I liked Vox Day when he wrote mostly on immigration and current politics, and enjoyed his calm and level-headed approach to it. He did not even shy away from seeing immigration and war as basically being two sides of the same coin, or of understanding that race mixing, obviously, will lead to the eradication of a people. – The latter is one of the last holy cows of our times.
More importantly, he talked about Christ, Genesis, Satan and evil as others do about physics or biology: he took them for granted, as “facts” almost, and this got me interested in Christianity and ultimately led to my conversion experience. However, this was also the point where I started to frequent the blog less and less, and the whole hierarchy stuff was hard to take seriously and got annoying fast. While he still has, from time to time, interesting stuff to say—for example, about imbeciles like “Spengler” (David P. Goldman)—, the commenters really are an annoying bunch. (Granted, Vox Day has acknowledged himself that the quality started to drop as his blog gained in popularity. But many of those I dislike are actually long-time readers.)

I would have never started reading Vox Day’s blog if all he wrote about were this hierarchy stuff. And this is the reason I stopped.

(And let us not forget Ecclesiasticus 15:22 and Ecclesiasticus 16:1-4)

How much time I wasted on Vox Day and, especially!, his sycophants! Who are worse. Much worse. Vox Day, at least, had some insight here and there, as I wrote above. Unlike those who commented or were associated with him. Apart from obvious shysters like Roosh V. and Milo, one had to endure complete imbeciles like Giuseppe Filotto, who goes by the name The Kurgan, or Leo Joseph Buchignani III (sic!), who got on my nerves as koanic (now Leo Littlebook or so). Aeoli Pera, another time waster, who seemed to be a sycophant of both, koanic and Vox Day.

Claiming that “no one should not [have children]”, as koanic did, just shows what kind of imbeciles they are. Yes, let mentally ill or ugly people have children; alcoholics, depressed people or those with horrible diseases. Because … they’re horny … Wow, what a great reason to be alive! And these guys tout their supposedly high intelligence! This is worse than what a child would say about such matters.

We are forced into this world by a disgusting drive because God knows that no one in his right mind would ever bring someone into this madhouse, this hellhole the world is by an act of pure reason alone! You idiots!

Vox Day’s horrible theological views are nothing but upsetting. Though this he shares with the rest of his commenters; rare exceptions did exist. Vox Day writes that God creates for His own amusement and is likened to a game designer by him. Which he even claims in his book The Irrational Atheist! What a great game! To die by being raped to death by a bunch of men as a child, or to get blown to pieces as a young man on the battlefields of Europe. Or simply having to drag through this hellscape this world is as a piece of genetic and social trash.

He wrote this—his repulsive view that God creates for His amusement—in a blog post on John Piper, who claimed that tornados are punishments by God, where he at least acknlowedges that his view is just as subjective as Piper’s. It does not change the fact that life is not a “game”. Vox Day is a sloppy thinker when it comes to such topics, he does not even understand that sexuality is very likely a punishment by God.

In his post Mailvox: two varying perspectives, Vox Day writes:

[…] First, as an advocate, and possibly even the coiner of the phrase “God’s Game, God’s Rules”, I am hardly one to deny the right of the potter to shape the clay however he pleases. And as one who is not shy about calling the intellectual dishonesty of others to account, I am not about to start engaging in false modesty of any kind. My intellectual superiority is neither a pose nor something worth bragging about, it is simply a statistical fact that should be taken into account in much the same way that it is wise to take Kevin Garnett’s height into account when deciding upon a drive to the basket. As soon as people stop attempting to make ridiculous claims that I do not understand perfectly obvious things that anyone with an IQ of 100 or more can understand, I will be delighted to stop reminding them that I am significantly more intelligent than they are. […]

First off, that he almost seems proud of being the ”coiner“ of such an imbecilic phrase just shows what kind of abject stupidity we are dealing with here.

The potter analogy is to be understood in terms of the Israelites vs. the gentiles. Not regarding individual human beings. This is insane, and just shows Vox Day’s psychopathy. Did God give me a hunched back? Or make me ugly? Of course not. We have free will, people are slaves to their lust, Vox Day and his sycophants are even proud of how they are unable to control their lust and just act on their lower animalistic desires — or at least acted on them when they were unbelievers, though they don’t feel any shame about it either, do they? How is that Christian in any way? Want your daughter to be used like that? And since some—or many—people are genetic trash, they then have children who inherit their genetic trash. That is all. God has nothing to do with me having been born a piece of genetic scum. We could all become monks and nuns and it would be fine in God’s eyes. Though it won’t ever happen, because those who believe in Holy Scripture also believe in Revelation, which teaches that man will not stop his orgy of sex, drugs and violence until God does, by completely destroying this horrible, crappy world.

And what a world! What a horrible world! They love it, though. They can’t get enough of it. With a straight face, they not only defend it — they do it being as happy as a sandboy.

To the koanics (or Leo Littlebooks/Leo Joseph Buchignanis), Aeoli Peras, Giuseppe Filottos, Vox Days, Rollo Tomassis, Chateau Heartistes, Roosh V.s, George Brunos and other vulgar, sex-obsessed individuals of the world: I simply do not care about what you care about. You’re even in the wrong not only by God’s standards, but our reality itself proves you wrong: the West is in shambles because of the sexual promiscuity you wallowed in. J. D. Unwin’s Sex and Culture has shown that sexual degeneracy is always a symptom of societies in decay. No wise men of the past would have taught to “game” women.

I don’t care about having sex with the whores and floozies, which your “international models” are anyway. You would not want your own mother or daughter or sister to live this way. Then stop claiming that this is what men should be after. I am not, never was and never will.

Your lives are meaningless, and mine is too. Therefore, as I have repeatedly written on here, I would kill myself if I were a hundred per-cent certain that suicide does not end in damnation. Were I certain, I’d laugh you in the face while you’re busy using one of your “models” as sex doll and shoot my head off. But God forces me to live in His horrible, crappy world. This hellhole ripe for destruction. We enter the world through our sexual organs, which are used to get rid of bodily waste most of the time. We are even ashamed of their sole existence, as Schopenhauer correctly reasoned.

Further, the New Testament does not teach at all that marriage is in any way mandatory, and Vox Day even wrote this himself in his blog, citing Paul. Koanic’s “Paul wasn’t even Pope” nonsense rhetoric is just that.

I am jealous of brilliant men and their talents. Reading ancient languages fluently, like Johann Georg Hamann, or being able to play the piano like a pianist - like Heisenberg and Nietzsche, for example. Or the flute, like Schopenhauer. Or a brilliant author like Kierkegaard, de Maistre or Donoso Cortés.

But using women that you don’t even have much in common with like sex dolls? Because they are young and shy and frightened by your shyster lifestyle and lies you tell them? Or only because you are tall and/or a psychopath? No thanks. Just one more reason to want to leave this shoddy place.

I forgot to link to a footnote I wrote about Vox Day, where I also quote his horrible sentence “having a purpose does not mean that one succeeds in fulfilling that purpose.” — with which he means having children …!

I side with Andy Nowicki, who, in his respone “Vox Day swings and misses on MGTOW”—no longer online, unfortunately—said that for a guy who prides himself on knowing so much and being so intelligent, his understanding of celibacy is bad or superficial (I am paraphrasing). I also remember Nowicki calling the Darkstream typical “Vox Day boilerplate slash diatribe”.

Accepting that our existence is not God-wanted, that it was not Him who put us here but our parents simply gave into their lusts is the more manly position to hold—especially if you also struggle with the baseness of the act itself—instead of this rather childish view that Vox Day, despite his aversion to Sunday school theology, takes.

I also remember him claiming—either on his blog or in one of his streams—that he would not marry as an atheist. Yet, he calls men who don’t want to “useless” or “parasites”. Further, who cares anyway what someone would do as an atheist or not? Had Ted Bundy become a Christian, then he’d say something along the lines of “… I would murder people as an atheist.”

I would simply kill myself as an atheist, which I actually did: I hanged myself aged twenty-three. So what? God forces us to live in His horrible creation because he threatens us with Hell and installed a very strong and wicked drive into us that most succumb to because they are too weak (like Vox Day himself). This is why we are alive. I don’t write this in a hateful way, it’s just a fact that many people don’t want to face.

Maybe the reason for Vox Day’s arrogant behaviour is the fact that his past lifestyle is the opposite of masculine. Hedonism is hardly heroic, let alone decent. His Porsche-driving and sexual promiscuity with “international models” as well as taking drugs and creating video games is a stain in his biography.

I also remember him saying in one of his Darkstreams that his uncle would rag about the fact that he wasn’t in the military; to which Vox Day responded—I am not inventing this—that we fight to kill …! He alludes to his dojo attendance. Of course you can hardly kill someone with your bare hands. As soon as man understood that he is capable of using weapons, he did.

Schopenhauer wrote somewhere that most events in life are not made for experiencing them more than two or three times. I can only agree, and as I made clear on these pages, I would immediately kill myself if I did not fear Hell. While one must not argue with God, life does feel forced. Like Kierkegaard, the smallest incarnation of life, like that of a fly, is frightening. The fact that we are born without having any say in the matter, through such an act! alone …! And then eternal Judgement awaits every single human being …? This is a bit much.

However, as I already wrote, I would end my life if I knew that suicide doesn’t damn you for eternity. That’s how great life is. That’s how much of a gift it is … This is actually Vox Day’s view! Someone with an IQ of 150 writing trite, tacky nonsense like “… your very existence is a gift, if you reject that gift, that’s on you” (in a comment of one of his blog posts titled “The Devil’s Own”). I wrote about this elsewhere.

It certainly is not a big feat to sire a child.

Quote from a blog entry titled Stupidity vs psychopathy (emphasis mine):

This makes sense, as I have all the attributes of the average atheist, with one key exception: I am highly empathetic.

Risum teneatis amici! Don’t laugh, friends!

Apparently, Vox Day is aware of his lack of empathy, since he wrote several blog posts about it. Someone linked to them here.

As I assumend above, he is also aware that his past lifestyle is hardly masculine. Quote from a blog post by Vox Day:

Seventy years of relative peace and prosperity has made our young men hedonists and homosexuals, cravens and cowards who are more inclined to literally emasculate themselves than demonstrate even a modicum of courage. Seventy years of relative tranquility and safety has made our young women into shameless sluts and whores, barren harridans and harpies devoid of self-respect and self-control. (“A Terrible Peace”, 13/5/2016)

Given that Vox Day describes his past self as hedonistic, that he lived a sexual promiscuous life, meaning that he is to blame for using women, turning them into whores and having no self-respect and self-control himself back then—otherwise, he would not have lived this way—it is pretty rich to now ride the high horse.

Obviously, nothing of this is Christian, because Christ Himself never would have approved of fornication. I guess that’s it for now. This world stinks, even Vox Day called it fake, stupid and gay. He would not even be able to endure a week in my horrible body, yet he is an opponent of eugenics … because he lacks empathy.

Regarding Vox Day’s claim that in his dojo, “we fight to kill”-his uncle asked why he doesn’t join the military—, I rather think such claims are a coping mechanism. We live in times where there are no real threats anymore. A “dojo” is an environment where no one gets killed except maybe by accident. One is not out on the battlefields or in the trenches with sudden death being a real possibility.

Further, his claim that marriage is worth it even if one gets divorced again shows his rather psychopathic traits. What about the children? They will grow up in a chaotic environment, maybe scarred for life. Apparently, this doesn’t matter.

I say it does, because I suffer from it and wish to be dead every day. God forces us to live in this hellhole by threating with eternal damnation. Were I not a Christian already, I’d reject it too. Being the result of lust is not a good reason to be alive.

He is also friends with—at least he quoted him—Miles Mathis. Another sex-crazed imbecile who even thinks that the US is too puritanical! Mathis also wrote he prefers to choose his own bed partners, meaning he lives in sinful and degenerate fornication. Plus, he paints very young girls very often, which gives off a rather depraved vibe.

I am not kidding—these guys are nuts, completely lost their mind because of their constant lecherousness.

In one Darkstream, Vox Day said “I’ve known many pretty girls, but wouldn’t have married them.” But who cares? Even Evola rejected womanizers. It is just more boasting that I am not even envious of. Sounds more as if his character is that of an average bloke, despite his 150 IQ. Sad.

Made the mistake of reading a Vox Day blog post (archive.org) again. He wrote:

“This doesn’t mean that men shouldn’t pursue marriage or stop loving the beloved, nor does (sic) justify the hatred, contempt, and fury so often exhibited by low-status males who are losers in the sexual and marital markets. […]”

He unironically uses this kind of economic language even: markets! Showing that he does not even rise to the level of the French author Alain de Benoist, who has criticized this kind of thinking forced upon us via liberalism and capitalism. And de Benoist is a pagan!

I remember reading a post by a Jewish lawyer or so from Manhattan who went by the name Half-Sigma about a similar topic: Nursing is a borderline prole profession (archive.org)

It is apparent that class and status differences still exist, even if not as pronounced as in the past.

Maybe I should mark this file read-only, it is a waste of time; Vox Day will not stop defending his view that this irrational drive can be rationally understood. I was not thrown into this horrible world because of some brilliant thought that went on in my parents’ heads, it was (mostly) sheer lust.

In yet another strange Darkstream (1072!)—he has been going on with this for years now—titled “Female Solipsism and Male Zifogyny II”—he wants to make the point that some good-looking friend was dating, in his words, second or third tier women because he never learned to approach women he actually liked (or whatever.)

(“Dating” did not exist in the past anyway, Vox Day already grew up in a decaying society.)

Several problems with this are apparent: the girl he did not have the courage to ask out on a date despite her being interested in him was drawn to his looks and status; without this, he would not even have been noticed by her. (We do not know anyway if interest existed, it is Vox Day who said it, who is a psychopath.)

Further, who decides what tier a woman is? Vox Day? By what criteria? Looks alone? Who cares about looks if you have nothing in common? Did he ever ponder this question? Do you think that Nils M. Holm, who is member of the Triple Nine Society, for which an IQ of at least 146 is required, is not smart enough to understand such issues? He wrote about this himself. The higher your IQ, or the more removed from the average in general, the harder to find someone with whom one is able to connect.

Why care anyway what other people think what tier your wife is? If one lives in a marriage of mutual understanding without much grief and sorrow, who cares? Remember Proverbs 31:30: Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: But a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

Maybe Vox Day simply cannot fathom that there are people who do not care only about themselves. That some at least may rather be upset because of today’s degeneracy and vulgarity. As Andy Nowicki wrote himself, he does not wish for a past where he would have had more so-called “success” with women. He rightly notes that as long as he retains his way of thinking about sexuality, it would not have been different for him.

Why would I not be upset about the horrible brokenness of today’s families? given that I experienced it myself?

Vile and shallow people call it coping because they are not thinkers. Vox Day may think so as well. Though such “success” really does not change our rather despicable origins in any way; it does not explain this awful world any more. Such people really are at peace with existence, content with life. Not due to deep faith, but because of their shallow character and temperament.

Regarding the quote above, he himself said he would not marry as an atheist. Also, remembering that he said I am much, much smarter than you are, I wonder if he would accept that Christopher Langan’s wife is smarter than him: she has an IQ of ~168. Does that mean he would accept correction of his views from her? I do not think so.

When he says that talking to midwits is worse than to people of average intelligence (archive.ph ([archive.org]), how does he even know how high their IQ is? Do they tell him that? Not everyone, no matter how smart, knows how high his IQ is. It reeks of Vox Day’s typical subjectivism again.

Best not to read the comments there, as they are extremely superficial and vulgar. Aeoli Pera, deranged as he is—after all, he is friends with super arrogant and vulgar koanic (Leo Joseph Buchignani)—, even thinks that the best all those high IQ people can think about is war and sex (PUA).

This Aeoli Pera guy also mentions Feynman, who had an IQ of 123, a meat and potatoes guy Langan called him (from an answer he wrote on Quora [“Is Christopher Langan the smartest person in the world?”]):

“[…] Good recommendation - I have the Feynman Lectures sitting right here on the bookshelf. But I’ve found all kinds of places in them where Feynman could have been clearer in his writing. It’s true that when he was trying to be clear, he often wrote very clearly. But he was a physicist, and in some ways, his language skills were quite limited. Conceptually he was a powerhouse, but when it came to expression, he was strictly a meat-and-potatoes guy. Very concrete. On some levels of discourse, that sort of concreteness is not an option.”

Do they even notice how shallow and uneducated they appear? I rather occupy myself with those who actually produced works of genius, not ridiculous internet weisenheimers who do not even know Latin, let alone Greek. (Which Chris Langan at least learned back during high school, who also once said that while he does not reject IQ entirely, he is more interested in the works someone has produced.)

I have linked to Nils M. Holm above, his book The Gap and his Vidya article paint a different, more nuanced picture. High IQ people often enough suffer from being misunderstood. As he wrote on p. 18 of The Gap:

“[…] What is more likely for a person in the above-3σ range is a life full of hurdles, misunderstandings, anxiety, depression, and marginalization. The more removed from the average, the more likely a person will fail to find their place in society. […]”

(No one knows the IQs of Plato, Goethe, Kant, Leibniz, even John Stuart Mill or Bentham and so on anyway.)

As an aside, King Ludwig II of Bavaria never married despite being 191 cm tall and good-looking (his grandfather once said his looks would allow him to marry any women); he was certainly not a “gamma,” but a fine and suffering soul. He also had a more interesting life than those internet crazies.

They will of course claim that I am a so-called gamma myself, because of how long this page has become. The point is, however, that I need to defend myself and my worldview, and also want others to know that their views cannot go unchallenged. It is them who have been responsible for fits of rage I suffered during the last years. I am, after all, a suicide who came to Christ — in part because of Vox Day’s influence. To have to read such degenerate views by people who even think they are authorities somehow is a bit rich, nay, it is too much. Especially since often enough they try to back it up with Holy Scripture.

In one of his Darkstreams (not the infamous Men Going Evil’s Way, I think), he answered someone who asked “what is wrong about staying single” that you are not doing the one thing you were put on earth to do.

Even Andy Nowicki, who has two children and is a Catholic, said such rhetoric is over-the-top. Such views he at best heard in They Live with Mel Gibson. The protagonist is able to see hidden messages once putting on his glasses; one billboard read marry and reproduce.

Certainly, the Bible does not teach this. It may have elevated marriage, but it did not make it mandatory, which would have been an insane requirement.

But enough of this, all this arrogance puts me in a foul mood.

Even more imbecility from Vox Day, who does not seem to understand what eugenics is and why we should care about it. Unlike Chris Langan, who does not have children. Most geniuses never had children, for example. However, they are a tiny fraction of humanity anyway.

The following quote from his blog post Triggering the Irrelevant (archive.org) reaches new heights in terms of stupidity:

The future belongs to those who show up for it. Stop whining. Start fighting by getting married, having children, and planting the acorns of the trees in whose shade your grandchildren will play. Yes, there are risks. You might get your heart broken. You might lose half your toys. So what? Action requires risk and risk is inherent to life.

I was born, too, and a life of mental and physical illness now belongs to me. Way to go. Most people do not have houses, especially in Europe. So acorns will not be planted. Vox Day ignores that earning a lot of money does not correlate much with IQ, yet he always brings up his own and how important IQ is.

See Chris Langan’s take on it, which is a lot closer to the truth.

What is worse than getting one’s heart broken is to let your children grow up in a dysfunctional household because of your stupid choice of having a child with someone you do not have much in common with. Vox Day did not experience what it is like to grow up like that, unlike myself. Here again, he shows his psychopathic traits.

There is no point in whining, blackpilling, or worrying about things you can’t possibly control. If you’re not willing to take risks to build the future, if you’re not willing to live, if you’re not willing to set your face against the entropy of the universe, then you are irrelevant and your inferior genetic line will end with you, due to your cowardly narcissism.

First off: horrible rhetoric as always, so over the top that one may even believe someone hacked his blog and wanted to make fun of him. Also, Vox Day calling others narcissistic is pretty rich, he seems to lack any introspection, is not self-aware at all.

What about mass rapist Genghis Khan? Wasn’t he a horrible, horrible human being? Does Vox Day give him a free pass because he had children, maybe even more ancestors than anyone else in history?

You can control your lust, as the Bible teaches. Most children are accidents by idiots. If my line is inferior, which it is, then it is a good thing it ends with me. Why have children if you are suffering from mental illness? Suicide is a real possibility.

I guess he would say: your child may inherit your depression and blow its brains out. So what? Action requires risk and risk is inherent to life (no idea where he got this nonsense from anyway.)

Vox Day himself agrees you ought not to. It is also repugnant to think that having children is what life is about; clearly, Christ taught celibacy. William MacDonald accepts this; Vox Day does, too.

Unfortunately, blogspot removed it and Vox Day’s comment that read The Bible teaches it is best not to marry is lost somehwere in the Wayback machine (in case it was archived.) It was a blog post about Rod Dreher and his claim he would rather marry his daughter to a Somalian Christian than a white American atheist.

People who have children recklessly were punished in the past. Why does Vox Day elevate such vermin? It almost seems as if he needs to justify the existence of his children. You certainly are not more relevant by having children out of wedlock you don’t raise (like my father); would Vox Day call Chris Langan irrelevant, too?

People like Vox Day with such awful views are reason enough for me not to have children so as to spare them having to read such deranged and vulgar dung — not to speak of my horrible genetics. You do not build much by having children out of wedlock; intelligent, capable and healthy people of good breeding would need to marry and have them in this case.

How does society benefit if an impulsive, low IQ individual has children—maybe with multiple women even? If I had a child or two, with more being way too expensive, why would this be a good thing? More wage slaves? More victims for crude bullies? He was never able to answer this. The reson is simple: he is afraid of the truth of eugenics. If you are against eugenics, you are in favor of squalor, destruction, devastation.

People with high IQ have a harder time anyway, as Nils M. Holm wrote in his book Bridging the Gap.

Needless to say, Vox Day lived a hedonistic, deranged and vulgar life prior to becoming a Christian, destroying marriage with his sexual promiscuity. He should keep his mouth shut; in a civilised society, such vermin would be put to death. Worse, his father became a millionaire when he was sixteen or so – give us a break!

In one of his discussions with Stefan Molyneux, he said he drove Porsche, wore Gucci, banged international models. He lived the life of a prole like Andrew Tate.

I guess he knows how cheesy this is and now wants to paint himself as a “serious intellectual.” From time to time, Vox Day is able to put forth a worthwhile thought or two. There are other authors that are part of the online Right, like Andy Nowicki, who have children and who do not resort to using such ridiculous, tacky over-the-top rhetoric as Vox Day does time and again when the topic is family and demography.

You are a psychopath. Even if not, at least accept that you have psychopathic traits and appear very cold and autistic to most.

And it is no wonder that many are upset about the picture posted: where, in times of mass marital breakdown, do you see white families with four or five children that are not so-called “white trash?” This is crass propaganda, as if directly from a tabloid press. I am not arguing against marriage per se. I reject such trite rhetoric.

Absolutely insane how Vox Day is able to contradict himself without noticing, despite lecturing others about his high IQ. In his blog post with the vulgar title One Ticket to the Ride (https://archive.ph/sjI2B [archive.org]), he quotes Mike Cernovich:

If you’ve lived right, and done enough stuff, you won’t resent your kids or see them as having “held you back.” (That is almost always DELUSIONAL. It’s really hilarious how many people think they would have done something truly epic if only they hadn’t had kids. Kids often inspire you to become more.)

While men don’t have a biological clock the way women do, you still don’t want to die on your kids. Imagine being 70, having a kid, and dying when he’s 10. Hello? That’s creating cycles of trauma, and the number one rule of parenting is that your job is to close off cycles of trauma.

Anyway, that’s how you want to think about this subject.

Cold hard math and a little bit of biology.

You don’t have “all the time in the world.”

You get one ticket to the ride, and today is the youngest you’ll ever be.

As Andy Nowicki once said about Vox Day in his YouTube video Vox Day Swings and Misses on MGTOW: just more typical boilerplate slash diatribe; this time by Cernovich. They must feel very smart, especially considering his last sentence.

Several problems lie ahead: first off, not everyone ought to have children, most men did not have any in the past. It is no use egging on people to have children. All this leads to is increased depression among men especially, making them feel as if they are losers.

I do not even want to know what “living right” means in Cernovich’s view. Apparently, the high IQ people Nils M. Holm wrote about above are at fault themselves for society having failed them.

However, what is preposterous is his claim that dying on your child at age eighty will create trauma. Yes, it will. Just like people having children out of wedlock and then leaving them, like my father did. You idiots. Where is the difference? That they are still alive? Who cares! Such parents will be like a foreigner to you anyway.

Vox Day’s comment, as is to be expected here, is as crude as always:

It’s rather fascinating to see how many men, even men that one would not necessarily describe as having been particularly good men all along, are finding their way back to the Christian verities via a variety of paths.

He’s correct. Today is the youngest you will ever be, so make your game plan and act accordingly. The goal for a young man should be having his first child before the age of 30, and preferably as young as 25.

First off, where is this Christian? Neither Christ nor His apostles lectured men for not having children; rather, they taught that fornication and adultery are sin. Which Vox Day basically supports, even if he, as a Christian, will deny it. After all, why does he always cite sickos like the so-called Pick Up Artists? Roosh V., Krauser PUA and other miscreants.

I will not make a game plan, whatever that is. You guys who lived promiscuous lives need to keep your mouths shut regarding such a topic. Kierkegaard rightly made fun of this view already prevalent among Protestants back in his day.

His claim about the age one has to be in is typically superficial; but what do we expect … No mention of having to marry or eugenics, yet he would not want to live the life of a genetically ill person either. Think physicists like C. P. Steinmetz, who was not only hunchbacked but just four feet tall! He never married, obviously.

Also, why would that be the goal anyway? As I wrote, not even Holy Scripture teaches it; for a or every young man? In many western countries, we have compulsory schooling, where you will have to fight against foreigners of a certain religion day in, day out; it may wreck you in the end: then, however, wage slavery awaits. Great prospects! Add to this genetic illnesses, being ugly or simply too different, too far removed from the mean, and you have a life that is worthless, full of suffering … because of one’s lust? Thank you, but no thanks.

Not to speak of the fact that obviously, today’s society does not even allow you to take any risks. Even Protestant pastors have, in the 70s already!, written about how men today no longer are able to live lives of adventure and risk: traditionally male virtues. Instead, men’s work environment is highly feminized, the virtues required for it as well. Georg Huntemann likened it to living the life of caged hens. It is demeaning.

Vox Day’s over-the-top rhetoric regarding marriage is getting old anyway. As if my existence is so fantastic, so important, and my useless father who forced me into this horrible world out of wedlock and never cared is genetic cream of the crop!

No, it isn’t, and I only live because God forces us via 1. having no say in the matter about being born, let alone with what kind of health, upbringing, circumstances; 2. making suicide as gruesome as possible without human inventions like barbiturates; 3. making having children as easy as possible through a cursed, disgusting drive which requires no qualifications of those indulging in it like idiots.

For many it seems to be the most important activity there is, apparently. So God really forces us, and there is nothing noble about it. Society, then, even allows every imbecile to have a go at it.

Regarding Cernovich’s claim above regarding shielding children from trauma: as I wrote in my response to Andrew Tate, in The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom wrote that children were less traumatised by parents dying than divorcing, because the latter is an act of free will, it was their choice. You imbecile!

Regarding his quote above, what is even more disingenuous is that he talks about things one cannot possibly control, with which he seems to mean divorce? Yet, in his comments back when he was on blogspot, why did he respond to atheists regarding marriage that “we”—Christians, I guess—are not the ones getting divorced? If you cannot control this, why brag about not having been divorced?

Further, he did also agree that public schools are horrible and taught his children at home! Yet, there are countries where this is not possible at all. Add to this that in the West, migrants already make up more than the majority of children in several cities. One’s child is not at fault that the society it grows up in is being ruled by psychopaths. Yet, it may have a horrible traumatic childhood due to school. I experienced it and would not wish it on anybody.

I am also socially isolated, would have to work odd low status jobs (pleb jobs, as Andy Nowicki called his), and certainly made my case on these pages that it is not my fault for having grown up in a chaotic environment, including having inherited bad genetics. (“Female eugenics” is obvious nonsense.)

In his post The Cancellation of Russell Brand, he writes:

I’m not defending Russell Brand. He’s an awful guy, a drug addict who was embraced by the Hellmouth and married to an Illuminati princess. He has eminently earned his cancellation, and the public discourse will not be harmed one iota by his public and permanent erasure from it. He does not have, and has never had, anything of substance to offer the stream of public consciousness.

Brand is awful, the reason he lists are not the main ones, though. Vox Day will not admit that it is especially his lewd behaviour that is to be rejected; after all, in his book, he must be some kind of “alpha” or whatever. Obviously, Brand is not, he is wicked, morally he is worthless trash.

Vox Day will not admit that Brand’s “conquests” are one of the main reasons for this, because he is a sex addict himself. Whoever turns sex into a trivial activity should be hanged or shot. It is the reason I exist, which means that I have to suffer and endure an existence I never would have chosen. All because of petty lust.

Here is a post showing how Vox Day has been thinking like this for at least fifteen years now: How the West dies.

First he quotes some irrelevent author called Mark Steyn writing, among other stupdities, the following:

If Yemen cuts its fertility rate, Yemen will empty out. If Britain cuts its fertility rate, Yemen will move in.

So this Steyn guy has no clue anyway, since the fertility of previous times would be way too high considering today’s death rate. In the 19th century, Denmark had a population of around one million, with Copenhagen having around 120.000 inhabitants. Now, around 1.2 million people live in Copenhagen, with Denmark as a whole having a population of more than five million.

There is no point in artificially keeping to a population of X million which European nations never had before anyway. The quality is of equal importance, if not more so. In Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson, an author Vox Day is aware of, we read of battles that were won by armies less numerous than their enemies due to superior technology.

Further, you thwart immigration by securing your borders, not by increasing your nation’s fertility rate. Idiot.

Now I will cite part of Vox Day’s take:

Didn’t the vision of a humanity without children used to belong to dark and dystopian sci-fi? I picked up a magazine at the fitness club the other day and happened to open it to a list of the 15 largest cities in the world now and projected for 2015. It was interesting to note that none of them were in Europe and that the story was lamenting the possibility that Europe would become less and less important in the world as its percentage of the global populace shrank relative to Asia, Africa and the Americas.

No, dystopias of worth would rather paint a bleak picture of a stupider and stupider or hedonistic populace, which is what movies like Idiocracy did.

Apart from that, India is one of the most populous nations and hardly a place you would want to live. India is proof that you need more than just raw numbers of people. It is not capable.

Addition 2024-08-02: It’s like living in an ant colony. Who wants that? Quoting Don Colacho:

Depopulate and reforest—first civilizing rule.

Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560.
The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

A limited population produces fewer ordinary intelligences than a numerous population, but it can produce an equal or greater number of talents.
Great demographic densities are the breeding grounds of mediocrity.

An abrupt demographic expansion rejuvenates society and makes its stupidities recrudesce.

End of addition 2024-08-02.

If I would have children, they would turn out to be depressed losers who get bullied in school and want to kill themselves. Imagine they do that! Ending up in eternal damnation. No, we need eugenics, as Christopher Langan understands as well. Who is much, much smarter than Vox Day is.

I am not dismissing all of Vox Day. His views on marriage, demographics, eugenics and so on, though, are to be rejected because of his fear of limiting fertility of genetic dung like myself. This tough guy attitude he claims for himself is a lie, otherwise why be afraid of sterilising vermin like my father, who did not care about me anyway? It is important who has children. My existence is a mistake.

In a blog post titled The Scorpion’s Lament, Vox Day wrote:

“From a historical point of view, this shouldn’t be a surprise. In six thousand years of recorded history, there have only been a limited number of great civilizations, which collectively make up a very small percentage of the total number of peoples and societies across world history. And the preferences, customs, traditions, and laws of most societies are observably not capable of creating or sustaining any form of civilization, let alone one that approaches the heights of Western European civilization circa 1800 – 1950.”

(Emphasis mine.)

This just shows the basic disagreement between those who value cultural achievements over mere technology. Otherwise, he would need to answer why he thinks a period of decline to be the height of the “West” — “West” being a highly suspicious term anyway, since Germany, one of the few cultural powerhouses for sure, never was part of it until recently.

I would rather claim that the 19th century was the last one where good breeding and high cultural standard reigned. 1950 would mean, at best, global hegemony of the US; that is all.

In his Darkstream #1095 titled Identify SSH with this One Simple Trick (somewhere between the 17th and 18th minute), he made the strange and self-defeating remark that the so-called sigma is more likely to date strange-looking women. He may simply like her neck or so.

This, obviously, is superficial and crude; I have cited Nils M. Holm already. Further—not that I cared much, if at all, about such stuff—if those brilliant sigma men do not even date the most beautiful women or so, what is the point of all this arrogant nonsense?

It would be ridiculous and unimportant either way, but this is getting to the point where I suspect that those taking this SSH stuff (i.e. his subjective and historically limited “socio-sexual hierarchy”) seriously have some kind of mental illness.

Dating was not allowed in the past anyway, you had to ask the woman’s father first; which is why, later in the video, Vox Day’s “advice” not to hit on the young women when being in a setting where you are suddenly the alpha—it is all “fractal” or so—is another proof for his shallowness.

I certainly have no interest in this; you could pay me even and I would not want to have any relations at all with a supermodel with whom I have nothing in common with.

Sad that Vox Day, as one of the few believing Christians of the online Right, has destroyed it all because of putting lust on a pedestal. No thinker of great worth ever wrote and talked so much about women, game, and all the other deranged dung that goes with it.

Regarding the entry above: the answer on how to identify someone’s rank in this rather ludicrous hierarchy is to ask for help with some problem. If one gets no as an answer, you are dealing with an alpha! No joke. I would rather say you are dealing with an arrogant, horrible person with bad manners.

Maybe Vox Day would even agree and say it does not matter, this is simply what being an alpha is, he just gives us the tools to identify them. I find it rude and rather ask myself why we ought to tolerate such behaviour, even elevating it by placing them at the top.

Is this all there is? Why accept such a value system? Is there nothing better, something nobler?

In one of his posts I am unable to find—it was called Being Literate, I think—he did mention rather important authors, including Dante and Shakespeare, though he left out Goethe (for whom Borges learned German [via Heine’s poetry], though he ended up reading mostly Schopenhauer.)

Vox Day should tone it down a little, since Goethe’s Faust clearly is a work of great importance that cannot be left out.

In a new post called Why the Risk is Worth it, he writes:

Now, it’s true that the Christian marriage advocates are, for the most part, blathering morons. Pretty much all the stuff they say about the beauty and perfection of a marital relationship is total nonsense based on relative ignorance; they know about as much of the materialist joys of modern hedonism as a medieval Catholic monk. They’re teetotallers comparing a nice cup of tea to cocaine. The joys of the godless may be but for a moment, but they are real.

[…]

As one gets older, the more import one places on one’s legacy and the less one places on transitory pleasures and ephemeral happiness. And also, the more you realize that your regrets tend to be based more on the risks you failed to take rather than the failures you experienced.

So Vox Day wants to claim that having promiscuous sex is like cocaine; even if, who cares? Only because Christians sometimes do express rather silly views regarding marriage, which Andy Nowicki critiques as well in his Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker, it does not mean that one has to believe that the opposite is true either, namely that copulation is, for the most part, more than just tiresome and boring.

As Nicolás Gómez Dávila wrote:

It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

Even back as an atheist I did not care for having unpleasant, sloppy sex. Despite his 150 IQ, he is unable to understand that his preference for hedonism is just as subjective as my preference for suicide. Why should we place any importance on the joys of sniffing cocaine and having intercourse with whores—as you did—when it is just your own subjective opinion?

Gary Wilson and others who researched pornography addiction came to understand that men even lost interest in copulation. What pornography offered seemed more alluring to them. So what? Pornography is even better than the real thing – at least in the minds of such men. That such pleasure is real does not mean it’s satisfying; playing the piano or reading Greek is not sin; adultery and fornication are, though, and those indulging in it are at the very least hollow and shallow people.

It’s the lifestyle of a prole, as per Paul Fussell. I could argue that ending one’s life is the better option. Or that being able to read Greek brings you a lot more joy. It would be subjective, too. That only a minority would understand the last two options does not make them any less valid than your prolish majority view of life. After all, because a majority holds something to be true does not make it so. Of all people, Vox Day ought to know this.

I’m not surprised, though, given a few years ago, he wrote that the West is indeed superior, otherwise the third world would not move in. He also told Stefan Molyneux once that he’s against mass immigration because he wants flush toilets. The current West is degenerate and dying. We live during times where vermin like Andrew Tate are broadcasted.

He is crude. Why, though, act as if your crudeness should be the standard of how we ought to value things? Due to Vox Day’s arrogance?

I always felt like a stranger and pilgrim in this world, even as an atheist. I never believed a woman—or, worse, meaningless copulation—would have solved any of my problems.

There are others who are not Christian and lived such a lewd and deranged life, then came to reject it, as I noted earlier.

As Kierkegaard wrote in his Journals:

ABOUT MYSELF

From very early on my life has been tormented in a way that must be hard to match; this is how I have differed from the common run. But I have differed from the common run of sufferers in turn by its never having occurred to me that there might be help to seek or to find among men; no, suffering was my distinction.

Vox Day wouldn’t get it, of course; he’s just a shallow and crude person.

The risk you’re taking is not a risk you take with your own life, you imbecile, but with the person you forced into this world!

What if your child develops depression because of divorce and commits suicide? Eternal damnation awaits! Because of your horniness.

Vox Day does not care, of course, that I am right about God forcing us to live; he’d say God’s creation, God’s rules. The problem with Vox Day has always been his prolish nature and past; his father is an engineer, after all, which, while usually high IQ, is a profession mostly chosen by proles.

Vox Day cannot understand that even if you had the opportunity to mate with as many beautiful women as possible; even if you could live such a life: as long as one longs for a sense of meaning, which I did back even as an atheist, it holds no interest.

You go on about your high IQ and how you are sigma and so on who wore Gucci, drove Porsche, banged international models, as you told Molyneux.

Trouble is that I already linked to Nils M. Holm’s writings, where he writes about the struggles of people with IQs 3.5 to 5 standard deviations above the mean.

You will not have much in common with most people, so the lifestyle you lived is only interesting to either people of average IQ—most “PUA” bloggers—, or to those who are crude and psychopathic, like you, Vox Day. Proles, basically.

If you, apart from having a rather high IQ, also have interests and sensibilities that are violated nowadays on all fronts, like having taste and a preference for high culture, good breeding – why would you feel any satisfaction from copulating with hordes of women, no matter how great they look? How long does sexual intercourse take? What will you do after you’re “finished”? Lie in bed beside a woman you have nothing in common with, who feels like an alien person to you? Only because you wanted to satisfy your lust?

You are a crude person, Vox Day; your life advice is dung, mostly.

What he says about “legacy” and happiness is another proof that he’s incapable of even understanding the mindset of the great men he always wanted to emulate, but can’t. They did not seek happiness; Goethe didn’t, he never had two or three weeks in his life, as he told Eckermann, where he was happy through and through: his life felt like having to move a rock upon a hill, and then all over again – like the life of Sisyphus.

Further, as one becomes older: no, as you become older, maybe, since Hugh Hefner lived such a deranged life into old age, as I wrote before. I never cared for happiness when I was younger.

Leaving a legacy is not Christian, it teaches the opposite. Cf. Kierkegaard’s writings. The mother of the woman he quotes committed suicide at age 67, despite having had children. What is he trying to tell us with his risk-taking nonsense? You are taking a risk with my life, not yours. Idiot.

Kierkegaard made fun of this awful breeder rhetoric, too.

In yet another blogpost, titled The Case for the Gamma Male, he, no joke!, writes Latin:

[…] de gustibus non disputandum est […]

We all know that he does not know Latin, yet he knows he actually ought to know it, since his boastful persona online, especially when it comes to the topic of literature, comes off as rather ridiculous.

Don Colacho knew, of course:

Someone who did not learn Latin and Greek goes through life convinced, even though he may deny it, that he is only semi-cultured.

The rest he wrote in this post is not worth commenting on, the usual boilerplate/diatribe as Andy Nowicki called his “Darkstream” Men Going Evil’s Way.

I have already explained that you are writing about the average guy, not high IQ men. Most so-called relationships of high IQ men and women are uneasy compromises at best, as Nils M. Holm correctly noted.

One last remark regarding an older post titled The tragedy of the mid-witted, where he writes:

[…]

Newton had one of the most astonishing minds ever possessed by homo sapiens sapiens, but he would not have become one of the most awe-inspiring geniuses of history had he never stopped to think about his casual observations of the material world. Genius is not born, it is self-created.

Here again, he shows his shallowness. It’s Newton Newton Newton, almost no one else. While he also cited Mozart, does he really think that Newton was greater than Leibniz or Pascal? I would rather go with the latter two; Leibniz was most likely even more intelligent. Or take Kierkegaard: he wrote twelve books in eight years, all of which are masterpieces. He died aged forty-two, and left behind some of the deepest philosophical reflections that ever occured to a human mind. Don Colacho even learned Danish for reading Kierkegaard.

Addition 2024-01-19:
(They—Newton, Leibniz, Pascal, Kierkegaard—also never married; Kierkegaard broke off his engagement, the other three never came in close contact to a woman, as far as I know.)

I am not that surprised, though, since he also values Aristotle over Plato, even once uttering the stupid and uneducated remark that Plato was one of the first leftists (!!). Is wrong, of course, as Don Colacho remarked (I paraphrase): in every reactionary, Plato comes to life.

However, prior to that praise of Newton, he wrote this telling paragraph:

Intelligence doesn’t concern name-checking authors nor does it consist of being literate or even well-read. And even if one has been granted unusual cognitive capacity by the grace of God or the roll of the genetic dice, it remains little more than potential until one proves that one can actually do something, preferably something worthwhile, with it. Just as the mere fact of height doesn’t make one a basketball player, the mere fact of high intelligence doesn’t make one a genius, a philosopher, or anything else except a statistical oddity.

… but what about your nonsense about VHIQ vs. UHIQ …? Do you think we are that stupid to not notice? If IQ alone is not that important—and you were older than forty when writing this—, then why this nonsense about your superior IQ and the importance of supposed UHIQ intelligence?

I will also link, for the umpteenth time, to the importance of eugenics. Genetic dice: God has nothing to do with this, He does not determine your genetics, He would then be a criminial, given that many awful hereditary diseases exist. Rather, man has been given the ability to reason, which he then may use to implement eugenics. This would have spared me having to live this life. Intelligence is mostly inherited, just like ugliness is, like my hunched back that is paining me hard right now while writing this nonsense.

Vox Day sounds like a broken record. No idea why people still read him. What he writes about women, marriage and his general “life advice” is false, crude, prole and to be rejected.

2024-01-09: notice how really smart chaps like Chris Langan never write in such a vulgar manner about “getting women” or being an “alpha” male. Further, again Vox Day claimed that one cannot argue over taste — see the quote in Latin above, which, even if meant in a derogatory fashion, he wrote regarding women! Why, then, put others down because of how their wives look? Which is what he and his posse often enough are doing.
As for his idea what constitutes “pleasure”, this is rather subjective also; for Carl Schmitt, pleasure meant to play with his daughter and grand-children – not to “bang” floozies, to use their jargon.
In any case, Langan used his time and brain to think about more important matters.

From a blog post titled The Seventh Tribe …

Now, my literal spatial relations retardery leaves me just short of these proposed general limits. However, both VHIQs and UHIQs tend to immediately recognize each other, which is why I’m accepted as a peer despite my obvious limitations by fellow Eminent intellects like Steve Keen and Martin van Creveld, and why I get along instinctively well with musical prodigies like Paul Sebastien and CCK despite my near-complete absence of musical talent. Light recognizes light.

I don’t even know who Paul Sebastien and CCK is. The former most likely part of his 90s band. This is pop culture stuff. Who takes this seriously?

Some narcissistic hogwash:

If you are capable of recognizing the pattern, you will recall that despite there being several VHIQ and UHIQ readers here, you never see them dismissing my conclusions out of hand. If you think about it, you can probably figure out why. A fellow 150-IQ friend once observed that he was frightened to think what my functional IQ is if the spatial relations element was left out of the equation; I figure it would probably work out to around 183 depending upon how bad the spatial relations were and how heavily they were weighted, which strikes me as a reasonable approximation in light of how I always felt our friend, who had a confirmed 175 IQ, was a little on the slow side.

Also, to be clear, I do not believe genius is a quantifiable measurement. Genius can only be measured in terms of genuine accomplishment, not in terms of fame, reputation, awards, or a number. Many, if not most, of the reported “genuises” of intellectual history, such as Darwin, Ricardo, Edison, or Einstein, are nothing more than useful frauds who benefitted from marketing campaigns.

I haven’t gotten my hands on the records yet, but I was part of a Harvard IQ study when I was very young and reportedly tested absurdly high in one particular area, which area I would now assume to have been pattern recognition, or at the very least, something that encompassed pattern recognition. Not to go all grandiose and Miles Mathis on you, but the simple and observable fact is that there are very few minds in history capable of developing two conclusive mathematical disproofs of theories that have survived for nearly 300 years or a predictive model of human behavior such as the socio-sexual hierarchy, never mind all three.

He cannot be serious?! The so-called “socio-sexual hierarchy” is just a way for Vox Day to puff himself up, it is highly subjective and shoehorns everyone into his system of human behaviour – and he does not even pronounce the Greek correctly! As someone who wants to be seen as classically educated, he simply lacks the verbal ability for it. His knowledge of Latin and Greek is most likely deficient.

Vox Day seems rather capapble of presenting arguments from unexpected angles, which is why I kind of liked “The Irrational Atheist” despite the rather inane humor and, of course, his psychopathic downplay of human suffering.

However, his arrogance is insufferable, and while I don’t claim to understand Chris Langan’s CTMU, it at least appears to be more respectable than some hierachy about sex … which is not even new. The alpha/beta distinction has its origin in the animal kingdom. Yet, he thinks it is perfectly fine to use such crude, overly simplistic nonsense and apply it to human society … not even taking into account different centuries and different customs or cultures? Does he think an “alpha” in the US is also an alpha among primitive peoples?

To quote Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has be en gradually losing his knowledge of man.

The majority of properly modern customs would be crimes in an authentically civilized society.

The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.

With the disappearance of the upper class, there is nowhere to take refuge from the smugness of the middle class and the rudeness of the lower class.

The majority of new customs are old behaviors that western civilization had shamefacedly confined to its lower-class neighborhoods.

Further, I don’t have much in common with most people anyway, why would it be preferable to be with a woman, no matter what number—another “invention” by Vox Day?—she is?

Then he claims that his IQ would actually be above 180 if one would leave out his spatial intelligence. Is this for real? He wrote this in 2024, was born in 1968 … is he joking or really that superficial? Also, it would kind of make him an autist in a sense, given how skewed his abilities are.

Finally, why would that matter anyway? Langan’s wife has an IQ of around ~168, Langan of 195-210. He would still be smarter and is less condecending regarding marriage. Understandably, since he was lonely most of his life and married when he was almost fifty.

Speculation about how high one’s IQ would be, despite having been tested at least three times, as he once said, is just ridiculous. Just accept the fact that it’s ~150. Which is already very high. So what? Langan’s ist still higher; Thomas Wolf, a german computer scientist, has an IQ of at least 190, since he is member of the Giga Society or so. What does this mean? That his thinking is even superior to … Vox Day’s?! No way!

To quote Gómez Dávila:

A high “intelligence quotient” is indication of distinguished mediocrity.

Don’t you see how ridiculous this is? I found some of what Vox Day wrote on history, the current elites, and at times even Christianity to be worth reading. However, he seems to have some ego issues, otherwise why talk so much about women and “getting some”? Seems as if he does not want to associate with “nerds”, which is he simply calls “gammas”, and tries to appear tough and manly – despite being a nerd. I don’t see being “nerdish” negatively, no idea why Vox Day needs to push such a crude cult of masculinity.

Regarding Darwin and Einstein, he may be right; no idea about Edison, though. Without Edison, Tesla would not have been able to get to the US, as far as I know. While Tesla was a genius of sorts, he lived a rather wasteful life and had long periods where he was not very productive. He supported eugenics though, showing that he groked the importance of it.

And the fact that the author is not himself a member of the Eminent community can be seen in his erroneous belief that Scary Bright people “are unlikely to believe in gods”. To the contrary, most of us not only believe in gods in one form or another, but our thoughts on the subject are considerably more esoteric, and exotic, than most of us would ever share in public. The conventional dogmatic models simply do not suffice to explain the available evidence; there is a reason I repeatedly tell you that the world is not only weirder than we believe, it is considerably stranger than most of us are even capable of imagining.

Frankly, I’m dubious that anyone beyond high midwit level can manage to genuinely cling to atheistic materialism any longer in light of the clear evidence of supernatural evil at work everywhere in the world around us. And the idea that “nothing instills dread in a smart person like knowing that they are not the smartest” is an intrinsically midwit proposition; every VHIQ and UHIQ not only knows he is not the smartest, but can usually rattle off a list of people that he knows is smarter than he is, and whom he admires.

world is not only weirder than we believe: indeed! However, Vox Day shys away from accepting that entering the world via the organs we hide because of shame, organs which are used mostly to get rid of bodily waste! … is somehow not worth pondering? I wrote about this at length here, people either have it in them. Or they don’t.

I am well aware of his theology, and it is good he does not share it in public, since it is crude and awful. I have mentioned it above. Ideas like God creating for His own “amusement” and other horrific views that only a psychopath could hold.

Whereas my critical view on our biological origins gets trashed because it puts som distance on their hierarchy dung, their looking down on men who are “gammas”, i. e. basically nerds or losers, as they were called in the past. Based on what or whose metric? Vox Day’s of course.

I rather live according to the Bible, and take inspiration from great men of the past, even if they were heathen. Seneca knew that lust is even worse than hatreds and wars

It also does not matter much how weird the world is to a soldier dying on the battlefield at age nineteen. I would never have chosen this life had I been asked, and I would simply put a bullet through my head if I did not fear eternal damnation. Nothing in the world except God can force one to live, which also shows how awful this world is.

Simply accept the fact that God forces us to live by a) having cursed us with sexuality, which did not exist in Garden Eden, yet is what man is lusting after his whole life; b) threatening us with eternal damnation, which is true but also a horrible doctrine, which can be seen in imbeciles trying to claim that Hell is not eternal, despite Holy Scripture teaching that it is; and c) making suicide as unpleasant and horrifying as possible, so that many drag on through life who would otherwise end it.

Also, I think most people, be they smart or not, usually don’t think much about the problem of evil, they mostly ignore it, being master at compartmentalization. This is basic stuff, since there are numerous Christians who, due to some life changing event, became born-again Christians. Therefore, I don’t see how this has much to do with intelligence per se.

With the rest, I cannot disagree much, would agree that the author he responds to is lacking in understanding of what high IQ actually is. His claim that the world is an “oyster” for those with IQs that are 3+ sigma is so wrong, it could not be further from the truth. You only need to study the lives of great men of the past. They mostly suffered. Even Goethe. Leibniz once noted that he hardly knows anyone with whom he is able to talk about topics that matter to him.

I think the best that has been written about high IQ and how it creates a lot of tension—instead of paving the way for a good “carreer”—is Nils M. Holm’s unfinished book “Bridging the Gap. The Reconciliation of Intelligence and Culture” [epub] as well as his essay “Where Do The Failed 0.1% Go?” he wrote for the Triple Nine Society. Another article he wrote I found less interesting: What to do with a high IQ?.

In a blog post titled Anacyclosis in Action, Vox Day cites someone whom he sees to be historically very educated – just an assertion of course … but he knows about Polybios, so it has to be correct. (Whom I, poor as I am, only own as epub version [via Delphi Classics, now “woke”, unfortunately].)

The part of the quote that is hogwash:

[…] They spread by breeding. […]

(With they, the author means religions.)

To which I reply that this is not true, at least if he wants to see parallels to our own time. Christianity spread, as Vox Day does not tire to repeat, via twelve frightened men. They did not go on to have large families, most of them were killed.

This is even part of the Bible itself: Romans 10:14-15:

^14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

^15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Then, when the faith spread enough so that whole states became Christian, one enforces it. This is how it was done, at least in terms of Christianity.

Vox Day is obsessed with sex and breeding … It is ridiculous! I could sire thirty children and it would not change a thing about the deranged societies we in the West have to live in.

Don Colacho knew also:

The people does not convert to the religion preached by a militant minority, but to the one imposed by a militant minority. Christianity and Islam knew it; Communism knows it.

In one of his latest post, Vox Day linked to his sigma game substack. Not sure who writes this and I won’t link to it.

It shows, though, that nothing can be done, that the pessimist is right. After all, the post in question wants us to know that J. D. Vance is not even a beta (or whatever) based on an older photo with his wife, where he, according to the sigma game post, looks like a wimp/milquetoast or whatever.

First off, who cares? Secondly, Leonardo di Caprio, who, as Vox Day wrote, replaces his girlfriends—degenerate, as I wrote thousand of times—once they reach the age of twenty-five, looked like one, too.

Notice the double standard? How subjective their mush is? Simply accept the fact that sexual selection does not exist—there is no struggle for life—and that we are dealing with an irrational drive anyway.

In this post, he writes:

Elon Musk, like Albert Einstein, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Gould, and Richard Dawkins, is a fake intellectual. There are many men whose aphorisms and utterances I have observed to contain sparks of brilliance, insight, and wisdom. Umberto Eco. Thomas Aquinas. Jerry Pournelle. Martin van Creveld. William S. Lind. Christopher Hallpike. John C. Wright. Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Nicholas Machiavelli. GK Chesterton. JRR Tolkien. Above all, Aristotle.

This may be an incomplete list, it still a very strange and telling selection of authors. As if John C. Wright is comparable to Aristotle. Since he does mention older authors, it seems that this is all he values of past ages. What about Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, who’d readily come to mind? I remember seeing a video with him and Molyneux, where Vox Day – no joke – criticized Dostoevsky for some passages that he, being a lead editor, would write differently. It’s even more ridiculous knowing that he does not read Russian, meaning the translator may be at fault here.

Either way, neither Aquinas nor Thomism I need to like; the Eastern Orthodox Church even rejects scholasticism completely.

In another post about Elon Musk, he quotes someone on X writing that Ashley St. Clair claimed she first did not have any interest in Musk, which may have been a lie.

The poster may be right, I don’t care about this much. It is telling that Vox Day does not comment on much of this. After all, it is nothing new or surprising that women don’t always like someone on first sight to then even end up getting married. Such stories are numerous, just as many men did not remember doing anything special to “win a woman’s heart”.

Contrary to what Vox Day and his posse often write. Of course, he’d claim they are alpha, beta, sigma or delta – ridiculous, I know – depending on what women – from 1 to 10 … – they married.

Obviously, I don’t take any of that serious. I grew up with Schopenhauer, Weininger, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche et cetera. Kierkegaard was a believing Christian even. They understood the matter way better than any of those online shysters.

It is therefore telling that he mentions on authors of the 19th century. Schopenhauer’s view on women and love are way superior. His Metaphysics of Sexual Love are still more relevant than any of the dung imbeciles like koanic, Tomassi, Filotto (The Kurgan) wrote and write. Even Vox Day’s friend Roosh V. praised Schopenhauer’s On Women.

Why not face it? Our biological origins are irrational, there is no thought involved, no sexual “selection” or any of that nonsense. It is and will always be an irrational drive based on lust. That’s it. No man or woman takes a step back and starts “calculating”. Or even analyzes your DNA; this would be a rather disgusting step even.

Finally, he should simply accept that Christopher Langan, whom he does not reject – to be fair, at least he accepts that his CTMU is at best Christian-compatible, though I don’t see how: it rejects Christ’s sacrifice – has a higher IQ.

But what does this even mean? In one of the latest interviews with Langan, titled “The Interview THEY Didn’t Want You To See”, Langan does not reject IQ, though he clearly does not put too much emphasis on it. On the other hand, Vox Day even came up with this UHIQ/VHIQ nonsense.

Worse, Vox Day writes:

I always had my doubts about Einstein’s so-called “genius” after reading a few of his writings; his thinking simply didn’t exhibit any evidence of high, let alone superlative, intelligence. But lacking any rationale for why anyone would bother to construct a myth around a single individual, I simply assumed that he was strong in some areas and normal in others.

I haven’t read anything of Einstein. On the other hand, Langan once said:

“… and Albert Einstein (Einstein is widely regarded as a physicist, but his work goes so deeply into the fundamental nature of reality that he can also be read as a metaphysical philosopher).”

Maybe Vox Day should simply accept that his arrogance is not warranted, that he is sex-obsessed. After all, in the interview linked to above, Langan even says he was thirsty for meaning, not for women or money. And applauds those who invest more into the search for meaning than anything else.

Yet, I remember Vox Day writing in his comments—back when he was on blogspot—that there is more to life than religion to someone making a reference to the Bible. Langan even says you cannot pursue both, truth and mammon!

The problem here is not low IQ, but truth. Just as I wrote on these pages for several years now. It does not matter if my IQ is 100, 150 or 210. Something is either true or it isn’t; and Vox Day’s chest-thumping about chasing skirts and making money is superficial and false. Langan is closer to it, as he was poor most of his life and rather lonely until he married – then almost fifty years old! Would Vox Day also berate Langan about not having had children?

Langan might punch him into the ground if he did that. There aren’t many online with the intellectual calibre of Langan or Vox Day, yet I have a hard time ignoring their defects. Both are quite arrogant, though Langan seems more compassionate. Maybe as a result of his harsh life? Vox Day’s father became a millionaire when Vox Day was around sixteen years old. Langan also got beat up by his step-father.

(Yet, Vox Day is a believing Christian whereas Langan clings to his pet theory I reject.)

His use of “intellectual” in a non-derogatory way shows how far removed Vox Day is from truly educated men like Gómez Dávila. It’s all we got, I guess, living in times of decay. Still, coming up with the “SSH” (his hierarchy dung) as well as the VHIQ/UHIQ idiocy is hardly something to be proud of. Langan does not even bother with such nonsense. And I reject his CTMU, too.

I find him to be less arrogant, though. Which is telling, since an IQ of 210 would mean that his IQ is four deviations above Vox Day’s, one deviation more than Vox Day’s is above the mean.

Why not face it? Langan’s IQ is higher! Does this now mean you’ll go by every word he says or writes? After all, he wrote quite a lot on politics and topics like marriage, too. If Vox Day rejects any of this, it cannot be because he has a lower IQ. His only recourse would be his hierarchy: he is sigma, Langan is a delta (or whatever). Maybe this was the original reason for coming up with this deranged stuff in the first place.