I debated Vox Day.

I think it was fun. I’m not sure how much was “proved,” other than maybe some stuff about Vox personally and his agenda.  But,  I don’t think people should be too hard on him. He might be having some personal troubles.

I haven’t listened to it yet,  hopefully I came through clear.  My connection dropped out during  most of Vox’ open 1 5 minutes (which is why I didn’t respond directly to any of that).   You know – Nigerian internet.  I moved closer to the wifi during the second part, which I think was more fun.

You can learn more about the background on all of this on

Join and follow me. I’ve been posting there a lot.

My full opening remarks follow.

Firstly, on the nature of this debate:

It should be made clear at the outset that Vox Day is not acting in good faith, or even pretending to.

Vox Day attacked me on Gab, without provocation. I have no understanding of why he did this.

Right now, the right is under an unprecedented attack. Something that has never happened before in history.

The Daily Stormer was ground zero for this attack. My having been effectively banned from the internet was a starting point for the largest campaign of political censorship ever. Virtually everyone on the right is now being deplatformed to some degree or another.

So the idea that Vox is someone claiming to be on the right, and yet thinks it’s a good idea to attack me, the most disenfranchised political activist in American history, is extremely disheartening.

It is difficult for me to be the one talking about my erasure from the internet without sounding self-absorbed – but that cannot be avoided, as I am the one it happened to. My having been kicked off of the internet was an historical event, and it is a point around which battle lines should have been drawn.

Even mainstream figures such as Tucker Carlson, Breitbart and the National Review have defended me.

Vox Day on the other hand appears to be using the media attention surrounding this situation as a platform for self-promotion.

On this show I had a “debate” with Greg Johnson, but that was in good faith and for the purpose of understanding one another and enlightening the people.

Vox Day’s attack on me is mean-spirited and he has not even pretended that it is in good faith.

Immediately when he began attacking me, he attempted to undermine my personal character, making up bizarre accusations against me.

He went so far as to circulate a writers’ guide which I had published on my own website as if it was a secret internal document and claimed that it exposed me as using ghostwriters and faking my identity.

This is a direct assault on my personal honor. And again, this was completely unprovoked.

He also claimed that I am a regular commenter on his blog, which is false. I have read his blog from time to time, but have never commented.

He even claimed that his blog has more traffic than the Daily Stormer, which is absurd. By all available objective, public metrics, we have orders of magnitude more traffic than he does. I say this not to brag, but simply to note that if this man cannot be trusted to accurately represent quantitative measures, then there is zero reason to believe he can be trusted to represent qualitative measurements.

When confronted with Alexa rankings, he claimed that I had manipulated my Alexa rankings. As proof that I did this, he claimed that he had done it himself, in order to prove that I did it.

Furthermore, Vox Day is part of a group, which includes Mike Cernovich. Cernovich has recently claimed that I am funded by the SPLC, that the SPLC is suing me and also paying for my defense. His friend MILO has claimed that I am secretly Jewish.

Obviously, Vox cannot be held accountable for these men’s behavior, but it is worthy of note that this is the company he keeps and he is acting in concert with them to attack me.

I would certainly not personally associate with people making those sorts of kook claims, let alone engage with them in a mob attack against a right wing activist.

Over the last days, Vox triggered my people with his weird assault, and then began threatening to sue them for calling him names. He then threatened to sue Andrew Torba, the owner of Gab, because he refused to give away the IPs of the people who called him names.

Specifically, he was called a pedophile, something he is on the record calling other people as well as explicitly instructing others to call people.

I quote: “if they call you a racist, just call them a pedophile.”

Needless to say, none of this is a level of discourse which I am comfortable engaging in with anyone. It is below me and it should be below any self-respecting individual, whatever his political affiliation.

Personal attacks, name-calling, slander, lies and orchestrated mob attacks have no place in honest political discourse, and it is extremely difficult for me to believe that anyone interested in actually getting to the truth would engage in these types of dirty tactics.

I would never suppose the ability to read another man’s mind,  but this entire attack on me,  including the demand for a debate here, strikes me as callous,  naked opportunism, an attempt to try and leech off of the  Daily Stormer’s cultural relevance, rather than any kind of genuine concern for society or desire for political reform.

I simply am incapable of understanding what purpose this could serve beyond that.

I am engaging in circus show not because I feel a need to defend myself against any random blogger who defames me,  but because I believe it may be educational to the observer.

Moreover, I wish to demonstrate to the people the vile nature of attacking a right-wing activist in bad faith – especially while the right is under the most massive sustained censorship attack in the history of modern politics.

That is to say I want to use this platform to say: don’t be Vox Day. Don’t attack people on the same side as you. If you see people doing this, call them out or at least withdraw support from them.

This is not a game we are playing here. It is not about personalities. It is not about ego. It is not about book sales. This is about the continued survival of western civilization.

We are attempting nothing less than a revolution, and energy should only be spent on that which serves the revolution.

Now, as to the topic of the debate:

The topic itself – “were the Nazis secretly leftists somehow?” is so low-tier, that it isn’t something I have ever put much genuine thought into. As it has been presented, it appears to be an attempt to bicker over semantics. Vox Day has written on his own blog, repeatedly and for years, that the terms “right and left” are effectively meaningless.

While I would generally agree with that statement, given purposeful attempts by the Jewish establishment to manipulate language, there is clearly an accepted understanding of these terms within Western society, and I believe that this understanding can be defined thus:

Right wing is the preservation of the natural order, which is generally done through established traditions being carried through generations, and

Left wing is the push for “equality” to override the natural order by dragging all human beings down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

That the “National Socialists were actually leftists” is a cuckservative argument one would hear from the likes of Bill O’Reilly or Ben Carson – it is not something that I have ever come across on the internet being presented by serious thinkers.

It is similar to “Democrats are the real racists” or the endless Fox News chant of “we support immigration but we want it to be legal.” It is a semantic word game without substance, used by people who wish to shirk discussion of real issues.

Nonetheless, I have accepted these terms, so I shall present an argument.

I should note that I do not in seriousness consider myself a “Neo Nazi White Supremacist” – that is obviously a media insult which I have humorously adopted as a way to mock the media.

Much of the language on my site is purposefully inflammatory because it is fun.  I do understand and sympathize with the fact that people in  Vox Day’s age range are not able to intuitively  grasp certain forms of youth oriented ironic humor, but I am unsympathetic  to the idea that  once it is explained  that it is humor  –  and I have spent a lot of energy painstakingly explaining this in long essays targeted at the older generations  –  that it remains impossible for them to understand.

If you cannot grasp the idea that vulgarity for the purpose of humor which demystifies sacred  cows can be an effective way to spread a message that has been  demonized as evil, after the process has been excruciatingly explained to you,  then that is on you.

Given the shocking dishonesty and dirty tricks that Vox Day has engaged in, I do not know if he is genuinely incapable of processing these concepts or if he is simply pretending to be incapable of processing these concepts in order to give him a plausible basis upon which to attack me.

The truth of the matter is that National Socialism is simply a historical political institution which I admire, which I believe that we can draw inspiration from. I do identify with the quote “collectivist” aspects of National Socialism, so it’s something I feel very comfortable defending.

Vox has defined “right-wing” as the celebration of the individual, but it is absolutely absurd to assert that the average person who identifies with the right wing genuinely believes in this definition.

Everyone who identifies as right wing defines their identity by involvement in various “collectives.” First and foremost, the right is associated with the family. It is then associated with religion, nationalism and race, all of which are fundamentally forms of collective identity.

Rather than celebrating the primacy of the individual, humans have existed since time immemorial viewing the individual as a member of a family, then clan, and eventually of nation and race. During the medieval period, what we now refer to as the “white race” came to be defined as “Christendom.”

Conversely, leftists are fixated with destroying these traditional institutions of community, mostly by promoting the exact type of “radical individualism” that Vox Day is promoting.

This takes the form of “liberation,” which is embodied in the Frankfurt School doctrine of critical theory: a deconstruction of tradition and of the natural order which it was designed to uphold.

Ultimately, though draped in various buzzwords and convoluted semantics, what we are discussing here is the purpose of man in the universe. And I believe that his primary purpose is to form meaningful relationships with other people. The family is at the root of this. Politics and economies should exist to serve men, and to enable him to live a meaningful life.

Assertions that the “right” revolves around the individual are shallow and intellectually nauseating. The entire concept of “individualism” is an enlightenment experiment, which has clearly failed.

It is an illusion.

Community and the desire to form quote “collectives” is hardwired into the human psyche, based on the fact that we are social beings.

When told to go be individuals, human beings will immediately begin organizing in collectives, due to the fact that individualism runs against our biological nature. The “atheist,” “secular humanist” and “skeptic” communities are examples of this phenomenon. Told to go be individuals freed from the chains of religious dogma, individuals formed new collective identities with dogma as rigid as any religion.

Furthermore, the term “collectivism” is simply a libertarian slur for what has historically been considered “community.” This is contrasted with “individualism” as a positive, when the traditionalist, concerned about the order of nature, would label so-called “individualism” as mere ego-driven selfishness.

In this way, the promotion of “individualism” has served to deconstruct the community, and thus is a part of the Jewish agenda to tear down the fabric of the western social order.

On the issue of the economy, which Vox like many in his age range are fixated on, I am agnostic. I am not an economics expert, and am not particularly interested in the topic.

I believe that anything can be worked out scientifically, and economics are no different. A solution to economic problems is something that intelligent men acting in good faith with the betterment of the people in mind can get together and figure out.

Like every other aspect of society, the economic system should be one designed to support the people, and I support whichever one is best at accomplishing this goal.

I reject the concept that economics of any sort are fundamentally tied to the concept of the right.

That said, the National Socialists had a mixed economy, with a limited open market. Hitler chose the word “socialism” for marketing reasons, not because he was somehow aligned with Marxism. He redefined the word for a third way mixed economy.

Most importantly, in contrast with communism, National Socialism did not attempt to abolish class.  That is because class is a fundamental part of the natural order, given that some individuals are simply more capable than others, and any functional society requires a ruling class. The Bolshevik experiment proved this.  French sociologist Jacques Ellul  analyzed the impossibility of a complex society without hierarchy in his books the Technological Society and the Technological System.

I do not believe that this hierarchy must be determined by free market economics, however. In fact, using free market economics to establish social hierarchy is a large part of what has led to this disastrous situation the west presently finds itself in.

Furthermore, modern technological developments have led to such an extreme degree of wealth and power centralization that a free market is no longer even a sustainable concept.

The benefits of the free market as espoused by libertarians all revolve around competition, but centralization of wealth has created such massive financial barriers to entry that competition is impossible. One cannot, for instance, pull himself up by his bootstraps and start his own Google or Exxon Mobil.

The writings about the free market which which are intellectually honest were written before the industrial revolution. Post-industrial revolution, all of the major free market philosophers were Jewish – Friedman, Mises, Rand, Rothbard – and appear to have promoted this system because they understood it would lead to a Jewish takeover of western industry.

This is not the 1930s. The means and methods of production have changed dramatically over the last century. Both “capitalism” and “socialism” are obsolete terms in the modern era. Experts are predicting that within two decades, 50% of current jobs will be lost to automation. And this is not simply truck driving and burger flipping, but accounting, banking, and other white collar jobs that are being replaced by algorithms.

Effectively, we are staring down a situation where labor will be free, and the overwhelming majority of people will be out of work.

The idea that 18th century concepts of free market capitalism – let alone 20the century Jewish concepts of free market capitalism – are capable of dealing with this sea change in the basic nature of the economy is at best childishly naive and at worst a malicious attempt to purposefully misdirect and confuse people.

Given this, I identify my own economic outlook as one of futurism, which is to say that rapid technological development, rather than supply and demand, are the core deciding factor to be considered in the management of a modern economy.

To return this to National Socialism, the bottom line is that Hitler’s idea was that the economy should serve the people, rather than the other way around, and in order for this to work, you have to have a government that serves the people.

Everything that Hitler did served to support the order of nature, and though our situation is different than that of the 1930s, that same spirit of populist nationalism can be applied to our modern epoch.