutely amazing. There’s a major force at work within her somehow. I don’t know the underlying origin of it. She’s not separated from the environment. She’s not in a catatonic state. She’s responding to the priest and is aware of the context. The energy she shows is amazing. The priest on the right is struggling to control her. He’s holding her down, as are the others, and the sweat is dripping off his face at a time when she’s not sweating. This doesn’t seem to be hallucinations. She appears to be engaged in the process but resisting. You can see she has no ability to pull herself back.”

I asked Dr. Martin if this was some kind of brain disorder. “It doesn’t look like schizophrenia or epilepsy,” he said. “It could be delirium, an agitated disconnection from normal behavior. But the powerful verbalization we’re hearing, that’s not what you get with delirium. With delirium you see the struggling, maybe the yelling, but this guttural voice seems like it’s coming from someplace else. I’ve done thousands of surgeries, on brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, ruptured brain aneurysms, infections affecting the brain, and I haven’t seen this kind of consequence from any of those disorders. This goes beyond anything I’ve ever experienced—that’s for certain.”

I also showed the video to Dr. Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon and clinical specialist in epilepsy surgery, seizure disorder, and the study of human memory. He is based at both UCLA and the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. This was his conclusion: “It looks like something authentic. She is like a caged animal. I don’t think there’s a loss of consciousness or contact, because she’s in contact with the people. She appears to respond to the people who talk to her. It’s a striking change in behavior. I believe everything originates in the brain. So which part of the brain could serve this type of behavior? The limbic system, which has to do with emotional processing of stimuli, and the temporal lobe. I don’t see this as epilepsy. It’s not necessarily a lesion. It’s a physiological state. It seems to be associated with religious things. In the temporal lobe there’s something called hyper-religiosity. You probably won’t have this in somebody who has no religious background. Can I characterize it? Maybe. Can I treat it? No.”

I asked Dr. Fried if he believed in God, and he took a long pause before answering: “I do believe there is a limit to human understanding. Beyond this limit, I’m willing to recognize an entity called God.”

The reaction of the neurosurgeons took me by surprise. I had expected they would quickly dismiss Rosa’s symptoms as madness or unintentional fraud or suggest that she might be cured by brain surgery. They did not.

They wouldn’t come out and say, “Of course this woman is possessed by Satan,” but they seemed baffled as to how to define her ailment, and both agreed it was not something they would attempt to cure with surgery.

Three things I found particularly interesting about the Vanity Fair piece:

  • The real scientists take it seriously. The charlatans project their own fraud and refuse to do so. 
  • Father Amorth observes that Satan still rules this world, as Jesus and Paul both separately observed.
  • The demon still fears the late exorcist even after his death. Perhaps praying to the saints for their intercession is nothing more than a legitimate request for assistance, not a paganesque form of idolatry or ancestor worship.