Posts Tagged ‘vox day’

Bring Back Dueling

Thursday, September 14th, 2017

The law is an ass. It emasculates men who would otherwise be thriving in a state of nature, so that men who could not survive in nature can feel confident enough to serve in their repetitive roles.

Men tend to be closers. By that I mean we typically, as a gender, want to seek solutions to conundrums. Drama results in anxiety, which results in bad behavior. You would almost have to live in a world where does not exist to not have seen a recent example of this play out. The Andrew Anglin vs Vox Day ego battle reminds us all why dueling unto the death was the right and proper way to restrain toxic masculinity. It does for male public behavior what a caring dad with a well-oiled white shotgun did for masculine sexual morality in teenage years.

Dueling appears to the contemporary as about the most brutal and animalistic way of settling disputes. It was actually quite the opposite. It served to civilize. It was aimed at stopping the constant escalation of feuds from The Capulets vs. The Montagues to The Hatfields vs. The McCoys. Two men, a plaintiff and a defendant, chose their weapons, came with their seconds, and then got in on and fought until one man surrendered or died. The resulting outcome squashed the beef. Might didn’t make right, fair or just. It made something better. It made over. Things got resolved and everyone else’s life went on. Drama took place onstage at The Globe Theater.

Dueling was the product of an older, perhaps better, definition of honor. In the South Seas Islands, honor was described as the sound of a man’s name. This meant what thoughts came to your mind when one person spoke the name of another. If good or positive connotations came to mind, the individual spoken of was held in high esteem and was treated well. If not so good connotations came to mind, the individual in question would suffer from being held in low esteem by everybody he lived around. Honor was a valuable possession. An intangible form of wealth. A good name was a social, financial and sexual asset in this sort of society. A bad name held a man back from all three. This version of honor held in societies throughout much of the world.

This made bad-mouthing a terrible thing. The Catholic Church made Scandal a sin as a way to make church membership a valuable asset. An honor insurance policy so to speak, against the personal depredations of others. The Catechism of The Catholic Church describes scandal this way:


You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
It was said to the men of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.”

The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant.

The church so endeavored in order to prevent the spread of vendetta. Beginning with the Sermon on the Mount, Christian Pacifists have looked for methods of staving off and defusing vendettas between families. Much of the reasoning had to do with not just the welfare of the families involved. It also involved the commonweal of all those who lived and worked near where all the fireworks went off. Only the absence of vendetta prevents the collateral damage the comes with it.

When faith didn’t carry the day, chivalry and social custom intervened to solve the same problem. Honor could be damaged and offense could be given by anyone who chose to disregard their faith and even the saved remain sinners who will fall short of the grace of God. The duel became a mechanism to redress damaged honor. The party perceiving offense would demand satisfaction. Satisfaction could take two forms. A retraction with a humble apology or an agreement to meet and settle the issue like men of valor and vim.

In the case of Anglin and Vox Day, both men perceive slights. Vox has referred to Anglin as a retard and a false believer in Rightist politics and philosophy. Calling him a retard wasn’t good enough to justify any legitimate demand of satisfaction. I get called one by my lovely wife every other day. It’s just not a big deal if you are comfortable in your own skin. Calling Anglin a fraud is a legitimate prelude to scandal. Fraud is an actual moral defect, and that impugns a man’s honor.

Day has legitimate causus belli against Anglin. Calling someone a known pedophile is reprehensible on levels I would not care to dig far enough into the ground to reach. Some of the meme warfare against Vox Day legitimately belongs in a landfill somewhere. So it’s all pretty simple. Mr. Anglin, Mr. Day, sharpen your effing cutlasses and get it on. We the rest of the Gab Community may or may not exercise our collective option to shoot whichever of these two shaved monkeys crawls off The Plain of Mars still breathing. That or put on the Big Boy Pants and shut both of your sorry yaps about it.

Yet here is where modern emasculatory lawfare renders us castrati not men. A poor decision was made that men should stop killing one another in duels. Thus, The United States ultimately banned dueling. An even poorer decision was made that the government should become the ultimate justiciar of lost honor. This was made possible through the enactment of Defamation Laws that sought to ban both libel and slander.

This brings us to where we all want Free Speech without consequence and therefore are living a contradiction. We all like to think we can say what we want, where we want and that nobody should be able to shut us down. This obviously isn’t what we want when someone malicious and untoward starts talking about us. The redress of this insult through legal means is a complicated, messy process that often ends up like the contested inheritance in the Charles Dickens novel Bleak House. Taking this route makes the plaintiff a potential menace to anyone standing in his vicinity.

In the Day vs. Anglin dust-up, Day has decided to lawyer up and start getting people on Gab doxxed so that he can file some rip-ass defamation of character suits. Angry men act angrily. Anglin and his buddies went into the gutter to insult Vox Day. But then again, Day did call Anglin an ideological fraud. Ideologues tend to take that sort of thing as an affront to their sacred honor. It’s like telling a priest that you believe he’s kinda-sorta just kidding about the whole Jeebus Thing.

Angry men also act without consideration for others. I’m reminded immediately of what happened when CNN doxxed HanAssholeSolo and got the wrong hole. I’m also reminded that other people like having use of the platform without stray drama from jousting primadonnas who look quite ugly in their garish ballet tights. (I hope that wasn’t too defamatory, children.) Muting them both and several of their most obnoxious knob-slob fan boys (oops, more crass defamation) only goes so far to avoid the toxic spillage.

In conclusion, I urge both Day and Anglin to go settle this affair on your own time and your own dime. Let the best man win and let the rest of us who just wish you’d both go somewhere else to fornicate off and die be left in peace. Even the “winner” of this Middle School ego-dick pissing contest is a damaged good who will offer less value and substance to the Rightist cause of social renewal and rejuvenation going forwards. For the sake of the adults in the room, knock it the heck off.

“16 Points Of The Alt Right” That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

One of the most important experiences in life is to see how good enough is the enemy of good. Most people will settle for good enough, which results in them not only failing to address actual needs, but because they have engaged in surrogate and proxy behavior, concluding that they have fixed a problem which is now strengthened.

The good enough serves to kill off the weak of the enemy, leaving only the strong. And yet, it is more convenient, so people drift toward it like moths to flame, kids to soft drinks, voters to the early stages of Communism, and the like. Whenever you want to actually end a problem, fear the “good enough” like the plague, because it will defeat you.

Vox Day was kind enough to write back a terse reply to a recent Amerika article on the Alt Lite. He writes:

It’s an irrelevant response that completely fails to understand my position. You should try attacking my actual positions: start with the 16 Points.

So, then, let us look at the 16 points:

1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

While this sounds good on the surface, and in the modern time this is how writers succeed, note what it does not tell you: what the Right actually is. Instead, we have a list of things that are not Alt Right, without attacking the core: Leftism, which is like The Enlightenment™ a type of egalitarianism, and its political counterpart, democracy. Until that rubicon is crossed, the above sounds very Republican with a touch of paleoconservative.

2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

This is a misdirection. First, very few conservatives have read Russell Kirk, and most base their conservatism on the mainstream ideas pro-business, free markets, strong defense, pro-Israel, small government, and “muh freedom.” Libertarians are people who hope to hold off Leftism with freedom of association despite that having worked never throughout history. But classical liberalism (libertarianism) and mainstream conservatism both lead to Leftism, as we see in the transition to neoconservatism, because they are still based in the idea of equality. In this view, how is the Alt Right an alternative? Obviously it is not, and therefore, this definition does not fit the Alt Right.

3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

There is much to like here, but why is “cultural tradition” used instead of tradition? There is an implication of culture as separate from race, which history shows us is not the case. It also makes sense to clarify what “science” is here, since most “science” seems to have been hijacked by moneyed interests and the Left.

4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

This unfortunately misses the point on two levels. First, this “pinnacle of human achievement” is a universalist concept that leaves us open to entry by anyone else who can demonstrate some kind of relevance to this pinnacle, which has already failed (again) and left us standing among the ruins. Second, these three pillars miss the point: Western Civilization is Western People, who when they act according to their character create all the other things mentioned. Some points should be given for “the European nations,” which seems to be a refutation of white nationalism, or the idea of melting all white people together into a generic/universal white tribe.

5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

It was doing so well until that second sentence. Nationalism should be defined here: what is a nation and how does it relate to ethnic group and race? The answer can be found in The Nationalism FAQ: nationalism is the philosophy that states that a nation is defined by an ethnic group. Germany for Germans, Nigeria for Nigerians, Japan for Japanese, Israel for Jews. At least he mentions homogeneity, but then again, when defined so vaguely, this could mean anything, such as “we’re all Christian.” Instead of focusing on these “rights” to exist and be free of invasion and immigration, it might have made more sense to focus on self-determination and the ability to exclude others, including those among us who are of our tribe but defective.

6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Check! No problem here. However, since nationalism is the opposite of globalism, this one is somewhat redundant.

7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

Check! But why did it not mention the founding issue of the Left, which is class warfare? If one cannot admit the differences between castes and classes, we are back in French Revolution territory.

8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

A thousand times no. The “scientific method” is deductive from material only, and misses out on both logical fact and any order beyond the material. This seems designed for the IFLScience crowd.

9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This cleverly sidesteps an issue: the Alt Right believes that race is upstream of culture and culture is upstream of politics.

10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Unfortunately, this language is painfully vague. Who is native, and to what? This sounds to me like a crypto-JQ statement, which misses the point that what destroys nations is collapse from within, and scapegoating the outsider misses the culpability we have for selecting egalitarianism, as every collapsing civilization seems to do.

11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

This is one of those catchphrases that sounds good but does not express the whole truth: diversity = civilization collapse, with the recognition that diversity (a synonym for “multiculturalism” or its French Revolutionary equivalent, “internationalism” as later expressed by “workers of the world, unite!”) means the mixing of different ethnic groups into one nation-state.

12. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

While technically correct, this statement reeks of teenage bluster, and misses the real point: unlike demotic movements, the Alt Right affirms that what is actual and real is more important than collective opinion, and that only some can perceive with higher degrees of accuracy, so we follow them in a hierarchical order instead of trying some crowd-sourced “find the truth through our navels” type democratic event.

13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

No objections here. However, it might be wiser to take the broader approach and point out that culture is more important than commerce. What is efficient and profitable is not always good, and so while we are believers in free markets, we recognize that no free market exists without a culture and those standards come first. Pornography, drugs, and gadgets for idiots are profitable; they are not desirable, at least on a wide scale.

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Point number fourteen is David Lane’s fourteen words. No objections here other than the reek of white nationalism which seeks to reduce our national identities to “white,” which only seems sensible when one lives in a mixed-ethnic state. Nationalism covers this topic well enough: we want to survive, and the only way to do that is to show up for the future through our descendants.

15. 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.

This is roughly a summary of the Pan-Nationalism project that I and other CORRUPT/Amerika writers launched back in the early 2000s. No disagreement here.

16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

A smart politician, the author offers an olive branch to the Left. At first this statement seems (emotionally) appealing until one realizes that it commits us to being world peacemakers to end ethnic conflict between other groups. A saner statement is that we represent our own interests only, and the rest of the world needs to take care of itself. Altruism is dead.

He reaches a clearer statement here:

The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage.

In doing so, while engaging in smart politics, he creates a great error. As Evola noted, race is tripartite, consisting of body, mind and spirit. We are defined first by our genetic heritage and more importantly, genetic interests, but also our ability to uphold the tenets and purpose of Western Civilization.

We are not democrats; not everyone is acceptable and destined to be included, even if they are of the “right” heritage. Only those who can do what is necessary to rebuild Western Civilization are welcome because there are many degenerates and sociopaths among us, and there is no need to include those.

The problem with the Alt Lite is that it represents “good enough”: a series of patches to democracy to keep it afloat, when our downfall began with the idea of egalitarianism and any vestige of that which we retain will re-create the same conditions that brought us to our current state. We must get to the root of the problem and remove that or we simply repeat history, which the Alt Lite seems to favor.

Again, the Alt Lite misses the point: the Alt Right is designed as an alternative to both mainstream conservatism and blockheaded White Nationalism. If we wanted blockhead white nationalism, we would have simply joined those groups. We want a more far-reaching purpose in the restoration of Western Civilization, and the Alt Lite is another “good enough” that stands in our way.

Alt Lite Guys Continue To Misunderstand The Alt Right

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

Alt Right ideas arose not together, but separately, and were melded only by the collective failure of the Left, mainstream Right and underground Right (“1488”) to address the problem of civilization decline. As a result, a new movement arose that wanted not just to beat back immediate threats, but to put Western Civilization back on track to greatness.

Since that thought is apparently both too abstract and too long-term for all but a few of us, the Alt Right finds itself surrounded by a miasma of confusion as people debate its meaning, even when that meaning is right in front of them. Witness, for example, Alt Lite superstar Fred Reed stumbling toward an understanding of the Alt Right:

For people who have better things to do than study abnormal psychology, the players are briefly as follows: Something called the Alt-Right that believes the white race to be superior and wants to rid the country of of encroaching dark scum.

For readers of this site, of course, that elicits a collective groan. Why? Mr. Reed has made the same mistake that The New York Times tends to make and for ideological reasons, likes to make: he has confused the Alt Right with white nationalism, despite the fact that the Alt Right was founded to get away from white nationalism to something more functional.

Because of this, he finds himself arguing from a Leftist position:

The Human Biodiversity movement, HBD, more scientific and less surly but picking whites while conceding that yellow are smarter. Finally IQists, who believe that IQ is a reliable measure of genetic intelligence. They too put yellows as more intelligent.

If we decide that all humans belong in the same society, then we should rank them by IQ and choose Asians as the masters of that society. Right? He misses the point of the Alt Right and nationalism: we do not care how smart they are, nor do we hate them like a white nationalist (spit) would. We care only that they are Other, and we need them gone so that we can nurture what is Us.

He is caught in the old “we have to make one world order for everyone” thinking, where the Alt Right has decentralized its thinking. We know that no order will work for everyone, and that we — Western Europeans, the genetic component of Western Civilization — must find our own path by excluding all Other, whether we like them or not (and most of us like some or many of them).

As a result, Mr. Reed is fighting a phantasm of his own mind, what the kids on in the internet call a “strawman.” The Alt Right he describes is not the Alt Right by any plausible definition, although all the Leftist newspapers like The New York Times really like his definition.

Since his precepts were erroneous, the rest of the article constitutes little more than error. As with most Alt Lite writers, Mr. Reed specializes in taking a simple concept and expanding it emotionally while condensing it intellectually, which makes his readers feel “in control” of the knowledge domain and therefore, content with their own wisdom vis-a-vis that of their peers.

Onward to the next logical contradiction and stumbling block of the Alt Lite, we find Vox Day, who as a Caucasian-Mexican-Amerind hybrid believes himself capable of offering ethnic commentary without retribution by the Leftist horde, probably hoping to follow in the footsteps of Dr. David A. Yeagley. He understands some of where Mr. Reed is wrong, but then compounds the error:

That being said, the fact that so many diverse population groups observably prefer white cultures and societies to their own does tend to indicate the objective superiority of those cultures and societies.

Unlike Fred, the Alt-Right understands that both average intelligence and the maximum elite intelligence are merely factors in the success of a society, factors that are heavily influenced by other cultural and genetic elements, such as Christianity, time expectations, and in-group trust.

Here we go again with the Alt Lite mantra: you can have your equality and democracy, just as long as you add in thinly-disguised racial preference. This is why Vox Day is more popular than this site; he offers you the mainstream lie, just in another form, so that you can believe this society will turn out fine with just a few little tweaks.

First, the idea that many people prefer something and therefore it is better is broken thinking and de facto democracy. On the contrary, what most people prefer is almost always a simplistic lie. What he has identified is the tendency of groups to prefer easy answers, and they find emigrating to the West far, far easier than fixing their own broken third-world societies.

Next, he wants to suggest that if we just become Christians, lower our time preference and become nationalist, all will work out fine. In other words, democracy is working smoothly, equality is still in effect, and there is no reason to change paradigm at all, because with these few self-help-ish suggestions, we can make our rotted modern society work.

This, too, is Alt Lite. Like the mainstream conservatives, they want to patch a leaky boat and present it to you as brand new, and this is very popular because it does not force people out of their comfort zones. They can keep watching television and eating chicken nuggets in oblivious contentment.

Just like the Republicans, he offers a simple enemy and a simple solution, and then ignores the reasons we got to this point in the first place. The Alt Right recognizes that The Enlightenment™ is bunk and therefore equality is bunk and we need to move on from democracy. The Alt Lite, like the GOP, refuses to acknowledge this at all.

Perhaps it is time to assert this dividing line even more ferociously. The Alt Right belongs to those who are no longer entranced by the illusion of equality; we recognize hierarchy and caste, and seek an escape from modernity entirely. The Alt Lite are sellers of cheeseburgers, telling us that we can fix up modernity with a few mods and everything will be fine.

Of course we cannot do that. Modernity is cursed by its basic ideas being paradoxical and therefore anti-realistic. We must move on from this dying time by ripping it out by the root, not trimming away a few symptoms and declaring the patient cured. If you wonder why the Alt Lite seems so easy and yet so unconvincing, these two examples should demonstrate why.

Recommended Reading