This is the second part of my counterblast to debate.
You can find part one here
I have wasted my life on books and here I hope to give you the benefit of my wise career choices, showing you where some of the ideas come from which produce the false beliefs of Modern Man.
Debate is permitted as a showcase for these ridiculous fantasies, whose paradise has been realised around you.
I investigate the origins of the beliefs of the 20th century which have produced the near universal ignorance, helplessness and spiritual sickness of the late-stage rational enlightenment we inhabit today.
It will take you about 12 minutes to read.
How debate changes minds (towards murder)
Debate as component in a cult of suicidal taboo
The Tolerance Trap of Karl Popper
Why real debate inspires hate
Parallel lines: Why debating with the counter-sane is pointless
Victims of the Enlightenment - The legacy of Kant, Descartes, Empiricism
Sensation and doubt - The self as prison
The personal limits of men
Social contract killings
Debate: The Midwit’s Vanity Mirror
DEBATE: CHANGE MY MIND?
The belief that debate changes people’s minds is true and false.
It is false that debate creates conditions for the revision of belief as a result of logic, facts and reference to reality.
It is true that debate will change people’s minds about whether they want to kill you.
Debate is ragebait to the captured. To expose them to ideas which aren’t theirs is to threaten them, and so they threaten you.
Why do they get so mad at words? When the ideas which rule us are revealed to be contrived absurdities the result is not enlightenment1.
THE DEBATING SOCIETY - A CULT OF SUICIDAL TABOO
Here are some obvious facts which are never debated:
Men are not born good
Peoples and people are not equal and never will be
Human potential is not limitless
Talent is innate not taught
Tribes exist, their customs are their culture, and these are not equal
Reality, truth and morality are objective - not a matter of preference nor of perspective
Many people cannot comprehend this fact because they are incapable of thinking
Faculties such as the recognition of God, beauty, truth, justice, value and the ability to reason independently of feeling can be (and often are) congenitally absent
“Debate” takes place amongst imagined equals in a contrived playground of pasteurised ideas. It presumes all opinions are equally valid, that all persons are equally deserving of respect - regardless of their merits, moral behaviour or the calibre of their minds. There is no recognition of spiritual sickness in the Debating Society, which is dying of the diseases its debate forbids to mention.
TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE
The philosopher Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies2. His argument about tolerance is relevant to “the debate”. In brief, he said that the tolerant should tolerate everything but intolerance.
This is a paradox - meaning it presents an insoluble contradiction. Popper admitted this when he said that tolerance was only tolerant within limits - with “tolerance” defined of course by those who identify as The Tolerant.
The result is a gay cartoon presented as a serious position. In this comic strip reality the intolerant are of course The Nazis. Not the Maoists, the Bolsheviks, nor the “tolerant” themselves.
In theory, this means tolerance is policed to exclude anything deemed contrary to itself. In practice, it means if you want to silence or even kill anyone you just have to call them a Nazi first. Who are the Nazis? You.
Tolerance has brought us to the point of violent extinction. This is not only intolerable. If we do not reject the false duty of tolerating our own destruction we are finished.
If you are capable of interrogating reality you can identify what is true and what is not. This is often the work of the better part of your lifetime. It is not easily come by. Debate offers you the pretence of this perspective, as if we are to entertain the babblings of some clown against the timeless and changeless nature of being and reality, and call the result the acme of human society.
Debate does not change politics, and there is no winning or losing it in this sense. The policies of liberal internationalism are fixed, they are fixed by people like Popper and Soros and Lippmann and so on, and whatever you say in a room full of boos and cheers has no effect whatsoever on their permanent agenda of national extinction.
Either we get rid of this system or it gets rid of us.
This post is paywalled in recognition of those subscribers who support my work.
If you cannot pay to read it, email me with a short note headed “SKINT” and if I believe you I will let you in, free of charge.
WHY DO THEY HATE DEBATE?
The ideas supplied to us as the permitted explanations cannot survive an honest argument.
This supply creates dependency on safe and effective narratives - which silence thought.
They thereby supply demand for more of themselves. If your idea of yourself as a Good Person relies on the supply of reality-contradictions from Trusted Sources, you can continue to sit in your house whilst it burns down and say “this is fine”.
If the supply of comforting lies runs out, you are compelled to recognise the awful truth. You will then realise how shocking it is to be required to actually think for yourself, and you will be afraid at the sudden intrusion of an ever more awful reality which you always knew was there but preferred to disavow.
The rules of debate in the suicidal State are an education in learned helplessness.
Men are clearly not women, people are obviously neither born good not equal and never will be, the system we endure cannot seriously be described as producing progress, the thirdworldisation of the West is obvious, we are being raped and pillaged in real time rather than living in a Netflix utopia, and so on.
To engage in debate is to point out the unpleasant fact that we are ruled by being fooled by these and many other fantasies.
This is to invite the believers to end you.
There is no debate about the nature of reality and no reason to risk your life to entertain it with people determined to disbelieve in it.
PARALLEL LINES
When you debate people with a parallel system of beliefs to those supplied by reality you may be killed. It is important to realise the people with whom you are attempting to argue structure their idea of reality in a way that is hostile to coherent thinking.
Debate is about pretending the House Rules are objective. The subjects of debate are limited to the subjective positions of those who abide by the rules. Per Popper, the ones whose questions cannot be answered (or uttered) under these conditions are evil and so they have no right to speak.
This shows that “debate” is part of a system of beliefs, which are the counter-culture of the revolution destroying our civilisation. To debate is to submit to the agenda of extinction, and to offer this process the glamour of legitimacy.
A culture is a matter of participation. When you debate you are speaking to people from a parallel culture. Their beliefs are those of an unacknowledged and absurd religion, composed of totems and taboos charged with frenzied emotion. Their mortal enemy is people like you. Normal people.
It is better to recognise our differences and agree on that fact, than it is to pretend we are all the same. Some are for good, some for evil. Some for vice, others virtue. You are for civilisation or barbarism.
The moment we inhabit makes this distinction clearer every day.
VICTIMS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT
In the popular imagination the Enlightenment is the fount of modern “values”, including the prized status of rational debate.
This is an example of the sort of ignorance produced by a schooled society. It has supplied a series of fairytales in place of the nature of being.
Progress, godmanship, universal human potential, the ridiculous notion that if freed from restraint Man reverts to his natural goodness, the risible idea that our decisions are rational and not, as is more often the case, emotions plus alibis.
The popular imagination has been bewitched for centuries by these fantasies of emancipation.
This has resulted in the liberation of the masses from reality itself, with the means of escape into counter-reality fantasies presented as the only reasonable expedient.
The legacy of the Enlightenment is a popular cult which is as commonplace as it is invisible. It is a religion of nonsenses defended by the rules of debate whose core belief is that Man can believe himself into being better than he is, and thereby escape the human condition and the confines of reality.
Under such a debate, anything is permitted but sanity.
Where does this come from?
SENSATION AND DOUBT
Debate functions well in a knowledge economy in which no one knows anything. Here is a brief attempt to summarise the roots and fruits of the cult of Reason3.
The rational method has led many into pyrrhonism and the prison of the senses4. The basis of the Cartesian Method is a dubious mood5 whose absolute scepticism doubts the basis of reality to death. To be incapable of naming the obvious is to be wise and good today.
The Kantian position of immanence is near universal, meaning people generally accept their lives are a sort of incarceration in the limits of their experience. We are all trapped in our senses. If this is the position of Pure Reason then it seems reasonable to say “there is nothing more to reality than how we feel about it”.
If you believe you are trapped in your self, there is no escape and there is nothing more to life it clear how this proceeds to the moral nihilism of our times.
This is how we end up with a religion of human sentiment, a cult of nice - whilst reality gets nastier. If reality makes you feel bad you can simply delete this from your experience, and choose a less disturbing impression or description. Vice becomes a virtue. Babies must be protected from the harm of gender presumptions. Migrant crime is a conspiracy theory, as is the Great Replacement. This war is good, just like all the other ones. And so on.
The capacity to recognise evil is not universal, and nor is the courage to name and resist it.
THE PERSONAL LIMITS OF MEN
Men are prisoners of their personal limits. It is not true that sensation and experience are limited to the rational and material planes, however.
This is significant. As TS Eliot said, what separates us from the animals is our capacity to recognise (and not invent) God. People who cannot often behave accordingly.
Debate never mentions the fact that men and women are all limited in general and in particular ways.
Some are taller (a sore point here), some are wiser, brighter, stronger, more or less beautiful, some contract vices and others virtues.
Many seem incapable of seeing beyond their experience in any way, which means their contribution to any debate is to presume all others are like themselves, universalising their relative ignorance. “You would do no different” is one of their slogans, and they say this because it is impossible for them to imagine anyone doing anything beyond their capability.
To debate is to pretend we are not all limited in significant ways. How many people truly understand what they believe, or why they came to believe it?
This is a matter of capacity, not of schooling. Men are not enclevered by education despite the market value of credentials seeming to say so. Men are not born good and made sick by civilisation, as Rousseau would have it.
Debate is the preservation of the argument against reality by means of “reason”. It is, like our politics, a pantomime which punishes anyone who dares to point out the performance.
SOCIAL CONTRACT KILLINGS
Presenting counter-liberal ideas makes the captured want to kill you, which is a legitimate response according to their belief system.
People such as Charlie Kirk and Ann Widdecombe have been murdered following their contribution to the national debate.
I describe these as “social contract killings” in this essay, published this summer. Killing in the name of the defence of tolerance is not only tolerated by the tolerant, it is imagined to be a noble act. When these people kill you for being sane, when they burn your churches and beautiful buildings, loot your shops and rape your children they are advancing their concept of the Social Contract6.
Shooting the messenger preserves the illusions by which the “tolerant” live from the intrusion of embarrassing reality.
To the enemies of civilisation political murder is a virtue signal. Their lives depend on ending yours, should you become sufficiently influential to intrude upon their delusions.
To engage in debate in this way is to invite people to kill you, with the tacit permission of the liberal state whose ideology furnishes the basis of their personalities.
This is what is called a “locked discourse”. It is policed with voodoo curses with violence and with reference to never-defined but often cited “rules” of debate, which naturally rule out of the question many (or any) of the most serious questions of our lifetimes.
THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF MIKE TYSON
Most people do not welcome the realisation that their thoughts are simply brand loyalties supplied by a system which is degrading every aspect of their lives.
Their response is, quite understandably, to counterattack the person they believe is attacking them. Debate as commonly presented does not exist.
How do you expect to “win” when your counterpart is going to punch you in the face for showing they are a loser?
Debate stirs the passions of the sort of people who would agree with William Blake - that “The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.”
This Romantic view of life, which is as dangerous as it is ridiculous, is an example of the revenant ghost of irrealism.
Today, many people believe that the strength of their feeling is the justice of their argument, and to “punch Nazis” is a virtue. Who is a “Nazi”?
That is anyone who says anything that moves them to violence.
The pigeon-loving philosopher-pugilist Mike Tyson is wiser than the horses of debate, who will continue to planning their punch-magnetising spectacles after being repeatedly assaulted for doing so. Why do plans for the victory of Reason survive repeated contradiction by history and personal experience?
Further, what is the point of inviting people to attack you in public? If you like being violently assaulted, do some full contact martial arts.
Do not attempt to reason with the differently-saned, who can neither be blamed for their transition to trans-sanity, nor who will welcome or accept the explanation for their predicament.
They are convicts who will defend their convictions to the end, because to surrender their beliefs is to accept a sort of death.
DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME ON DEBATE
Do not waste your time - or your life - on debate. Find your friends and keep them close instead. You are going to need them.
State the case and defend it. We are living through the verdict of history on the 20th century, its revolutions and religions of mankind. It is fruitless to appeal to reality to people whose lives depend on its denial.
The detransition of the West is underway already, the recognition of reality is now procedural. Just as the trans cult was promoted as a form of liberation and wrecked by the ugly truth of its business model, the cruelty and wickedness of the way we are ruled is being revealed as a criminal enterprise against us all. There is no debate about that, either.
The conditions we inhabit are not a product of arguments, good or bad, but of demonstrably destructive ideas whose legacy is universal barbarism.
Debate is a locked discourse offering reasons to disbelieve in reality. It is a form of periphrastic counter-sanity presented as the pinnacle of civilised behaviour.
If you do not like God, Max Stirner described the verbal totems of Enlightenment thinking as “spooks”. He meant they are ghosts invoked by magic words, which we prefer to believe are real because it makes us feel better.
Stirner’s Egoism is internally consistent, as most irreal beliefs actually are. The most convinced of lunatics have a perfectly ordered inner world which brooks no contradiction.
To make sense of things in this way is to armour your mind against reality.
You can have Stirner’s complete isolation in the self. You can live in a world which shrinks to the limits of your person and personality, or you can have the majesty of God, infinity, His natural order and the balance of all things in seeking His grace.
Your choice is between one or all, but not the many perspectives offered by the debating hall of mirrors, which is a vanity project for midwits.
There is no debate about the changeless nature of being and reality. There is no debate about the state we are in. We face the death of our civilisation assisted by the terms and conditions of debate. There is nothing to discuss but how to win, and that is not a discussion about winning an argument.
If you would like to offend your friends with my factism, you can inflict me on them here:
If you would like to pay me to radicalise our people into the rescue of our civilisation, you can do that here:
I mean spontaneous illumination here, not the deplorable “Enlightenment” itself, which promised utopia through the bootstrap of Reason alone and has delivered us into an evil that is reasonably defined as literally unspeakable.
Yes, Soros named his “Open Society Foundation” after Karl Popper’s book. When you speak in defence of tolerance, you ride with Soros.
I could (and should) write a book about this. Here I hope to give an introduction.
Pyrrhonism is radical scepticism. It was the school of the man who gave his name to Empiricism (Locke, Hume etc). A discplined scepticism is wise, a fanatical one replaces facticity with folly.
The cogito is ridiculous and its process and product relies on the same magic words (“lumen naturae”, “emergent property”) from Descartes to Dennett. These phrases are inventions to bridge a gap that Reason cannot fill, presenting a description of its limits as a triumph. You can see this whole system as a failed attempt to refute St Thomas Aquinas.
I do not subscribe to the Social Contract of Rousseau, which is a foundational text of the revolution inspired by the deplorable “Enlightenment”. Rousseau’s Godless nihilism romanticises Man into an idol. The result is to exculpate any act he commits in service of the revolutionary idea of what is good and just.
Revolutionaries are the enemies of civilisation everywhere.
Debate pretends that compromise is possible between groups with inherently conflicting interests.
I will not debate whether England belongs to my children or to random foreigners; it’s non-negotiable.
I have, over the course of running "debate" club these past few years, come to your same ultimate conclusions. Debate is fake, gay, and retarded.
It helps to know I'm right. I don't know what my debate club will look like when we're done, but it will be the death of itself.
Thanks, Frank.