The Vox Day thread - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: The Vox Day thread (/thread-67386.html)

---

The Vox Day thread - RexImperator - 02-26-2018

We already have a thread devoted to his former game/socio-sexual hierarchy blog (Alpha Game), which he has since handed off to another writer, but given that political discussions about him have nearly derailed several threads, we could use a thread on his political and cultural writings, Vox Popoli:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/

I noticed that he has a first video out today from his "Voxiversity" series, and it looks good:






I would say he is certainly one of the smarter writers associated with the "alternative right" movement.

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-26-2018

Vox is one of the most insightful writers on the internet. He's been my "read first thing in the morning" blog for going on eight or nine years now.
He was kind enough to link to me several times in my Reaxxion days, too, which I've always appreciated.

Whether you agree with him all the time or not, he's a must-read if you're into political stuff, and leagues ahead of the idiots on twitter and youtube: Wictor, Styx Hexxenhammer, and the rest of that gang of morons.

---

The Vox Day thread - CynicalContrarian - 02-26-2018

Yep. Disagree with his conclusions if one must, yet his underlying intellect is clearly higher than most commentators / personalities.

---

The Vox Day thread - Yatagan - 02-26-2018

His books on SJWs "SJWs Always Lie" and "SJWs Always Double Down" are ace.

---

The Vox Day thread - Enoch - 02-26-2018

Dude is a true polymath who has taken the path less travelled. Best blog on the internet. An ex hated his content which is how I knew she wasnt the one.

---

The Vox Day thread - Samseau - 02-27-2018

I'm glad he will call out fake conservatives or harmful leaders like Richard Spencer or Ben Shapiro, but he leaves out Andrew Anglin. Anglin did a great job in a debate against Vox, and I guess Vox has come to his senses.

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:01 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm glad he will call out fake conservatives or harmful leaders like Richard Spencer or Ben Shapiro, but he leaves out Andrew Anglin. Anglin did a great job in a debate against Vox, and I guess Vox has come to his senses.

Vox calls Anglin out at least once a week. He was making a side dig at them in a thread just the other day.

---

The Vox Day thread - 911 - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-26-2018 07:47 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

We already have a thread devoted to his former game/socio-sexual hierarchy blog (Alpha Game), which he has since handed off to another writer, but given that political discussions about him have nearly derailed several threads, we could use a thread on his political and cultural writings, Vox Popoli:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/

I noticed that he has a first video out today from his "Voxiversity" series, and it looks good:

I would say he is certainly one of the smarter writers associated with the "alternative right" movement.

Sorry but he comes across as a lightweight here, his take on this subject is high on bells and whistles in terms of graphics and pageantry, but a pretty superficial take as far as overall depth and his treatment of the subject of the 1965 Immigration Act.

16 minutes of talk, and instead of telling you who is behind this open border policy, for what motives, and what are its challenges and consequences - journalism 101 Who, What, When, Where, Why & How - instead of this, it's about Romans and Gauls, cool WW2 footage and snappy graphics. Great production values, I'll give him that, but not much substance.

Some glaring factual errors too, like his saying that the WW2 German invasion of France was bloodless, when 600,000 French people actually died.

And no mention of the people behind the open border '65 act (Senator Jacob Javits (NY), Congressman Emanuel Celler (NY), President of American Jewish Congress (AJC) Leo Pfeffer, Norman Podhoretz etc). How can you address that problem if you don't even care to investigate the nature and motive of its proponents?

He's wrong about his conclusion too, the thesis that there will be war when the immigrant population reaches 1/3. In Canada it's already close to 1/4, and will reach 1/3 in less that 20 years. And of course in the major cities we're already way above that in Vancouver or Toronto, where immigrants are well over 50%. No war today in Canada, or in decades to come, when immigrants will be the majority, just a gradual erosion and change in the national character (see Trudeau in India).

In the US as well you have the same dynamics, except immigration is more Hispanic and the population base is larger, but the process is well on track:



The real problem with Vox and many other popular alti-sh pundits like him is that they will withhold the main pieces of the puzzle on crucial subjects like this, either as a misread, or as a misdirection.

Contrast with Kevin MacDonald's take on the same issue. No fancy graphics, but penetrating analysis dissecting the heart of the problem in just 10 minutes, analysis that seems out of reach for Vox:

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-27-2018

This is another thing that I like about Vox, is that people who try to argue against him inevitably reveal themselves to be dishonest.

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:06 AM)911 Wrote:  

Some glaring factual errors too, like his saying that the WW2 German invasion of France was bloodless, when 600,000 French people actually died.

You're lying that he said this. He didn't.
From the video: "...even the war for France, was, compared to WW1 and other wars, relatively bloodless."

Quote:Quote:

He's wrong about his conclusion too, the thesis that there will be war when the immigrant population reaches 1/3. In Canada it's already close to 1/4, and will reach 1/3 in less that 20 years. And of course in the major cities we're already way above that in Vancouver or Toronto, where immigrants are well over 50%. No war today in Canada, or in decades to come, when immigrants will be the majority, just a gradual erosion and change in the national character (see Trudeau in India).

You're lying that this was his conclusion.
Again from the video: "What we do know, is that if we look at past migrations, conflict becomes a lot more likely once there's a group that is about a third of the population. A self-identified group that is about a third of the population...

"Immigrants" are not a self-identified group. "Chinese" are a self-identified group, so are "muslims", but "immigrants" are not.

Quote:Quote:

The real problem with Vox and many other popular alti-sh pundits like him is that they will withhold the main pieces of the puzzle on crucial subjects like this, either as a misread, or as a misdirection.

Another lie. Here's a quote from one of his posts, "The Twilight of US Jewry".

Quote:Quote:

The heart of the problem, of course, is that far too many Jews, like (((Bret Stephens))) and (((Jennifer Rubin))), don't give a damn about America or about Americans. Which would be fine; neither do most Somalis or Argentinians. The problem is that US-based Jews have been influencing US foreign and domestic policy to the detriment of Americans for the last seven decades, and Americans are now increasingly aware of this. Hence the rise of Donald Trump and the rise of the Alt-Right, among other things.

That's why Jewish Republicans like (((Levin))), (((Shapiro))) and (((Goldberg))) are so uncharacteristically out of tune with the American electorate. Their behavior is proof of the wisdom of the Christ they reject, who warned us that a man cannot serve two masters.

Israel has nothing to fear from America, but anyone who insists on trying to convince Americans to continue acting against their own national interest eventually will, whether one prefers to regard them as an foreign enemy or a domestic one. Just as those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of that nation.

Regardless, it should be readily apparent that anyone who first seeks "what is good for the Jews" rather than "what is good for the Americans" is no genuine American. In fact, it is very clear that they hate America and Americans.

“The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
- (((Ben Wattenberg))), Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute[

Either you're being dishonest, or you're not smart enough to actually hear what he's saying.

---

The Vox Day thread - 911 - 02-27-2018

Sounds like you're too emotionally invested here to be objective Sam. Obviously I'm not lying, you're being overly touchy and irrational here, which is too bad because you're usually a fairly level-headed poster.

-In what universe is a battle with 600,000 French people dead "relatively bloodless"? There were nearly 1 million dead on the western front in 1939-41 if you include German and Allied casualties (Belgium, UK etc). Is 1 million dead "relatively bloodless"? Sorry but that's just a preposterous notion, especially to someone like myself who has lost relatives on that front.

-Hispanics are about 20% of US population and will reach 1/3 in 2 to 3 decades, but once again, they're already at or above that 1/3 treshhold in most of the Southwest.



There aren't any wars in California or TX, I'm not saying that the change in national character and loss of European heritage is a good thing, far from it, I'm just saying that his assumption that it will lead to a civil war is wrong. It will just be a different country, more like Brazil but not a warzone.

On the last paragraph you plucked out and quoted above, he said none of this material in that 16min video about the dangers of immigration, which shows his basic lack of understanding on the nature and motivation behind the open border mass immigration project of 1965. I doubt he's on board with MacDonald's analysis.

I'm not that familiar with Day actually, but from the little I've seen of him there is a lot to criticize. Someone who states that "those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of Israel"... really?!?

And did he really pull the Pocahantas/Warren Indian card?

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 01:40 AM)911 Wrote:  

-In what universe is a battle with 600,000 French people dead "relatively bloodless"? There were nearly 1 million dead on the western front in 1939-41 if you include German and Allied casualties (Belgium, UK etc). Is 1 million dead "relatively bloodless"? Sorry but that's just a preposterous notion, especially to someone like myself who has lost relatives on that front.

It's relatively compared to the 41 million casualties and 23 million dead of World War I, as in the example given. It's less than 5%.

Quote:Quote:

-Hispanics are about 20% of US population and will reach 1/3 in 2 to 3 decades, but once again, they're already at or above that 1/3 treshhold in most of the Southwest.



There aren't any wars in California or TX, I'm not saying that the change in national character and loss of European heritage is a good thing, far from it, I'm just saying that his assumption that it will lead to a civil war is wrong. It will just be a different country, more like Brazil but not a warzone.

There's been no war in TX or California because anybody who doesn't want to be ruled by a foreign ethnic group can just leave to another state. Why fight when you can move out?
But what happens when there's no place to run?

But that aside, you keep putting words into his mouth. He didn't say "when a single ethnic group is 1/3rd of the population of a region", and he didn't say "this will happen for sure".
So you've twisted his words to make him say something he didn't say, and then provided a non-rebuttal to a point that didn't exist.

Quote:Quote:

On the last paragraph you plucked out and quoted above, he said none of this material in that 16min video about the dangers of immigration, which shows his basic lack of understanding on the nature and motivation behind the open border mass immigration project of 1965. I doubt he's on board with MacDonald's analysis.

I'm not that familiar with Day actually, but from the little I've seen of him there is a lot to criticize. Someone who states that "those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of Israel"... really?!?

So you don't know what he actually believes, but you know that a pop-culture video he made for general audiences didn't discuss the jews, so you don't like him.
Why don't you find out what he actually believes, and has actually written, and we can discuss that?

---

The Vox Day thread - Enigma - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:06 AM)911 Wrote:  

The real problem with Vox and many other popular alti-sh pundits like him is that they will withhold the main pieces of the puzzle on crucial subjects like this, either as a misread, or as a misdirection.

This is a post of his from just yesterday, only two posts before the Voxiversity video:

Quote:Quote:

Fake (((conservative))) now wants to pass himself off as a fake (((classical liberal))) because Trump.

Quote:Quote:

In the past I would have been indignant at such attacks and eager to assert my conservative credentials. I spent years writing for conservative publications such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Commentary magazine and working as a foreign policy adviser for three Republican presidential campaigns. Being conservative used to be central to my identity. But now, frankly, I don’t give a damn. I prefer to think of myself as a classical liberal, because “conservative” has become practically synonymous with “Trump lackey.”

Like Richard Spencer, Max Boot is Fake Right. Boot was never a conservative in any sense whatsoever, not even in the Jewish religious sense. He is not even close to anything resembling a "classical liberal" either. What sort of "conservative" writes for the Washington Post? These wormtongues speak as if words have literally no intrinsic meaning.

Remember, the neocons were communists who only turned against the Soviet Union in the 1960s when it became apparent that the USA would remain the dominant military power. From Infogalactic: The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism. The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.

That ideological journey was always a sham. These (((fill-in-the-blanks))) are parasitical snakes, shedding their ideological skins in order to maximize their political influence while always advocating globalism, war, and Israel no matter what they happen to call themselves at the moment. The (((Ben Shapiros))) and (((Mona Charens))) and (((Max Boots))) are nothing but interest-group infiltrators and media operatives. There is no truth in them, and they are finally being revealed for the enemies of America, Christianity, and the West that they have always been.

Speaking of parasitical snakes, look at how The Spectator tries to put Ben Shapiro in the "fearless freethinker" category with Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson. Notice how they featured him in the primary photo, even though he is almost the precise opposite of the philosophical, truth-seeking Peterson.
Consider Ben Shapiro. The conservative pundit has become known over the past decade for his whippet-fast intellect and fearless debating style. College campuses began to see protests whenever this young conservative speaker was promised to appear. Far-leftist students repeatedly denounced the 34-year-old kippah-wearing Orthodox Jew as a racist and otherwise tried to silence him. Campuses promised students extra counselling to cope after hearing his arguments.

And last September, after earlier riots on campus, the University of Berkeley shelled out $600,000 to make the campus secure for his talk there. Again the audience tuned in for the scandal and stayed to hear his smart, funny and thoughtful opinions. Today he has more than a million Twitter followers and makes news whenever he speaks.

The bit about his "fearless debating style" is particularly amusing considering how he has repeatedly run from debate with both Milo and myself. And the Littlest Chickenhawk isn't part of "the intellectual dark web" at all. He has been nationally syndicated in the mainstream media for nearly two decades! To the contrary, he is part of the Fake Right along with Max Boot, Mona Charon, David Frum, Jon Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Cathy Young, and the rest of the Never-Trump (((conservatives))). The media loves to anoint these fake "opinion leaders" in order to divert public attention away from the actual freethinkers, which is why they ignored Jordan Peterson until it was no longer possible to do so.

He established neoconservatism as a Jewish creation one day, and the next day he's "withholding" information on Jewish influence from his readers because he didn't mention it in a 16 minute video.



Edit:

Quote:Quote:

Someone who states that "those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of Israel".

As Sam pointed out, you seem to have a problem with honesty.

First of all, you changed the quote. Can you explain why you'd copy/paste a quote and then edit part of the quote, other than to deceive?

The actual quote reads "anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of that nation".

He then went on to say:

Quote:Quote:

Regardless, it should be readily apparent that anyone who first seeks "what is good for the Jews" rather than "what is good for the Americans" is no genuine American. In fact, it is very clear that they hate America and Americans.

He was clearly making a point about (((neocons))) who claim anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic but also claim American nationalism is racist.

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-27-2018

I think he first called Ben Shapiro out as a shallow thinker who loved Israel more than the US in like 2005, or maybe earlier, back in the WND days.

---

The Vox Day thread - 911 - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 02:08 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Quote: (02-27-2018 01:40 AM)911 Wrote:  

-In what universe is a battle with 600,000 French people dead "relatively bloodless"? There were nearly 1 million dead on the western front in 1939-41 if you include German and Allied casualties (Belgium, UK etc). Is 1 million dead "relatively bloodless"? Sorry but that's just a preposterous notion, especially to someone like myself who has lost relatives on that front.

It's relatively compared to the 41 million casualties and 23 million dead of World War I, as in the example given. It's less than 5%.

Terrible, disingenuous argument. You're using the WW1 total dead figure of 23 million, and ignoring that the equivalent figure for WW2 is over 70 million dead.

Let me make it clear for you here Sam: the Battle of France in May-June 1940 involved 7 million soldiers, and resulted in nearly 2,500,000 casualties in just 46 days. It's incredibly ignorant to qualify a battle that yielded two and a half million casualties in 46 days as "relatively bloodless".

No point in any further back and forths if you're just going to argue for argument's sake.

---

The Vox Day thread - 911 - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 02:22 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:06 AM)911 Wrote:  

The real problem with Vox and many other popular alti-sh pundits like him is that they will withhold the main pieces of the puzzle on crucial subjects like this, either as a misread, or as a misdirection.

This is a post of his from just yesterday, only two posts before the Voxiversity video:

Quote:Quote:

Fake (((conservative))) now wants to pass himself off as a fake (((classical liberal))) because Trump.

Quote:Quote:

In the past I would have been indignant at such attacks and eager to assert my conservative credentials. I spent years writing for conservative publications such as the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Commentary magazine and working as a foreign policy adviser for three Republican presidential campaigns. Being conservative used to be central to my identity. But now, frankly, I don’t give a damn. I prefer to think of myself as a classical liberal, because “conservative” has become practically synonymous with “Trump lackey.”

Like Richard Spencer, Max Boot is Fake Right. Boot was never a conservative in any sense whatsoever, not even in the Jewish religious sense. He is not even close to anything resembling a "classical liberal" either. What sort of "conservative" writes for the Washington Post? These wormtongues speak as if words have literally no intrinsic meaning.

Remember, the neocons were communists who only turned against the Soviet Union in the 1960s when it became apparent that the USA would remain the dominant military power. From Infogalactic: The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism. The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.

That ideological journey was always a sham. These (((fill-in-the-blanks))) are parasitical snakes, shedding their ideological skins in order to maximize their political influence while always advocating globalism, war, and Israel no matter what they happen to call themselves at the moment. The (((Ben Shapiros))) and (((Mona Charens))) and (((Max Boots))) are nothing but interest-group infiltrators and media operatives. There is no truth in them, and they are finally being revealed for the enemies of America, Christianity, and the West that they have always been.

Speaking of parasitical snakes, look at how The Spectator tries to put Ben Shapiro in the "fearless freethinker" category with Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson. Notice how they featured him in the primary photo, even though he is almost the precise opposite of the philosophical, truth-seeking Peterson.
Consider Ben Shapiro. The conservative pundit has become known over the past decade for his whippet-fast intellect and fearless debating style. College campuses began to see protests whenever this young conservative speaker was promised to appear. Far-leftist students repeatedly denounced the 34-year-old kippah-wearing Orthodox Jew as a racist and otherwise tried to silence him. Campuses promised students extra counselling to cope after hearing his arguments.

And last September, after earlier riots on campus, the University of Berkeley shelled out $600,000 to make the campus secure for his talk there. Again the audience tuned in for the scandal and stayed to hear his smart, funny and thoughtful opinions. Today he has more than a million Twitter followers and makes news whenever he speaks.

The bit about his "fearless debating style" is particularly amusing considering how he has repeatedly run from debate with both Milo and myself. And the Littlest Chickenhawk isn't part of "the intellectual dark web" at all. He has been nationally syndicated in the mainstream media for nearly two decades! To the contrary, he is part of the Fake Right along with Max Boot, Mona Charon, David Frum, Jon Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Cathy Young, and the rest of the Never-Trump (((conservatives))). The media loves to anoint these fake "opinion leaders" in order to divert public attention away from the actual freethinkers, which is why they ignored Jordan Peterson until it was no longer possible to do so.

He established neoconservatism as a Jewish creation one day, and the next day he's "withholding" information on Jewish influence from his readers because he didn't mention it in a 16 minute video.



Edit:

Quote:Quote:

Someone who states that "those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of Israel".

As Sam pointed out, you seem to have a problem with honesty.

First of all, you changed the quote. Can you explain why you'd copy/paste a quote and then edit part of the quote, other than to deceive?

The actual quote reads "anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of that nation".

Which nation do you think he was referring to here? It's understood that he was referring to Israel, so how the hell was I being dishonest there? I should have put Israel in brackets to indicate that this was the nation he was referring to, style/etiquette issue, but in no way dishones or deceptive. On the other hand, you flying off the top and calling that deceitful here is way out of line.


On the rest of your post and your new quotes of his material: OK, point taken, fair enough, my first impression was wrong. I think it should have been part of his immigration analysis though, perhaps he didn't go there for fear his YT video would be yanked?

---

The Vox Day thread - SamuelBRoberts - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 02:54 AM)911 Wrote:  

On the rest of your post and your new quotes of his material: OK, point taken, fair enough. I think it should have been part of his immigration analysis though, perhaps he didn't go there for fear his YT video would be yanked?

Absolutely not. He's assumed it will be yanked and has already uploaded it to bitchute.

He didn't talk about jews because jews weren't germane to the point and it was a short video.

---

The Vox Day thread - Enigma - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 02:54 AM)911 Wrote:  

Which nation do you think he was referring to here? It's understood that he was referring to Israel, so how the hell was I being dishonest there? I should have put Israel in brackets to indicate that this was the nation he was referring to, style/etiquette issue, but in no way dishones or deceptive. On the other hand, you flying off the top and calling that deceitful is way out of line here.

Even if we totally ignore the context of the article, the sentence you quoted doesn't even make sense under your interpretation.

Zionism is Israeli nationalism and Israel is a nation of Jews,

You're essentially claiming that the sentence is supposed to say: "Just as those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes Zionism is an enemy of Jews."

What are the enemies of Jews called? Anti-semites?

Your interpretation makes the sentence completely redundant, but "just as" indicates two differing ideas are being compared.

In short, we can either conclude that Vox, the head editor of his own publishing house, stuck a nonsensical sentence in his article attacking Jewish conservatives just to felate Israel, or we can conclude that your interpretation of the quote is wrong.

And yes, taking a quote out of context and then editing said quote to fit your interpretation of it is dishonest.

If you want to give your interpretation of someone else's words, you quote their words and then include your interpretation outside of the quotation marks, making it clear who is saying what. That's a pretty well-established standard for both writing and debate.

I'm not sure how pointing that out is "out of line", when you even admitted it was a mistake.

---

The Vox Day thread - 911 - 02-27-2018

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

---

The Vox Day thread - Chevy Woonsocket - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 02:26 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

I think he first called Ben Shapiro out as a shallow thinker who loved Israel more than the US in like 2005, or maybe earlier, back in the WND days.

Ben Shapiro is the reason I stopped reading WND. After we invaded Iraq, Shapiro wrote a couple articles claiming that real Americans should want to invade the Middle East and conservatives that don't are unpatriotic losers. Keep in mind he was 19 then.

Vox eviscerated the little bastard for his hypocrisy and cowardice. I believe it was Vox that originally called him "The Littlest Chickenhawk". Read through Vox's blog what he's written about Shapiro, he really nails how much of a phony bitch Shapiro is.

---

The Vox Day thread - Bill Brasky - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-26-2018 07:47 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

We already have a thread devoted to his former game/socio-sexual hierarchy blog (Alpha Game), which he has since handed off to another writer, but given that political discussions about him have nearly derailed several threads, we could use a thread on his political and cultural writings, Vox Popoli:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/

I noticed that he has a first video out today from his "Voxiversity" series, and it looks good:

I would say he is certainly one of the smarter writers associated with the "alternative right" movement.

I watched this last night. He's a genius for being able to pack a complex, highly intellectual topic into a 15 minute video that gets straight to the point.

YouTube has disallowed it for sharing, rating, or commenting so we won't be able to see it's popularity.

God I hope that the Tech companies get Anti-Trusted the fuck up.

---

The Vox Day thread - debeguiled - 02-27-2018

Vox Day definitely brings out strong opinions in people. Look at how spirited the debate is in this thread.

I read him from time to time, and it is sometimes interesting. There is no doubt he is a smart dude.

My favorite thing about his blog is pretty tangential, but may be of interest to some people.

He did a post where he took an online test that assessed his vocabulary in the English language.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/wound...again.html

The test is here:

https://www.arealme.com/vocabulary-size-test/en/

This was his score.



If you have nothing else to do, take it yourself and see if you know more words than the dark lord.

---

The Vox Day thread - Chevy Woonsocket - 02-27-2018

I'm sure these tests are skewed upwards but here's mine. Not bad for a guy that almost flunked high school due to English.

---

The Vox Day thread - Days of Broken Arrows - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 08:58 AM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

Quote: (02-26-2018 07:47 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

We already have a thread devoted to his former game/socio-sexual hierarchy blog (Alpha Game), which he has since handed off to another writer, but given that political discussions about him have nearly derailed several threads, we could use a thread on his political and cultural writings, Vox Popoli:

https://voxday.blogspot.com/

I noticed that he has a first video out today from his "Voxiversity" series, and it looks good:

I would say he is certainly one of the smarter writers associated with the "alternative right" movement.

I watched this last night. He's a genius for being able to pack a complex, highly intellectual topic into a 15 minute video that gets straight to the point.

YouTube has disallowed it for sharing, rating, or commenting so we won't be able to see it's popularity.

God I hope that the Tech companies get Anti-Trusted the fuck up.

^^^^^^
That Vox video you just posted came with this warning:

"The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences."

Yet, you can search for "transgender kids" on YouTube and get over 3 million results. None of the first results come with any warning and my guess is that if you searched all 3 million, none of them would.

I'd love to know how we got to a society where "the relationship between immigration and war" (Vox's subject) is verboten, but claiming CHILDREN who want sex changes is normal.

This is just beyond the pale. I filed a complain and I'll bet they'll now ban my videos in retaliation (not a big deal -- all of mine are weird, obscure old music).

---

The Vox Day thread - debeguiled - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:53 PM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  

I'm sure these tests are skewed upwards but here's mine. Not bad for a guy that almost flunked high school due to English.

I guessed on a lot of words I didn't know, based on other words I did know, and did all right, so it also skews towards educated guessing, which is not vocabulary, but test taking ability.

---

The Vox Day thread - debeguiled - 02-27-2018

Quote: (02-27-2018 12:57 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

^^^^^^
That Vox video you just posted came with this warning:

"The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences."

Come on though. You have to admit that that edgy guitar riff intro was inarguably offensive. I was surprised he didn't do the video in a leather jacket, Doc Martens, with a cigarette hanging from his lips.

---