"Some other people who are evil:
––People who boast about their IQs despite never having done anything of substance
––People who are intellectually dishonest and sloppy (seriously, if a Western show defended incest, your response would notbe "just shows how open minded we are these days"...)
––People whose intellectual views are patently self-serving––for example, a perpetually unemployed person who writes at great length about how people don't need to work any more
––People who defend genocide
––People who get a kick out of denigrating others, whether ethnic groups or 99.9+% of the people in the world
––People who think that 99.9+% of the people in the world are worthless and can be killed and tortured
––People who are perpetually unemployed, mooch off others, and do nothing but watch anime and write poisonous racist rants"
What's odd about these complaints is that many of them are thoroughly addressed within the very blog post he is criticizing. If he had actually read and understood the reasoning within the very post he was commenting on, he would not have leveled any of these charges against me, because he would have seen that they weren't in fact contrary to the value system I laid out. Since he never countered any of my reasoning that led to said value system, he has no right to judge me by a different standard, either, as so far the standard I set forth remains completely unassailed.
Another problem is that ad hominems are logically fallacious, as even if everything he said above were true, it wouldn't have any impact whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of the written post. If you want to dismantle the reasoning in the post, you have to address what was written in the post, not who wrote it. The devil himself can write 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn't make the equation wrong.
I could sweep aside all of his bullet points with either of these arguments, that the post itself explains quite well why none of these things are wrong, none of which points within the post he's ever disproven, and ad hominems are a meaningless side issue and the only question is whether what I wrote is true or not.
But it's still galling to be criticized by people who don't know shit about me using arguments that aren't remotely true. I have no interest in convincing Goldfish27 I'm a good person, his unwarranted hostility towards me is irrational to begin with so there's no sense trying to change his mind about anything. I just want to set some things straight for the record, in case any neutral observers would like to know the truth of the matter.
1) I don't boast about my IQ. I mention it in passing when it's pertinent as just a matter of fact reality. My IQ is what it is. It's not even especially high when it comes to the circles of people who write for a living. I'd say it's pretty average among intellectuals, the thinking class, which I'm obviously a part of given I've been writing thoughtful essays for ten years now with all sorts of broad cultural knowledge and references, a large vocabulary, etc, etc. Anyone can transparently see just by reading me that I must have a high IQ, because this is how a high IQ person sounds.
Humorously enough, Goldfish claims I boast about my IQ based on a quote that actually is the exact opposite of boasting: http://diamed-the-road-less-traveled.blogspot.com/2017/12/5-new-permaposts-this-year.html
'I've written hundreds of articles this year, but it really boils down to these five. This was my intellectual contribution to the world and the very best I can do with my 140 IQ. If nothing else, people should at least consult these five works..'In context, it's obvious that I'm not randomly bragging about how intelligent I am, but actually humbly admitting most of what I write is worthless but I at least tried my best with this small sub-segment of my writings, so if I have any worth at all, it will be found in these nooks and crannies. I do not claim that these five permaposts are the greatest wisdom in the universe, but simply the best I can do. 'With my 140 IQ' feels to me like a grating limit, that I'm not smart enough, I have no idea why Goldfish considers it to be a boast, it feels to me more like a guilty confession. I know several people with much higher IQ's all around me. If 140 IQ sounds like boasting, then maybe Goldfish just doesn't travel in the right company.
If you don't like the results of the IQ tests I have taken, then you can use this number instead: I scored a 1480 on the SAT in 1999. So norm that to IQ all you like and use that as my number. (In fact, using this number, that puts me even higher than 140 IQ, so I was using the lower estimate to begin with, and yet still I'm being accused of boasting, inflating, and making up my intellectual ability by this insufferable know-it-all.)
Of course, Goldfish could easily claim that I just pulled that number out of my hat too, but whatever, it's not like I'm going to dox myself and throw up verifiable documents on the screen just to prove an anonymous commentator wrong. Either take my word for it or leave it, I don't care.
Another formulation of his argument is that I should have done more with my life given how intelligent I am. (Though that isn't his actual argument, he makes clear in his comments that he doesn't believe I'm intelligent at all and am just making all these numbers up). But let's just give him the benefit of the doubt and go with this version of his argument for the nonce.
First off, my life isn't over yet, so there's no telling what I'll eventually achieve.
Second off, I've written 11 very good fiction novels that have received effusive praise from a great many people whose opinions I respect, in addition to my own self-appraisal of their worth which says they don't lose to anyone. They are in fact good enough that publishers put their bets on them as well, so it's doubtful that everyone I know was just lying to me in order to make me feel better. In fact, all throughout school and college, my ability as a writer received universal praise from my fellow students, teachers and professors, none of whom had any particular reason to be lying to me. The quality of my fiction is without question.
Third off, this blog itself is an accomplishment 'of substance.' At least a million people have read something I've written. Until google changed its search formula, for years I was the top answer to the search query 'are blacks human?' or any line similar to that. I believe I've convinced a lot of people with this blog or at the least inspired people who already agreed with me to greater heights.
This might just be vanity, but I secretly believe a lot of the most intelligent people in the blogosphere, who have many more followers than me, are well versed in my writings and have had their opinions affected by me, which then cascades down to all the people they've affected with their writings. It just seems beyond the possibilities of coincidence how often their thoughts mirror mine if they've never read anything I've said.
David Duke featured an article I wrote on his own website. I've shook hands with Jared Taylor. Unamusement Park linked to me favorably. I think I'm a lot better known than people let on, simply because I'm willing to say what most others would prefer remain unsaid. I took the Road Less Traveled, I said the things which 'cannot be said,' and therefore my influence remains more shadowy than most. But someone had to say these things, because at some point we must eventually stop living by lies. Being the person who goes ahead and says everything that is necessary to be said is as substantial a contribution to mankind as I can imagine.
But let's assume that my novels are all trash, I'm just imagining my blog has benefited anyone else when really it hasn't, and I never achieve anything more in life. I still think I've achieved something 'of substance' with my intellect, because I've made myself and the people around me happy. I've led a good life, and it's my high IQ which has allowed me to do so, avoiding the endless pitfalls that seem to entrap everyone else in this world. If it wasn't my IQ which let me carefully navigate around all these mistakes, what was it? My IQ is clearly high enough to enjoy all the good things in life, books, music, philosophy and debate, while avoiding all the bad things, STD's, crimes, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, obesity, gambling, etc, etc. Isn't that already something of substance? It sure matters to me. . .
In the end, if I'm leading a good life, the best possible life I can envision for myself, what more display of good judgment can I show? Hasn't every decision in my life up until this point been correct? Isn't that infinity IQ, much less 140? What more should I be doing?
What do you want, I have to cure cancer with my 140 IQ or bust? Anyone who doesn't cure cancer must be lying about their IQ? What exactly is the argument here?
In a different environment, one that accepted my truths as their own, obviously I could have impacted the world much more impactfully. If people would take my advice to heart and follow my proscriptions or read my novels and internalize them into their personal identities the world would be an enormously better place. The fault that I haven't had such a huge impact on the world lies with those who didn't listen to me, not with me. Even the Bible understood this problem with the proverb concerning 'pearls before swine.' This is nothing new. No one listened to Cassandra either. Did that make Cassandra any less prophetic? Does it make me any less intelligent when idiots don't believe me when I say well verified and reasoned truths?
The world has always understood that in every age there were heroes, geniuses and prophets who went unappreciated and scorned throughout their days. This reflects nothing on their character and everything on the society that surrounded them. Next Goldfish will claim Socrates and Jesus must have been idiots because all they did is get themselves killed for what they said.
There was a time when no one appreciated Nietzsche, he died insane and ignored. Now he's one of the most famous and influential philosophers of all time. This isn't to say that someday I'll be put in the same canon as Nietzsche (though who knows, after I'm dead anything could happen, maybe I will be revived just like Nietzsche's reputation was), it just serves the point that even if Nietzsche never had become popular the objective value of what he attempted to contribute to the world was the exact same. Nothing about Nietzsche changed. He didn't edit his writings upon becoming a ghost. The world was to blame for not valuing him properly -- the value was there all along. Any number of equally high quality people have been ignored and forgotten all across time -- would it be any surprise if I were among their number? Would it be any shame to be in their company?
2) Goldfish's second claim is hilarious. He's quick to say I'm intellectually dishonest and sloppy without quoting any example of this occurring anywhere in my voluminous writings. You would think after thousands of posts across ten years he could give one example of what he's talking about. Instead he creates a hypothetical and then just assumes that I would be hypocritical in his own little world, with no basis for such an assumption. It could not be further from the truth. But if you want to play this game using what I've actually written and thus Goldfish has just as much access to my thinking as I do, it seems odd to me that he's so certain I would disapprove of incest if it appeared in western art -- isn't Game of Thrones my highest rated fictional tv show of all time? Doesn't that already disprove his entire hypothetical prognostication about how my reaction 'would' go?
If the one example he provides of my 'intellectual dishonesty' is a random hypothetical of how he thinks I would think, which has already been disproven by the reality of my own writings that anyone can see, that means every other example he could come up with was even weaker than the proof proffered. Ie, his charge rests on nothing. His strongest argument is ludicrous and everything after that is even weaker.
The truth is I'm the most intellectually honest person in the world. No one tells it like it is more than me. No one is less afraid to pull their punches. It's my freaking charm point. This charge is just so off I don't even know what to say, was Goldfish just throwing random insults at the wall and hoping they would stick? Was there no attempt to even remotely connect his complaints with my persona? Is this his version of modern splatter painting, just in the form of ad hominems, which he intended to eventually hang up at the Smithsonian so all the critics could marvel at out how deep he is precisely because nothing he said had any meaning?
3) My intellectual views are patently self-serving. This is an odd charge. Shouldn't everyone live their lives in accordance with their own intellectual views? Wouldn't it be odd if your views weren't self-serving?
Like, imagine a soldier in World War II. He volunteers to fight for the US army, and he believes that the US ought to win the war. It's self-serving of him to want the US to win the war, but why on Earth would he feel otherwise? If he wished Germany would win the war, wouldn't he have volunteered to fight for Germany?
There seems to be something extremely wrong with a person if his intellectual views are manifestly opposite or disadvantageous to his lifestyle. Shouldn't one or the other change? A person of integrity would not find themselves living one way and arguing for another. Or am I just missing something here?
My intellectual views and my lifestyle are in parallel because I chose for them to be that way. I could have lived any number of other ways, but I chose this way because I think this is the best I can be. It's no wonder that I would argue that society should support and encourage other people to live like me, because I already came to the conclusion that this was the best way to live, which is why I'm living this way.
Self-serving? I serve myself just fine already. Actually my intellectual views are my charitable attempt to let everyone else get in on this action, the blissful life I've already carved out for myself, out of simple generalized compassion. Why can't other people have lives like mine? When I look at how much unnecessary suffering other people go through because society doesn't encourage them to live like I do, it's only natural that I would wish things were different. I don't need any more help, but the statistics show that virtually everyone else on Earth does. Is it wrong for me to wish something might be done for their sake?
I've never hidden that I'm unemployed, I just don't think being unemployed makes people evil. Maybe Goldfish hates unemployed people but I never have. If my intellectual views hated unemployed people then I wouldn't be unemployed -- I would've gone and gotten a job in order not to be evil. Given that my intellectual views do not particularly condemn unemployed people it's no wonder I've never made employment a personal priority. Where is the surprise here?
4) Here's the thing about genocide. If you believe in utility, as I do, there's such a thing as net negative utility. Any utilitarian would have the exact same proscriptions for net negative utility groups as I do, if they're being intellectually honest. I'm just being intellectually honest, I'm just not being sloppy, by endorsing genocide in these situations. It's odd that he condemns me with charge #2 for just saying whatever's convenient, but then turns around and condemns me with charge #4 that I'm too honest and forthright in my moral reasoning.
Genocide doesn't have to be brutal or painful, right now the white race is being genocided simply through mass immigration and lowered birth rates. You can genocide groups without harming a hair on anyone's head. I've never particularly leaned towards one method or another, so long as it gets the job done. I'm not in favor of pain and death just for sadism's sake. What I am in favor of is truth, beauty, and love, which means by logical necessity I am in favor of eliminating any existential threats to said three abstract values. I consider Islam to be such a threat, and thus Muslims worthy of genocide. Any intellectually honest person would feel and say the same. But even then I spelled out in a very nice permapost http://diamed-the-road-less-traveled.blogspot.com/2010/12/islam-must-be-destroyed.html how one could go about eliminating Islam in a peaceful manner.
I will take any reasonable course or option that A) protects the things I love while B) not unduly causing any suffering to anyone. I don't act out of bloodthirst. I just think the things I love are worth protecting, and I think they are under real and serious threat. If I'm wrong, it's not because I endorse genocide in the abstract as an option to fight with, it would have to be because I don't value the right things or that, regardless of my paranoia, none of them are actually being threatened by anyone.
Rather than condemning me for keeping a tool in my toolbox that any intellectually honest person would keep around, shouldn't Goldfish be trying to convince me that I'm wrong about one of these two points?
Or is Goldfish just not a utilitarian and thus thinks weighing pros and cons, benefits and costs, is somehow morally off limits? Am I being condemned for simply holding to the most rational and intelligent philosophy which all the best thinkers eventually arrive at? Am I to presume David Hume, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, John Stuart Mill, etc, etc, are all equally evil? As an ad hominem, it's pretty weak sauce to say "you're a utilitarian!" Is that even an insult anymore?
5) Do I enjoy insulting and putting down others? Not personally. I hate quarrels. I hate dealing with people I disagree with and try to avoid them as best I can. The last thing I enjoy doing is belittling or humiliating or hurting someone in front of me in some sort of verbal jousting where we're both trying to damage each other as much as possible. I've never directed insults to anyone personally that I can remember, or engaged in any grudges, vendettas, or dramas.
Now, in abstract, do I like condemning evil doers and exalting the righteous over sinners? Certainly. I would be surprised if anyone didn't. Isn't that a bedrock feature in virtually every philosophy and religion on Earth? To insult evildoers and feel good about being better than them? Isn't that the basis of every single ingroup/outgroup on Earth? Do you think liberals don't spend 99% of their days feeling good about themselves by belittling their lessors? Isn't this just human nature? If the complaint is that I treat entire ethnic groups as worthy of derision then what about liberals who are constantly complaining about white people in general? Are they also evil according to Goldfish or is it only evil when other ethnic groups are described in broad brushes? Obviously when criticizing any large group the criticism doesn't apply to every single individual in said group, it is referring to the overall tendencies of the group and the group's overall effect as a result of their overall behavior. Just as white liberals, when condemning whites, don't include themselves in said condemnation, because they know they aren't a part of the problem. If a criticism of mine towards a large group doesn't apply to you as an individual, assume I'm not talking about you and move on. That's how discussions about large groups work. This should be obvious to anyone. It goes without saying.
If it's not about me referring to groups in broad generalities, what is it? Am I supposed to not feel good about being a good person? Am I supposed to not be mean to sinners and instead offer them praise and hugs? What exactly am I doing wrong here? Having standards? Applying standards? Describing my standards? Where did I go wrong?
6) As to the criticism that I'm willing to kill or torture 99.9% of mankind, as a utilitarian anything is permitted, so long as it serves the greater good. Criticizing me for this view just means you don't like utilitarians. Which is just a ridiculous criticism, because everyone knows in their heart utilitarianism is correct. So what exactly are we arguing about here? Theoretically it's true that anything is permitted when dealing with net negative utility individuals or groups, but going on bloodthirsty rampages of rape, pillage and torture isn't normally a practical solution to them. I'm for whatever's practical. The odds of that being the rape, pillage, torture, and murder of 99.9% of the world are minuscule, so what exactly is at issue here? Just that I'm a utilitarian? Or that I'm being intellectually honest in my application of the philosophy of utilitarianism?
Again we're back to one charge being the polar opposite of another. Why am I accused in charge #2 of just saying whatever's convenient, only to later be accused of saying radical things that are inconvenient and embarrassing to me? Is charge #2 accurate or charge #6? Or am I just dishonest and stupid, so even though I'm trying to say whatever's convenient, I still slip out with my plans for murdering and torturing the world like some sort of Asperger's patient? I guess that would fall nicely in place with charge #1, that I'm a complete ignoramus far below my claimed IQ, so I guess Goldfish is more consistent than I'm giving him credit for. . .though one wonders why he'd even bother to waste his time critiquing me on my blog if I am just a random retarded insane guy ranting and raging on the internet ridiculous fantasies like the genocide of 99.9% of the world. . . Oh well, only Goldfish knows what on Earth Goldfish is thinking and why, I can only continue answering for myself.
As to whether I should say mean things like 99.9% of people in the world are worthless or not, if they fail the criteria I set forth for them in my permapost, then yes that's exactly what they are. If they don't, then I have no problem with them. I'm not judging people on a curve. You don't have to be in the top .1% of the population to be worthwhile, you just have to not objectively make evil choices in your life which objectively display your complete contempt and disregard for morality. Just don't blaspheme that which is sacred and I won't call you worthless. That seems like a perfectly fair deal to me.
If you want to take issue with my readiness to condemn others, you would have to prove one of the criteria in my list is false. Ie, that I'm condemning someone for no good reason. The way to do that is to argue with my reasoning behind why I object to various people's conduct. You can't just say that my objective moral standards are too harsh because too many people fail them. That's like saying that by definition half the world has to be 'good' and the maximum number of evildoers at any moment can only logarithmically approach 50%. If he thinks I'm evil for condemning 'the vast majority of people' as evil, what does he have to say about Christians, who believe every last person is born evil and cannot help but be evil all their lives long? Should he really be criticizing me, who is clearly a lot more forgiving than the 3 billion plus believers in the Abrahamic faiths, before he takes any issue with any of them? Does he talk to Christians and Muslims and Jews in as derisory a manner as he addresses me, or is this more personal to him?
In any case, since Goldfish does not dispute the reasoning behind any of my condemnations of any of the behaviors listed, I can only assume that he only takes issue with the number of people condemned. In which case shouldn't he go out and convince all these people to stop sinning, rather than trying to convince me that I shouldn't call them out for what they are? It's indeed abysmal that so many people misbehave in so many ways. I would like for them to stop misbehaving. I've set up and described and enjoined systems where people would misbehave far less often. But apparently that's not good enough. In order to not be evil according to Goldfish's standards, I must turn a blind eye to any misbehavior so long as over 50% of people cleave to it.
I guess it's evil to condemn slavers because over 50% of mankind has supported it too? Or is it just me who isn't allowed to judge too large a portion of mankind? Oh well. Whatever.
7) Hey now, I haven't been perpetually unemployed, I've had jobs sometimes, just not lately. Let's be fair and accurate here. I've never taken a dime in government benefits and never asked charity from anyone. I haven't even asked for or received a single donation for the ten years of activity on this blog, which virtually every other dissident right writer does incessantly (and quite annoyingly if you ask me.) So when exactly have I mooched off others? Isn't it more that I've been giving a free gift to the world of my most productive years for nothing?
One man's 'poisonous racist rants' are another man's 'inspiring promotion of truth, beauty and love and defense of the ethnicities and cultures who best typify said values.' If I've done nothing for the past ten years save champion that which is Good in this world, doesn't that make me a saint? It's all in how you view things. Since you, Goldfish, never proved what I said was a 'poisonous racist rant' rather than a 'defense of all that is good and holy in this world,' simply labeling it so without ever addressing any of my arguments in favor of my interpretation of what I've been doing all this time doesn't cut it. Before you can smear me with charge #7, you'd have to objectively prove your label, rather than mine, to be the more appropriate version of my life's work.
It's even more bizarre to criticize me for watching anime. A great many people watch anime, or if not anime some other TV show. Is it because I have such bad taste that I prefer anime over wrestling, Sex in the City, or whatever shows you like to watch? Is that really enough to be labelled evil? I mean, fair enough, I guess I'd say anyone who dislikes anime or likes wrestling is evil, but at this point it just feels a little juvenile and absurd.
If I liked eating strawberries and Goldfish liked eating grapes would he call me evil for that preference too?
Is there some better activity I should be partaking in other than anime? Is it that I'm watching too much anime or that I'm watching anime at all? Since Goldfish gives no better example of what I should be doing with my life than watching anime, I'm not sure how I can avoid being evil here.
He seems to think employment is a big deal, so I guess instead of watching anime I should be a lawyer, a professor, or doing some other high-verbal job for pay? But I don't need the money, and I don't consider the work being done worthwhile, so why shouldn't I just be watching anime and writing poisonous racist rants instead? I enjoy reading, writing, listening to music, watching anime, beating video games and playing Magic. I don't enjoy shuffling paperwork around, sweating outside while driving in nails, or whatever other life plan Goldfish thinks I should be engaging in. Since I'm not causing trouble for anyone else, is it really any of Goldfish's business what I do to actualize myself? If you're such a philistine that you don't understand the appeal of anime, that's your problem, not mine.
Or is it that I should be starting a family instead of enjoying myself? I've already explained in myriad permaposts why I think pursuing women in the current circumstances is a bad idea. If he wants to condemn me for not doing so, he would have to dismantle my arguments for why I'm not starting a family first. Since he's never gainsaid any of my reasons for going my own way, how can he condemn me for acting according to their logic?
Who knows, if I ever get rich enough, maybe I'll have a family after all. The plan of buying eggs and surrogate mothers to cut out the middleman and directly gain true ownership of my own kids can be implemented at any time. Divorce won't rip my home apart, nor will I ever lose custody. The strategy of waiting until I'm rich enough to afford a foolproof family seems a heck of a lot smarter than what the men getting screwed over all around me are doing.
I live off investment income combined with extreme frugality. My income exceeds my expenses. I'm a net taxpayer. I've never mooched off of anyone in my life. I like anime. (So sue me?) I've explained over and over again why I don't like work and marriage in the modern world. Goldfish has never disproven any of my reasons for said disapprobation, and yet he still thinks it evil for me to not be doing them. This makes no sense. As far as I'm concerned my life is going according to plan, and very well I might add, despite all the adverse circumstances I see tripping up people all around me. All my plans for social betterment are for the sake of these other losers, not me, who I already consider to have led a successful life despite all the obstacles set in my way. I charitably spend ten years describing how other people could be as happy as me, and this is the thanks I get?
Geez, would it kill people to show a little gratitude?