[Enigma]

(02-27-2018 08:14 AM)911 Wrote:  

You're right, I've misread that quote, late night multitasking, my bad, I was wrong on that count, no malice on my part.

No worries. No malice on my part either.

[911]

I think that test is a bit too generous, no way am I in the top 1/400th in verbal skills. Being fluent in French helps with highfalutin vocabulary...

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

Mine:

[Belgrano]

(02-27-2018 07:43 PM)911 Wrote:  

I think that test is a bit too generous, no way am I in the top 1/400th in verbal skills.

What do you mean "the test is too generous"?
Check out my result:



Despite not even being a native speaker I'm apparently the second coming of Shakespeare.


Get on my level, son.

[demolition]

I've been reading Vox's blog for something like 6-7 years now. I generally agree with what he says, but as a figurehead of the traditionalist / nationalist movement I think he's a huge mistake for people to latch on to.

Rules of Vox Day:
1. Always be self-promoting
2. Always feud pointlessly with trolls and idiots
3. Always fall on your own sword with stupid antics and un-funny jokes (e.g. Scalzi 'McRapey' etc.)
4. Always declare victory after embarrassing yourself
5. Always claim to be a super-genius when your intelligence is observably not that bright.*
6. Always come off as an uncharismatic, uncompelling, unfashionable dullard.**

* Vox isn't dumb, but he's not anywhere near as smart as he claims to be. He's precisely the kind of midwit he always rails against.
** I don't like to pick on him for these things, but he simply lacks the personal charm and verbal fluency to be an effective spokesperson in public. Even his writing is plodding. Not everyone can, or should, be Roissy or Milo. But he doesn't do anything for me as a spokesperson and I largely agree with his political / social stances. The bigger he gets the worse it is for everyone associated.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Well, the massive blog and following would tend to argue against "uncompelling". He's gotta be compelling somebody, somewhere.

What has he said that makes you think he's a dullard/not that bright?

Midwits don't tend to succeed across a variety of fields: Gaming, writing (both fiction and non-fiction), music, politics, publishing, etc. He also speaks passable Japanese, and Italian as well, which would make him at a minimum tri-lingual.

[Matt Forney]

Vox Day is a thin-skinned megalomaniac and a possible psychopath. He proved that when he decided to sue Gab because of his hurt feelings over being called a pedophile. I stopped following his blog after that.

Vox is an eternal trend-follower who pretends to be a trend-setter. He's done nothing but jump onto every bandwagon he comes across and try to make money off of it, contributing very little in the way of original thought.

He jumped on the manosphere bandwagon back in 2011, starting up his dumb Alpha Game blog with his retarded "expanded sociosexual hierarchy," which was one of the worst things to ever happen to the 'sphere. And of course, he had to create the "sigma" category for himself, because he's too much of a special little snowflake to fit into the regular "alpha" category. (The irony is that he's clearly a gamma male by his own definition, as shown by his snarky writing, his feminine outbursts, and his constant feuding.)

He jumped on the GamerGate bandwagon in 2014, trying to pose as a leader and game developer even though he was always a fringe figure in the game industry who hadn't worked on a major project since the 1990's.

He jumped on the alt-right/meme culture bandwagon in 2015/2016, trying to co-opt and re-define the alt-right to suit his own purposes and bilk people with a dumb "Daily Meme Wars" mailing list. He also pretends to be a neutral figure in the alt-lite/alt-right conflict, but his constant, obsessive attacks on figures like Andrew Anglin and his friendships with characters like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec show his true loyalties.

Vox isn't untalented: his fantasy novels are decent, and SJWs Always Lie was a great summation of modern leftist thought and behavior. If he stuck to what he was good at, he'd still be a respected and successful alternative media mogul. Instead, he's busy destroying what's left of his reputation through constant, pointless bickering with people like Anglin and Andrew Torba.

Then again, maybe we should have expected this. Vox Day's pseudonym is derived from "vox dei," Latin for "voice of God." That's a pretty conceited thing to call yourself, but it's fitting for a guy like Vox, who is so arrogant he thinks he can improve on the Bible and deny the Trinity:

https://voxday.blogspot.hu/2012/03/false...inity.html

Vox Day is about to learn why hubris comes before nemesis.

(02-28-2018 12:07 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Well, the massive blog and following would tend to argue against "uncompelling". He's gotta be compelling somebody, somewhere.

Psychopaths tend to be popular, because their gift of gab makes it easy for them to charm and manipulate others.

(02-28-2018 12:07 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

He also speaks passable Japanese, and Italian as well, which would make him at a minimum tri-lingual.

Being bilingual/trilingual has nothing to do with intelligence. The average Filipino is bilingual or trilingual, speaking Filipino, English, and regional languages like Visayan, while the average Japanese person can't speak any other language aside from Japanese, but no one is going to argue that the average Filipino is more intelligent than the average Japanese person.

[demolition]

(02-28-2018 05:32 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Vox is an eternal trend-follower who pretends to be a trend-setter. He's done nothing but jump onto every bandwagon he comes across and try to make money off of it, contributing very little in the way of original thought.

This is precisely it.
When you've been following Vox long enough you see that he's a grifter. Does Vox seem to be a reliable figure for writing about gaming women? Watching any of his videos should disabuse you of the notion.
Look at Vox's game development website. It's a reject from the 90s -- And that's being unfair to the 90s. Where is the content? Instead it's filled with battle logs and other people's work.
What games has Vox made? Where are the people he's worked with on making games? As far as I can tell he's made no games, has no insight on making games besides from the political / GamerGate angle, and no one has ever worked with Vox in a capacity they're willing to talk about his contributions.

I don't think most people reading Vox's blog are trying to critically examine the personality of the man behind the writings. His readers just looking for someone to stand up for something that resembles common sense & sanity in a world where that is constantly under attack. It isn't surprising people would find him appealing for that reason. Being megalomaniacal has advantages. It also means your assessment of the world is warped, and the way he gets into petty fights constantly, and exposes his lack of credibility every few months, demonstrates that.

The areas where he's thrived are all movements outside of the mainstream that lack traditional leaders. That's precisely his schtick, trying to find these niches and insert himself in them as a leadership figure.

Take a step back and ask yourself, how likely is it that this guy who has time to ceaselessly bicker online is really the expert in music, economics, social psychology, gaming & technology, publishing, and politics that he claims? There just aren't enough hours for the day for all of that, in between checking your web-blog's daily traffic, curating your junk mail list, and taking the world's shittiest online IQ and vocabulary tests.

[rotekz]

I'm seeing a lot of high-minded criticism of Vox repeated from earlier threads that is worded to look ever so serious. However reading it all again it still makes no impression.

Being involved in cultural movements equals riding the bandwagon for people we don't like? Meh.

He was cheeky enough to use the name Vox Day? Meh.

Holy Trinity this that and the other? Meh.

He's a gamma in some people's eyes? Meh.

He upset Torba and Anglin? Meh!

I suppose we have to get these gripes out the way yet again before continuing to cover the excellent work he is doing in the culture wars with Vox Popoli, The Darkstreams, Voxiversity, Castalia House publishing, Infogalactic and Arkhaven Comics. I doubt most here will achieve even a tiny fraction of what Vox has.

[HermeticAlly]

I'm on the fence about Vox these days. I've been reading his stuff for almost a decade now, since I picked up The Irrational Atheist in a bookstore on a whim. And he's a very good fantasy writer (his Arts of Dark and Light novels and short stories are excellent) and editor on top of his nonfiction writing. Discovering Roosh and the rest of the Manosphere is pretty much a direct consequence of Vox.

While he still has good posts and covers interesting stuff, I can't help but find myself with an increasingly negative view of the guy along the lines that Forney and Demolition pointed out. He seems incredibly thin-skinned and exhibits gamma behavior all the time. A great example was he recently threw a fit at the (apparently large) subset of commenters who don't care about football, or the SJW antics of the league. His blog, his rules, sure; but the whole episode just made him look worse.

Making fun of ridiculous figures like Scalzi is entertaining, but most of the other feuds seem petty and indicative of some sort of deep-seated insecurity, as does his obsession with race above everything else. I get the impression of a guy who was clearly kind of a weird kid and social outlier who's been trying to make up for it ever since. He's clearly intelligent and has accomplished things, but probably not as much as he'd like for it to appear. His near-total fixation on race war seems like a wish-fulfillment scenario to put all his tactical thinking developed over years of playing complicated table top military games and building a veritable home arsenal to good use.

Vox suffers from trying to do too many things at once, which creates the illusion of success because of the large audience of his blog who are ready to throw their money at whatever he cooks up. The guy is a talented writer and editor, his energy would be better put to use finishing the second book in his fantasy series (which was supposed to have been completed months ago) and focusing on his editing/publishing stuff, where he excels. As a day-to-day editorialist, he's been far outclassed by Molyneux, Peterson, etc, who cover a wider range of subjects with more nuance (and are much better on camera.)

[SamuelBRoberts]

This is why Vox talks about demographic replacement all the time, for what it's worth.

[url=https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/969032134437556224][/url]

[Yatagan]

(02-28-2018 10:12 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

This is why Vox talks about demographic replacement all the time, for what it's worth.

[url=https://twitter.com/HarmlessYardDog/status/969032134437556224][/url]

Demographics are destiny as they say. Speaking of which, if it wasn't for the "ethnic" vote, we would've had an independent Quebec (and possibly Scotland).

[flanders]

I am not sure how they're coming up with these numbers.

[debeguiled]

(02-28-2018 11:38 PM)flanders Wrote:  



I am not sure how they're coming up with these numbers.

Flanders. You have a higher vocabulary than Vox the genius. Don't ask so many questions. Just assume the mantle.

[Genghis Khan]

Quote:

Making fun of ridiculous figures like Scalzi is entertaining

Actually, it's starting to get weird. I think John Scalzi is more famous than he should be solely due to VD's constant mocking of him. I don't think any of us would even know who Scalzi is fine it wasn't for VD.

It'd be one thing if he held up Scalzi as an example of a gamma, and let it be - similar to how Heartiste occasionally brings up a good example of beta behavior and moves on - but man, VD just keeps going on and on about Scalzi. It's almost an obsession, maybe a gamma obsession to destroy Scalzi once and for all kind of thing?

Other than that, he's awful on video. Like terribly so - actually does make me wonder if he has any game. He comes across much better on text though.

And for that I have to give him credit. His SJW material is great. So is his immigration=war stuff. I'd be lying if I said Vox Day wasn't the biggest influence on me in terms of how I now look at immigration and civic nationalism.

Although I think the current version of the alt-right, with faggots like Richard Spencer, is doomed to fail, I would not be surprised if a better organized white nationalism/alt-right emerges as white people (and especially white men) are more and more marginalized in the US.

I was reading up on Weimar Germany and damn, if it doesn't seem very reminiscent of modern day America - especially with the promiscuity and general degeneracy we're seeing. A hard swing to the right seems almost inevitable.

If history does repeat itself, or at least rhymes...somewhere out there is a disenchanted white male millennial (around the age of 27-29), completely unknown right now, with a terrifying ability to hypnotize crowds (that INFJ skillset that Jordan Peterson has)...and that guy might quite end up being the next Hitler. That guy is probably also reading Vox Day.

Cernovich mentioned on Twitter the same as well. Well, not the Hitler part at least. But he did say about a year ago, the next big guy is currently about 25 years and completely unknown.

I used to think Millennials were a lost cause (it's my generation). But then as I read more about the last time mankind was in a similar situation, the last time we had "Millennials", that group brought about not just Carl Jung, and Rene Guenon, but also Hitler (born in 1889, about a century before modern day Millennials, fitting that 4th turning theory).

The next two decades are going to be really, really interesting. I'm going to keep reading Vox Day for that reason though. Even if he's a grifter, he seems to have a knack for picking the right things to grift.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

I first saw Scalzi promoted a lot on Instapundit for Old Man's War, which was considered Heinlein-esque. I read it and a couple of the follow on novels, and enjoyed them. However, this was before I took the red pill. One of the points that Vox makes about Scalzi and about a lot of Sci-Fi in general is that the male characters are all gamma or omega, and the leading ladies all fall in love with them in a pattern that matches gamma blue pill fantasies.

Vox had a couple of articles on the Alpha Game site where he laid down a typical gamma based sequence for a sci-fi plot, and then gave an example of how different it would be with an alpha character. It was like night and day.

Since I read this, and since I took the red pill in general, I now find most Sci-Fi, and most movies and TV in general, to be ridiculous. Most characters are written as pedestalizing saps, although sometimes the bad guy is actually written with alpha characteristics. The writers are all gammas and omegas, so they mostly don't know any better, but sometimes their artistic craft enables them to write a true alpha character, even though they don't understand what alpha behavior is in their own day to day lives.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^

I agree with Genghis Khan's above post 100 percent, especially when it comes to John Scalzi, who I'd never hear of either. But I think it goes for Ben Shapiro too. After a while, I started to feel the reason for Vox's attacks is that he resents their success. Otherwise, why would he care to the degree he does?

Vox is a better writer, but you can't own any market 100 percent. Even the Beatles had to deal with competition from the Stones, Kinks, Motown, etc. Scalzi comes from a different place and Shapiro isn't as sharp a thinker, but they each have their followings for different reasons and that's life.

I don't like to use terms like "Gamma," but I think Genghis Khan is right on the money using that word to describe Vox's fixation. Scalzi has a mainstream publishing deal and Ben is appealing and charismatic on video. They might not be geniuses, but life isn't fair.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

Totally disagree. Both Scalzi and Shapiro need to be pounded into the dirt and made examples of, not because of who they are, but what they represent.

Vox has stated repeatedly that he really doesn't care about Scalzi per se, but rather destroying the people that promoted him as a great writer, which is Tor Books. They are run by SJWs that are pushing progressive politics into sci-fi/fantasy at the expense of the genre. Everytime Vox highlights the crap Scalzi and Tor puts out, his own publishing house sells more books. I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on this idea.

Ben Shapiro is another one that needs to be humiliated into a closet. An abject coward that refused to join the military when he was 19 to fight in Iraq, while simultaneously arguing in WND that we should invade the Middle East. I don't care how big his following is, he can go to hell.

As far as the Gamma comparison goes, I disagree there, too. A Gamma will torpedo his own friends due to slights real or imagined. I've never known Vox to turn on his friends over jealousy. Furthermore I wouldn't consider Scalzi, Tor, or Shapiro to be my friends either.

Lastly, some people in this thread need to look up the meaning of grifter and realize it doesn't belong to Vox. He's not a fraud. I don't agree with everything he says but I have never known him to willingly lie or plagiarize.

EDIT:

Yup, not my friend.

[Yatagan]

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I chuckle when I read comments about a Millennial being the next Hitler out there.

The mythical SJW White Whale - ban all the hate-speech, because the next Hitler will come around.

The truth of the matter is that Hitler was highly financed and promoted by the ruling elite. Without their money and support there would be no Hitler. Thus the only next Hitler coming around will be the one promoted by all the banks and big money similarly to Hillary and Obama. It won't be someone who reads a small non-mainstream site like Voxday and who will never ever get any corporate backing.

[not-a-pua]

Some of the snarky comments are amusing. The problems that those guys have is that they don't really understand some of the points a guy like Vox makes.

To understand it better, listen to this debate of Jared Taylor vs Tariq Nasheed. I presume there is at least a 2SD deviation between these two men in IQ. Look at Taylors face. This is the reaction guys like Vox have their entire lives while talking to normal people.

This should help you understand why you might have troubles understanding guys like Vox (or Nicholas Taleb, who simply calls people imbeciles).

[Genghis Khan]

(03-08-2018 07:23 AM)not-a-pua Wrote:  

Some of the snarky comments are amusing. The problems that those guys have is that they don't really understand some of the points a guy like Vox makes.

To understand it better, listen to this debate of Jared Taylor vs Tariq Nasheed. I presume there is at least a 2SD deviation between these two men in IQ. Look at Taylors face. This is the reaction guys like Vox have their entire lives while talking to normal people.

This should help you understand why you might have troubles understanding guys like Vox (or Nicholas Taleb, who simply calls people imbeciles).

I don't really understand why guys are so defensive about Vox Day.

What's VD's supposed IQ again? 165, right.

Societies seem to average between 80 and 100. Maybe there's a reason people with an IQ of 165 are in the minority...

(03-08-2018 04:36 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I chuckle when I read comments about a Millennial being the next Hitler out there.

The mythical SJW White Whale - ban all the hate-speech, because the next Hitler will come around.

The truth of the matter is that Hitler was highly financed and promoted by the ruling elite. Without their money and support there would be no Hitler. Thus the only next Hitler coming around will be the one promoted by all the banks and big money similarly to Hillary and Obama. It won't be someone who reads a small non-mainstream site like Voxday and who will never ever get any corporate backing.

Is that so? I don't know, I don't particularly believe there's some special elite out there, but assuming they exist: wouldn't a disenfranchised white millennial who reads manosphere blogs be the perfect patsy for the elites' plans?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-08-2018 09:50 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

I don't really understand why guys are so defensive about Vox Day.

What's VD's supposed IQ again? 165, right.

Societies seem to average between 80 and 100. Maybe there's a reason people with an IQ of 165 are in the minority...

Modern level of civilization cannot be upheld at societies below an IQ of 90.
IQ of 100/106/114 for Whites/Asians/Ashkenazi Jews is not the end limit. Some native Europeans now reach 106/107/108 - Polish/Germans and Norwegians - without the "diverse enrichment".

Even if you are high-IQ - all your emotions that make you human are still the same, also you can easily become a dogmatic thinker just as well or even a true believing SJW.

We don't even know whether humanity cannot have averages pushed to 120/130/140 + with positive eugenics. I was surrounded by enough 150+ IQ men and some rare women to know that it's nothing special aside from the ability to process information much faster, learning faster and do virtually anything professionally. But I do trust researchers who have said after trying to teach low-IQ people various tasks, that our current civilization below a certain IQ level simply would not exist.

You need about a 93-IQ to operate a McDonald's cash register.

--------------

As for Hitler and the elite - check up on Carroll Quigley - the mentor of Bill Clinton or Antony Sutton - Stanford history professor. No "belief" necessary - just an educated guess on whose version of history is more likely.



The idea that anyone can become Hitler is about as illusory as the idea that anyone can become president. Hasn't been true for centuries now.

[Genghis Khan]

I don't have time right now to read more books, but I did a quick Google search about Hitler and bankers. Found this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/s...ndworldwar

It's the Guardian, perhaps not the best website considering its leftist bend. But:

Quote:

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Quote:

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

I stand by what I said - out there somewhere is a Millennial with a terrifying ability to inspire people. Also, I didn't say ANYONE can become Hitler - only guys with a very unique ability to hypnotize crowds. There aren't that many people out with an innate ability like that.

Hitler might've been funded by bankers, but that doesn't change the fact Hitler had the ability to mesmerize people. And it's exactly his ability that got him funded. Bankers/Jews/the elite are still human and as such still possess the ability to get swayed by a charismatic man.

Quote:

We don't even know whether humanity cannot have averages pushed to 120/130/140 + with positive eugenics.

Yes we do. The fact that mankind has never had societies with 120+ average IQ should tell you it's not going to happen. One could make a similar argument about societies where women work side-by-side with men - and the counter argument is we know that doesn't work long-term because no society has ever made it work long-term, no matter how much social engineering you do. Positive eugenics for groups with IQs above 100 is nothing more than social engineering and will fail eventually.

That we see some groups go near 110 should tell you those societies are hitting their peak (and there's only one way down from a peak), same as a society embracing feminism tells you it's in its decay phase.

A good analogy is height. There's a reason why no large scale society averages 7ft for men. At some point, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Same goes for IQ.

[sterling_archer]

Very pleased since English is not my native language.