When smart guy meets smarter guy

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

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

1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect, and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.

This “I’m not enough of an expert to explain why I’m right but I’m enough of an expert to know I’m right” business is a smart-guy boilerplate response. It can be ignored. There is plenty of scholarship out there that shows innate differences between men and women in nearly any category of which you could readily conceive. Here is just such a paper, which should appeal to Mr. Zunger because it is both a front-page Google result and a product of Stanford….

It’s plainly obvious from Zunger’s essay that the primary function of Google, as he currently understands it, is to cooperate and collaborate for the social good. It has nothing to do with writing good software or effective software. Anybody can do that now. Code doesn’t matter.

Mr. Zunger is a very smart man, and he is a scientist to boot. But here’s the thing about modern scientists: they are only trained focus on very small things. The days of the Victorian gentleman chemist are past us now. All of the big ideas that could possibly come to a classically-educated man relaxing on the Louis-Quatorze-era chair in his family estate’s library have been discovered. Today’s science is done by putting laser-like attention on finite areas of effort.

The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.

Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.

Which brings me to the funny part. From what I’ve read, Mr. Zunger’s primary accomplishment at Google was…

wait for it..

Google Plus. Which is

a) utter garbage
b) currently serving a user base that is 74% male.

I think one of my biggest advantages as a debater is that I grew up with a best friend whose IQ exceeds mine. I could not say anything without him playing devil’s advocate, and promptly ripping to shreds any baseless posturing or unsupported assertions.

Zunger’s empty posturing is remarkably common among the cognitive elite, particularly the professionals, who are frequently inclined to opine about matters on which they are not sufficiently informed. That, of course, is why they are so defensive when called out; they realize that the whole edifice will come crumbling down if deference is not paid to them, thereby allowing them to avoid their bluffs being called.

Smart people usually construct their arguments to impress midwits and normal people. Smarter people construct them with an eye to hypothetical critics who may be smarter than they are.


When rhetoric doesn’t work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


Mike Cernovich – Sam Harris debate

Cerno has accepted Harris’s challenge:

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

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

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

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

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


Too fab, too strong

They can’t handle the Milo:

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

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

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

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


Of false dogmas and founding myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A failure to understand identity

John Wright attempts to criticize identity politics and the Alt-Right, and in doing so, demonstrates that he does not correctly grasp what identity is, or how identity politics tend to function in modern multiracial societies:

Some say that the success of identity politics trumped up by the Left proves that a man will always side with his inborn tribal group, grievance group, and identity politics group rather than with any political doctrine or party or nation into which education, experience, or personal decision might lead him.

No, literally no one says that. First, identity is not limited to race. Religion, too, is an identity, and one of the most powerful. Second, while men can, and do, surmount their racial, grievance, and religious identities in favor of other identities and ideologies, the salient point is that the vast majority will not. One habitual weakness of John’s arguments I have observed is that he tends to be inclined towards binary thinking, and binary thinkers are particularly prone to the Ricardian Vice, which Joseph Schumpeter described in the History of Economic Analysis:

He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies…. The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.


John continues with an drive-by implied defense of the fictional concept of the so-called “proposition nation”.

Nations are never built on a proposition that all men are created equal and never have been: they are only build on tribes and clans. So runs the theory.

No, that is not the theory, that is the literal historical definition of “nation”. The concept is defined as: “an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.” 1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt (us) (past participle of nāscī to be born).

The “proposition nation” concept is entirely false. Neither concurring with any proposition nor contradicting one will cause one to be part of the American nation, or cause one to be separated from it. It is simply incorrect to claim that the United States is fundamentally built on the principle of equality or any other idea; one need only read the entire Declaration of Independence to know that Jefferson’s flight of rhetoric was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish. “All men are created equal” is not the founding principle of the United States of America nor the basis for any nation.

The irony, of course, is that one might as just as meaningfully cite the statement as grounds for claiming that anyone can become Chinese or Polish.

Those who believe this say that the way to defeat Leftwing Anti-White identity politics is by adopting Pro-White identity politics. They are seduced into making a simple error. It is an error so simple that even a highly intelligent partisan of that movement might not see it. The identity-grievance politics groups on the Left are all about Leftism and nothing about identity.

The only people who ever side with their tribal group and identity politics group are people who have been indoctrinated by the Left. They are Leftists. Identity politics is their stock in trade. It is the only product remaining on their intellectually bankrupt shelves.

First, it is true that for some, their Leftism is their dominant identity. Second, it is apparent that a number of identity groups have concluded that Leftism is in their tribal interest, which may be a source of the causal confusion. Third, it is absolutely and observably absurd to claim that the only people who ever side with their tribal group have been indoctrinated by the Left. Tribalism and identity long precede Leftism, moreover, it is very, very easy to provide examples of those on the Right who practice identity politics. Identity consistently provides a much more accurate predictive model for one’s positions and behavior than one’s nominal place on the political spectrum. But again, it must be understood that there are multiple kinds of identities; ethnicity merely tends to be the strongest and most powerful form.

Tribalism says that the loyalties one has toward genetically similar groups will eventually overwhelm all other loyalties of religion, culture, language community, political philosophy, and self interest, and that therefore one must abandon loyalty to religion and culture and state but adhere instead to one’s tribe. A more naive reading of history is difficult to imagine: as if civil wars never happened, and nothing but race wars did.

It is strange to see John claim that identity politics and tribalism is a naive reading of history when he is simultaneously denying one of the primary engines of history. Again, he relies on simplistic binary thinking in order to reach a false conclusion. People have multiple loyalties, many of which are not related to their genetic inheritance; the homosexual is loyal to the gay community and hostile to the religious communities for reasons of sexual orientation, the Christian Zionist is loyal to the Jewish community for theological reasons, and so forth. But none of this changes the observable fact that Somalis in Minnesota reliably vote for Somalis, Indians in Quebec reliably vote for Indians, and African-Americans reliably vote for blacks.

John also fails to understand the Alt-Right. Because he seeks compromise and is willing to let the Left live, he implies the Alt-Right it is of the Left. This is a confusion of etiquette with objectives.

The lobbyist of the Right, by way of contrast, is not a religious zealot. He is willing to live and let live, and to compromise when need be. The Right thinks the Left are foolish, but not evil. The Left think the Right are an abomination, literally Hitler, and must be exterminated from the Earth as soon as this is practical.

The Alt-Right thinks the Left is both foolish and evil. The Alt-Right thinks the Left is a collection of rabid, feral, incoherent, irrational barbarians who are observably incapable of participating in any civilized society without destroying it. We’re not religious zealots, we are simply educated observers of the entire history of the Left, from the French Revolution to the Killing Fields of Cambodia, who have reached certain logical conclusions on the basis of those observations.

The Alt-Right is most certainly not willing to compromise with the Left. We have witnessed the conservative Right live and let live, and compromise, to the point that Western civilization itself is at risk. And we are not willing to allow conservatives to meekly permit the destruction of Western civilization simply so they can go down to noble defeat in the sacred names of equality and not being racist.

I note in passing that every time, every single time, the roots of the Democrat Party are mentioned, the Alt-Right goes into a tizzy of sneers and scorn, scoffing that one should never say that Democrats are the real racists. Why one should never say it, they never say.  But it does undermine their whole race-is-politics theory, because the race of the Dems did not change their race before and after Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programs, but only changed their political tactics. The utility of accusing the Party of Lincoln and Nixon of racism only started then, and so the Democrats only because the advocates of anti-racism then.

This is simply absurd. Again, John is stating something observably false, then using his false statement as the basis of reaching an incorrect conclusion. It’s trivially easy to show that what he’s saying is not true. On this blog, and in Cuckservative, I have explained why one should not bother saying that Democrats are the real racists: it is ineffective and toothless dialectic that has no effect on a group of rhetorical speakers. I have also pointed out that it is ineffective rhetoric for the Right because no one but cucks and cons fears being called racist.

And the race of the Democrats has most certainly changed since LBJ instituted the Great Society. That’s why the Atlantic asks if the Democratic Party even has room for what it calls “less-educated white voters” anymore.

So in asking the Right to accept pro-White tribalism into its political platform, the advocate of race-based politics is attempting to fight a religion with a lobbyist group. This is the same mistake the mainstream Right has been making for decades, if not centuries.

No, we’re not asking. We are predicting it will happen as a natural result of the USA becoming a multiracial, multicultural, multinational state. And it will be easy to determine who is correct. If the Alt-Right is correct, whites will continue to gravitate right across the West. The likes of Jack Murphy, who voted for Obama, will vote for Trump in 2020. And the Democratic Party will continue to move Left, as the various non-white immigrants fill its ranks being depleted by the exiting whites.

We’re not making the same mistake the mainstream Right has made; quite the opposite. And it is the fact that we refuse to continue making their mistake of holding to the sacred, nonsensical symbolism that has led to their defeat that makes them uncomfortable.

Now, all that being said, John is correct to say that federalism is one solution to tribalism. But it is a solution that accepts and utilizes the reality of tribalism and identity politics, not one that rejects them. In any event, read the whole thing there, including the comments.

I close with a pair of quotes, and leave it to you to decide whether it is identity politics or proposition politics that are more firmly rooted in truth and historical reality:

“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
– Lee Kuan Yew


“America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens…. Every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.”
– George W. Bush


Debate: Jack Murphy vs Vox Day

Here is a brief selection from the recent debate on the future of the Alt-Right  between Jack Murphy and me that was hosted by Ivan Throne, the author of The Nine Laws:

Ivan Throne: Vox, do you advocate a white ethno-state? If so, what is the proper white homeland?

Vox Day: I wouldn’t say that I advocate for the white ethno-state so much as I see it as inevitable. First of all, white ethno-state is somewhat of a misnomer. White American is not the same as a European nationality. This is something that I have had to explain to a lot of white nationalists. White nationalism makes no sense in Europe because over here we have distinct white ethnic groups that are completely separate.

In the US, however, where the original American nation has been adulterated to the point that you have a generic white race, there you will see the same move towards homogeneity that we have traditionally seen throughout history. People tend to forget that homogenous nations do not spring into existence from the ground. They emerge from heterogeneous, multinational, multicultural empires. The US went from an Anglo-Protestant nation to a multinational, multicultural, multiracial empire. It was an empire that was imposed by force during the Civil War, and it will go the way of all empires. We are already seeing, in the American southwest, the rise of La Raza Cosmica, who want their own independent state in the southwest.

It’s going to be a mess. These situations are always a mess, but in terms of what is right or wrong, my tribe has its own reservation, and I support them having that reservation, and I don’t see any reason that self-identified white people should not have the same self-determination that the US has defended around the world for a hundred years.

Jack Murphy: That is a very interesting representation. I am a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton and proudly for Obama during the first election. I live in Washington DC, the bluest of all blue districts in the US. It is sort of a democratic ideal. I have come into the exploration of white identity politics from a belief that there is a feminist/Marxist overreach combined with intersectionality that has deemed victim culture here in the US as where we are. Every minority group, self-identified to some intersection, has become a victim. By virtue of them being a victim there must be a perpetrator. That perpetrator according to them is me. A straight white male. Russian Jewish and Catholic Irish, but that doesn’t matter. Through intersectionality I become the perpetrator of all evils in the Us.

This is my entre for identity politics. From there I explore why and how our people representing themselves in groups and based around identity functions. I explore the identities and advocacy that our people entertain. My perspective, as I explore new political groups after being abandoned by the democrats in their move to the left, the world shifts and the center passes me by and I find myself on the left. I must figure out where I fit into in this new reality. The term alt-right came up. From my perspective, the alt-right was exciting. It wasn’t stodgy and unappealing to a counterculture person. It wasn’t boring. I didn’t really understand or have any notion about its history. I began to explore with the perspective of “I am now the bad guy.” Just ten years ago, I was part of the “good team.” I was questioning how I would find my way in the future when being a straight white male in the US makes you the villain.

This conversation is to me an exploration. The conversation I wanted to have with Spencer, who has been very vocal advocate for white amnesty by any means possible, was going to seek direct answers to the question of what means he wanted to use. For me, I am less concerned about theory, less concerned about broad subjects that are not really about what I am going to do today. How am I going to manage day to day?

Vox Day: Just so you understand, we are not talking about theory here.

There is nothing more pragmatic and realistic than what I am describing. What I am describing is about as optional as gravity. What has fundamentally changed is the US, and the reason that people like Richard Spencer and people who have long been completely ignored on the Right, people who were pushed out and pushed aside by William F. Buckley and the conservative movement. Those people saw this coming. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Naturalization Act was pushed through, the die was cast. Ever since 1965, the US has been on a clock, and the clock is running out of time. The clock has now run out.

What I mean by running out is this: it is only possible to have ideological or political disagreements when you have people who are more or less the same in identity. As the founder of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, said, in any multiracial state, all politics is identity. This is not a white thing, or a European thing. This is not even a right-wing thing. This is straightforward history and political science.

Someone like Richard, or some of the people who are out there more aggressively advocating for white nationalism, or whatever you want to call it, they are a symptom. Even your move to the right was a result of people hating you. They didn’t allow you into the party anymore. At the DNC, they kicked out a guy running for chairman because he was criticizing a Muslim. That, too, is identity politics. It doesn’t matter if you do not know your identity, you know you are different because they kicked you out.

This is all part of the same very large cyclical process. The end result of that process is, as the Alt-Right likes to say, diversity plus proximity equals war. And the end result of that process is ethnically homogenous ethno-states.


Alt-Right vs New Right

Ivan Throne, the Dark Triad Man, is hosting a debate between Jack Murphy and me concerning the future of the Alt-Right next Saturday night.

Vox Day is an American publisher, science fiction writer, philosopher, musician and video game designer. He is a former nationally syndicated columnist with Chronicle Features and Universal Press Syndicate. He is known as the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil by his supporters, who describe themselves as Vile Faceless Minions and the Dread Ilk. He is also the lead editor at Castalia House, publisher of my bestseller The Nine Laws. 


Notably for this debate, Vox Day is also the author of the 16 Points of the #AltRight.


Jack Murphy is a senior executive, accomplished athlete and writer. He covers men’s issues, current events, and personal development at Jack Murphy Live. He is also a father of three. Jack’s recent advocacy of the NewRight and its differences from the #AltRright lead to a recent confrontation with Richard Spencer as covered by The Atlantic and Business Insider.


 The topic is the future of the #AltRight.


Vox Day and Jack Murphy will cover a range of topics including white nationalism, identity politics, the tension between the #AltRight and other groups, including what Mike Cernovich calls the New Right.


Both men are intelligent, accomplished, passionate and educated. And with moderation from Dark Triad Man we are sure to have a very powerful Brutal Clips podcast.


 Subscribe today and take part in shaping the debate. Once you are subscribed you can submit your questions and I will ensure that the best of them are covered within our alloted hour:


Stay tuned for the debate that will shape the narrative.


The discussion between Vox Day and Jack Murphy will change the way you look at the #AltRight and the future of identity politics in not just the United States, but in the West.


I’ll be genuinely interested in what Jack has to say, because I cannot see what sort of civic nationalist case he’s going to be able to present that I have not only considered, but subscribed to in the past. To me, this is rather like a debate between a tadpole and a frog; it doesn’t really matter what the tadpole thinks, or what sort of future he imagines, because he’s eventually going to become a frog regardless.

These things take time, observation, and experience. Consider what Mike Cernovich, whose inclinations are strongly civic nationalist, and whose in-laws are affected by the travel ban, has to say on the subject. His words might surprise some; they don’t surprise me in the slightest because I know how realistic he is.

If people keep telling whites that they hate them, then they shouldn’t feign outrage when the native population listens, and closes to the doors to the U.S.

The outlook for America’s future is grim. Hatred from the left will only continue, and violence will increase. While the left wears the symbols of the Soviets, they lack their secret police. While the left has the media, the right has the guns. The U.S. is not the U.S.S.R. We will not go silently into the gulags.

People wonder why I’m so militant, and now you see why. We are in a war, and it’s one declared by the left. I am a target for violence in my own country.


Heat Street: Vox vs Louise on the election

And to think some of you wonder why I like doing these little debates with Louise. The headline alone is well worth it. Vox Day: God-Emperor President Donald Trump Is On the Way – AltRight Election Debate

Louise: Right. This is going to be quicker, slightly quicker than normal, but it’s Louise Mensch, Vox Day recording this debate, which Vox suggested that we do after the election, but I think that after the election is the coward’s way out and beneath us both. Because, after the election you can redo your prediction to say in light of everything how right you were. Why didn’t astrologists ever predict anything before it actually happens? First of all, let’s put our reputations on the line by giving our predictions for the overall winner, and by approximately how much. You go first, Vox.

Vox: I am actively and eagerly looking forward to the ascension of the God Emperor, Trump. I think that he is not only going to win, I think he is going to win by a larger percentage than people expect. I think that he’s probably going to win by a margin by a of at least three percentage points nationally, possibly more. In terms of the electoral college, I have absolutely no idea.

Louise: Oh,  that sounds like a chicken-out to me. I got to say, I got to say. Winning the election is when you become the president afterwards.

Vox: No, he will win the electoral college vote, I just don’t know how much. I don’t know what states he’s going to win, because given the unreliability of the polls, given the fact that one poll in North Carolina had Hillary Clinton up by thirteen points, and another one had Trump up by four, it’s impossible to make any sort of reasonable calculation of this, the best efforts of Nate Silver and other poll watchers, notwithstanding.

Admit it, the headline made you laugh. It made me laugh, anyhow. I should clarify one point, however. I don’t believe there would be a civil war as a reaction to Hillary Clinton’s election, or during whatever fragment of a term she would be healthy enough to serve. I believe that her election would, as a result of open immigration and eventual amnesty, lay the foundation for the political dissolution of the USA, and eventually, a Yugoslav-style civil war for territory among rival ethnic groups in the 2030s.


First Trump-Clinton debate takes

The Democratic line, courtesy of the Cajun Rattlesnake himself, James Carville:

I can’t imagine that after what we saw tonight the needle doesn’t move some.

He was just bad.

I’ve talked to a lot of people that have done a lot of research and these sort of instant things, these dial groups. I think what you hear around this panel is pretty much shared by the research that I’ve seen tonight.

Yeah, she was prepared, she was solid, she did a good job. He just kind of — as he went further into it… He just — the further they went, the worse it got. They almost wanted to throw the towel in after 90 minutes. That’s enough.

The Neocon take, as per Charles Krauthammer:

It was not exactly the knock out fight that we thought. It was a spirited fight. I think in the end it was something like a draw. But I do believe that the draw goes to the challenger in the sense that Trump did not go over the line. And the very fact he could go 90 minutes on the same stage ultimately elevates the challenger, that’s just automatic for any debate of that support.

I think he did allow himself to get very defensive and she exploited that. She kept coming back for things where he wasted a lot of time on taxes, on some of the other issues he felt personally about, and, as a result, he missed a lot of opportunities. She presented herself as she always does. Solid, solid, knows her stuff, not terribly exciting but reliable. I think that is the best she can do. Likable, she couldn’t but that is not something within her reach.

He contained himself in the sense that I don’t think he committed any gaffes but he allowed himself — she could find out something personal about him that would make him down rabbit holes at a time when he had wide openings to go after her on e-mails and other items, and let them go.

The Master Persuader impression, from Scott Adams

Trump only had to solve one problem at the debate: Seem less scary. He did. Think about it. Clinton won the debate on points but looked like a recently turned zombie learning to smile for the first time. Trump was Trump. Tie.

My perspective, which should be largely discounted because, as is my habit, I did not watch a single moment of it. Partly because it’s not worth staying up for, but also because I think I get a better take on the reaction to the debate by not having any personal impression to discount.

My verdict: a minor Trump victory that will not get in the way of the polls continuing to gradually move in his favor towards the predicted Trumpslide. 

This is a testable conclusion. If I am correct, the polls will continue to move modestly Trumpward. A minor Hillary win will arrest the polls at the virtual tie point that was reported pre-debate. A big Hillary win would start gradually reversing them, and a big Trump win would trigger the preference cascade and see Trump rapidly move into an unassailable lead.

The important thing to remember is that the substance of the debate, the actual words, the stuff that the media discusses, is only about one-third of the effect of the debate. Hillary clearly won the words portion thanks to Trump allowing himself to be distracted and failing to take advantage of the numerous openings she gave him. But with the non-verbal aspect, the candidates each had to meet a separate objective. Trump had to appear convincingly presidential and look as he merited being on the stage. Hillary had to appear healthy and sane.

Trump did the former. While Hillary didn’t collapse, go on a coughing jag, or go into full bobblehead mode, words such as “creepy” and “zombie” and “weird”and “Nixon” appeared often enough in reactions to the debate that it is clear she failed the optics element.

Remember, people’s reactions are cemented at distinct and unique moments that vary considerably from one person to the next. I was both mystified and amused by the reactions of some people to my debate with Robert Murphy; I couldn’t relate to their perceptions of either party and I was not only there, I was one of them! So, don’t make the mistake of thinking that it’s even possible to isolate two, or three, or ten factors that will trigger the decision response in a viewer, as it could be a weird smile, a convincing phrase, or a momentary look of confusion that does it.

Peter Grant wasn’t impressed with either candidate’s performance, but noted a substantive distinction between the two:

What did strike me was the contrast between the candidates’ approaches to the rest of the world.  Donald Trump was emphatic about protecting American jobs and our national economy, if necessary by renegotiating international trade agreements, restricting immigration, etc.  Hillary Clinton was much more globalist in orientation, looking to admit more refugees, work together with other nations (whatever that means), and so on.  She basically saw the United States as just one nation among many, whereas Donald Trump saw it as the ‘first among equals’ with the right to put its own interests first.

And Scott Adams’s considered conclusion:

The most interesting question has to do with what problem both of them were trying to solve with the debate. Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.