The Future of the Alt-Right: Jack Murphy vs VoxDay

My discussion with VoxDay about the future of the alt-right is finally available.  Ivan Throne at worked diligently to create the transcript and podcast package.  Unfortunately, there was an issue with the audio starting about 30 minutes in, so please make sure to download the PDF from Ivan’s site.

Richard Spencer pusses out (again)

The origin of this discussion is interesting. After my confrontation with Richard Spencer at the Deploraball afterparty, Ivan sensed an opportunity to have a worthy debate which would benefit folks on all sides.  He issued a debate challenge to both Spencer and myself.

[READ: Alt-right to All Wrong]

[READ: 3 Ways Richard Spencer’s Brand Died]

I, of course, accepted right away.  Spencer, of course, declined (consistent with his brand).

VoxDay stepped up and asked to be involved, which lead us to where we are today.

My plans for Spencer were much more aggressive and hostile than with Vox.  I respect Vox’s writings and his intellect, so the tone of this is more academic discussion than a contentious debate. I think you’ll find this to be more informative than some yelling and ad hominem.

A fundamental difference I see between VoxDay and others like Spencer and the LARP’ing 1488’ers is that Vox doesn’t appear to be calling for a white ethnostate but rather he sees it as inevitable. This significant difference provides the space for a thoughtful discussion. Call me idealistic, but I’d rather address the issues he cites and work to avoid separation, war, or even ‘cleansing.’  Thus, we are talking about these matters as a way to learn and move forward.

We covered a lot of ground from Antifa protests, BLM, Richard Spencer, New Media, and of course – the alt-right.

Origination Issue

While Vox was able to lend a historical perspective to many of the broader alt-right’s positions, I still don’t see how the inherent contradictions within their ideology are overcome. Most importantly there is what I consider to be the “origination issue”. The alt-right fails to see the link between the founders, the system they created, and the permissible outcomes of such system. They also seem to think there is unanimity of thought amongst white Americans in the US. 

JACK MURPHY: I think there are wider disagreements in those of a similar identity than tariffs. The immigration policy that we adopted are the product of white Christian Europeans in a country founded by their ancestors is it not?

VOX DAY: No, it isn’t. it is a product of the early twentieth century immigrants wanting to challenge their progenitors.

JACK MURPHY: Who were those immigrants?

VOX DAY: They were primarily German, Italian, Irish and Jewish. The groups that really pushed to change the rules in 1965 were a group of Jews lead by Immanuel Cellar. He was allied with the Irish as well. They also had their allies among the Anglo-Saxons like Andrew Johnson. Johnson believed that he could enlist them to make the Democrat party dominant.


What happened historically is that for about every thirty years there would be a complete pause in immigration. They would open the channel and then shut it off.”

White Anglo Christians created this country, and Vox alleges they did so for the benefit of Englishmen only.  Assuming that is true, they also governed according to the laws they established and they elected leaders and legislators according to the same.  Then those legislators decided to allow immigration. 

First, it was folks like Irish, German, Russian, and Scandinavian people.  When they landed, they were foreigners and something apart from the traditional US. But eventually, they became a part of the country.  Time passed and those folks mixed with the founding groups to become the new US.  And then that new United States voted for and passed the 1965 immigration laws which have led us to where we are today.

Therefore, today’s environment is a direct product of the founder’s vision.

It adhered to the rules they established. While the alt-right may not be happy with the outcome, there is no disputing the immigration situation we find ourselves in today occurred wholly within the institutions and processes established in 1789. 

Was there an invasion by a foreign power who implemented their rules and laws?  Did we swear fealty to another country and accept their will imposed from afar?  No, we voted people into power who then made decisions which have results.

The results are as much a part of the identity of the founders as the color of their skin or their religion.

If you don’t like the results today, that’s fine, but then you’re admitting the founder’s vision was flawed.  And if it was flawed, returning to the original state is a worthless panacea.

Part of what separates me from the alt-right is an acceptance of the current situation.  The cake is baked. Yes, we should limit immigration and figure out how to assimilate everyone, but accepting the legal immigrants we have today is part of the healing process. Fighting against their presence is anti-American, as it was the American way which brought them here in the first place.

In fact, VoxDay admits that historically the US would open immigration for 30 years, then shut it off for assimilation purposes. This time we may have overshot our 30 year period by 22.  1965 to 2017 is too long to keep the gates open. In that Vox and I agree. 

Vision for Future

At the end of the debate, I outlined my vision for the future. It is simple. Halt immigration. Build the wall (either real or in spirit). And most importantly, embark on a 25-year assimilation program designed to create inter-community trust and communication. Call it “One America” or “America First” or…”Make America Great Again.”  We need a quarter century of propaganda, psyops, and memetic influence. Once we do that, then we as a unified country can figure out what to do next.

Check out the discussion, listen, read, think.  I suspect there will be more of these talks to come in the future.  Vox is a smart guy, and I enjoyed the dialogue.  People are already calling for round 2!

NOTE: The Audio does get garbled half way through – please do download the free PDF from

The Future of the Alt-Right: Jack Murphy vs. VoxDay


future of the alt-right


If you liked this post, you’re gonna love my book.

It’s about all of this and a ton more. Check it out:

Join the list and get my FREE eBook:


  • How to find your masculinity in today’s world
  • How to be a thoughtful steward in all your relationships
  • How to become a man you’d admire

Sign up now and get the eBook today:

32 comments… add one
  • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 11:35

    You’re just a leftist Jew who knows basically nothing about History and political theory. You’re not even close to being on the Right side of the political spectrum with ridiculous arguments like ideology being the most important factor in national cohesion. The fact is, the Jewish Cultural Marxist school took over the American Left by the 1960s and made things like the Hart-Celler Act possible. I can’t even call a never was like you, a cuck. Just admit the truth, you hate the idea of an ethno-state because you are a Jew, and might be excluded. Thus, like all Jews, you have to turn every nation into a proposition nation to give yourself any legitimacy. Tip, your people have an ethno-state called Israel. Please stop the hypocrisy.

    • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 12:42

      I’m approving this comment as a great example of the level of discourse I encounter with most people who advocate for the alt-right.

      I’m thankful Voxday is far more mature and intelligent than most of these morons.

      With respect to Hart-Celler -Assuming your theory is true – how did those Jewish Marxists come to be in power? How did they get in the country? Who voted for the legislation in congress? Was this a supra-governmental action imposed on the US by forces outside of our elected government?

      Of course, the answer is that the ’65 act was passed by elected officials and the people who voted for them were here because of prior actions taken by the government.

      If you can control yourself, I’ll give you a chance to reply to this question: how in fact do you propose to your desired ethnostate?

      • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 13:14

        The Cultural Marxist school, which today could basically be called Globalism or the Neo-liberal consensus originated in Germany during the interwar period. During the 1930’s, they had to leave Germany, for obvious reasons, and began what has been called the long march through the institutions. This entailed the development of various branches of “scientific” inquiry, Boasian Anthropology, Sociology, and Psychology that served to provide the intellectual groundwork for their worldview. This was done by slowly supplanting the WASP elite of many major US universities. By the 1960’s, this form of Leftism had basically become hegemonic in academic circles, and remains so to this day. The Hart-Celler Act was sold to the American people on the promise that it would not fundamentally change the population of the US. This was a lie at the outset. It never had any popular support, and, much like today, the extreme wealth and activism of the Jewish elite is used through the media and political donations to influence policy. I’m not concerned with the legality of the proceeding, as much as the outcomes we’ve experienced. The concept of an ethno-state is an extreme end goal. A vision for the future, much in the same way Zionists in the 19th century thought about a future Jewish state before some viable solution presented itself. It should not be seen as a policy proposal. While the entho-state in North America is inevitable, no one is actively planning for some immediate separation. This is the same problem the Left has with Trump. They take everything he says literally and ask “How can we possibly do that?” rather than looking at his statements as a general worldview.

        • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 14:23

          As I understand it, the bill passed pretty easily. Do you think it was because of lies? The entire congress was duped? What a bunch of dummies in that case.

          The ’65 bill obviously had a major impact on the demo. I agree we should halt immigration.

          This is where we diverge. Because from there I think we should enter into a long term assimilation program, whereas it seems to me alt-right would then move towards division.

          • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 14:44

            In theory, assimilation would be great, but I think that once one realizes the biological reality of race, you understand that assimilation has limits. I believe that different Europeans can absolutely assimilate into other European/Christian societies over time. Can a 70 IQ Somali Muslim ever really assimilate? I think not.

          • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 14:52

            Not everyone can be an Alpha, or a Beta. I think you need to read more Huxley.

            This is one thing I never understand, which one of you alt-righters are going to shine my shoes and clean the shit out of my toilets once the ethnostate happens?

          • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 15:04

            Good on you to bring up Huxley. One of the pioneers of Globalist thought. Did you really support Trump? We never had White maids and shoeshine boys? Wow, they might expect to make more than 4$ an hour, raising wages all throughout the economy. Can’t have that. Short term economic efficiency is not really a big issue for the Alt-right. Vox touched on this in your talk. What about your vaunted assimilation? You’re willing to give that up immediately for cheap labor. That’s the argument you just made.

          • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 15:05

            No, my friend, I don’t really care who does it. I was just wondering what you thought. It just strikes me that everyone thinks is a smaller homogenous society, they’ll land on top. You realize the odds are against that right?

            All this theory is tiresome. What to do today?

          • jz95 Feb 13, 2017 @ 15:04

            If a “white ethnostate” were ever to come into existence, the hierarchy would probably look something like the economies of EU nations. Nordics/Germanics on top, Mediterraneans in the middle, Slavs on the bottom. Even within races there are “castes.”

          • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:13

            Aren’t all European nations NOT created equal in this paradigm?

            White European cultures are far from homogeneous. Who is in and who is out?

          • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:23

            No, the IQ of Caucasians averages uniformly to be 100 with only slight variance between countries. While Europeans have cultural differences, no one who acknowledges the reality of race believes Slavs and Nordic Europeans to be a different race, for example. Vox explains this well enough during his talk. The European people in America have become a separate and unique nation(people without a state i.e. Boers) from the nation states(Italy, France, etc.) their ancestors might have left. No person of European descent would be excluded from an ethno-state in North America, according to the views of Richard Spencer and everyone on the Alt-right I’ve ever heard.

          • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:28

            Cultural differences would NEVER crop up? Even within Slavs there is a national caste system. Just because it isn’t our problem doesn’t mean it would never be our children’s problem.

          • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:33

            I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Is this some argument in favor of letting in massive amounts of people of different races, cultures and religions? The US is different from Europe because of our historical exposure to other races, such as Blacks and Indians. We generally view ourselves as White, while maintaining some cultural influences of our ancestors. I don’t identify in the Census as Polish, for example, when asked my race.

          • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:38

            When the intergroup metric of race no longer exists, subsequent generations need a new metric. Often this is sub-race or caste within the same race.

            For example, would you or I be consindexed less white than pure English if we are Welsh and Polish? Likely not today, but what protections would be in place for subsequent generations?

            There is a whole lot of pre-planning that goes into forming a refuge for a current in-group.

          • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:46

            There may be something to that line of thinking, but the fundamental fact is Europeans have much more in common with each other genetically and culturally than to anyone else. I wouldn’t really be concerned about problems like that at this time. We also know far more about genetics than our ancestors did, and since the American nation is largely mixed European anyway, that type of Chauvinism would be well nigh impossible. All people of European descent are White and Caucasian, there is no such thing as more or less White unless you are of mixed racial heritage(part Black, Arab, etc.)

          • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 17:03

            The current plans rely far to much on utopian attitudes. As a man, the survival of my own genes is my primary biological concern. It’s too big for me to worry about it later.

            Also, if genetics are the prime influence, then we have to acknowledge that Asians have as much Neanderthal DNA as we do. That high percentile of Neanderthal DNA contributes to our IQ, which is another argument I see made often.

            Logistics, allies, resources, and more play into this scenario. I don’t disparage anyone for wanting something, but the specifics need to be addressed. The proposed developments would be a massive undertaking.

          • jz95 Feb 13, 2017 @ 9:42

            European IQ is roughly 94-95, according to Richard Lynn IQ scores.


            Northern European IQ is 100. Balkan IQ is in the low 90s.

          • Alek Feb 13, 2017 @ 10:08

            Looking at it on a country by country basis is different than just taking a blanket average. Some European countries like Italy have an average IQ of over 100 while others, like the Bulgaria are in the low 90’s. Overall though, I’d say the general consensus in the US is the average IQ of Caucasians is about 100. I think we’re both saying basically the thing. Good use of Lynn.

          • jz95 Feb 13, 2017 @ 12:49

            Actually, if we throw in all Caucasians (which includes South Asians, West Asians and North Africans) Caucasian IQ is probably in the high 80s-low 90s.
            And yes, white American IQ is roughly 100, you are correct. But keep in mind the US has historically been dominantly northern European. As such, this number is not surprising.

          • Alek Feb 13, 2017 @ 13:23

            Yes, but that depends on what categorization you’re using to define race. All Indians are mixed with Dravidians as well to some extent. Likewise, all modern Persians basically have a Turkic, Asian, and Arab admixture. North Africans are also a mixed group. All these groups today called Caucasian may have ancient Indo-European ancestors, but have drifted further apart over the last 5000 years. You can look at the 4 root races as starting points, but I think lumping all descendants together isn’t a great tool. I will endeavor to be more precise, which is always a challenge when making general statements.

          • Jack Murphy Feb 13, 2017 @ 13:31

            This brings up another point. Basically we’re all descendant from north africa, our human species set out an conquered the entire world, killing or displacing all the other human species. If you go back far enough, we’re all the same. Why does it make sense to draw the line at any point in history and say _this right here_ is what defines us?

          • Alek Feb 13, 2017 @ 13:44

            I think the understanding is always changing due to new information. Clearly, all human beings can interbreed and are the same species just as all dogs can. The question of race is really a definition of subspecies, just like Darwin finches. The problem comes when people create false intellectual constructs like evolution and natural selection doesn’t apply to humans. I don’t believe any subspecies is inherently “better” than another, but natural selection and isolation have created the diversity of life on our planet, including human beings, which should be preserved.

          • Jack Murphy Feb 13, 2017 @ 18:09

            I’m with you all the way up until the very last clause. There’s really no way to determine “Should” when it comes to nature. It simply is.

      • Alek Feb 12, 2017 @ 13:27

        I answered every one of your questions in full, but you’re too much of a pussy to post my very respectful answer.

    • DarkTriadMan Feb 12, 2017 @ 13:28


      Why, I think a nerve has been plucked, and resonates.

      Do tell more.



  • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 12:50

    One thing I keep seeing from the alt-right is this need to blame (jews, foreigners, immigrants, “degenerates.” It’s a form of cognitive dissonance and faggotry. Anglo Christians founded the country, set the rules, elected the people, and set the ball in motion…and now alt-righters want to complain about the outcome. Oh no. Guess the system didn’t work out the way you wanted it to. Idealizing a past which created this present is illogical.

    • ogunsiron Feb 12, 2017 @ 18:18

      Europeans in general and white americans in particular should be above having any legitimate grievance against another people ? It is possible to go overboard in blaming the jews, but i don’t think it’s any wiser to posit that the only problem with jewish aggression is that the target of the aggression got harmed by it and therefore it’s all their fault.

  • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 13:12

    One more thing: the absolute levels of white folks in the US is solely determined by white people. If you want there to be more of them, get your women under control and make some babies. Go forth and multiply.

    And with real effort (and by that I mean by actually caring) you could change the relative amounts too…just get fucking! It’s all up to you!

  • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 13:20

    Vox Day’s responses were all smart plays.

    Intelligent, accurate, and impactful. They were also very measured. More businesslike and less personal.

    That makes sense, since he’s an accomplished publisher. Executive talk comes with the territory.

    An example of this is his consideration of an ethno-state as a certain outcome. There isn’t any mention of what the people going into this situation will have to do. There isn’t any discussion of the aftermath. There also isn’t any speculation as to a reasonable time frame.

    The confusing thing about all this is that his business isn’t dependent on the Alt-Right. He’s going to sell books whether the Alt-Right achieves its goals or not. I don’t understand it.

    I don’t believe Vox Day is invested in the Alt-Right from a business perspective, since his business would be unaffected. I also don’t think he’d like to personally be the figurehead, as he’s too smart for that. He knows what it would entail.

    It’s true that we must use the past as a framework for understanding the present and building a future. His grasp on the future and how it relates to the present is stellar.

    I believe Vox Day went into this debate with gloves on. Truly, a brilliant man. I just believe we need a little more Certainty today. We are less interested in the distant future than the immediate one.

    Phenomenal discussion! Highly stimulating, poor audio quality or not. A big thanks to all involved.

    • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 14:29

      The logistics or necessary course of events which would lead us to an ethnostate is what I really want to discuss. Without considering that and working backward, it makes policy discussions today as ignorant or obfuscated as the ones around the 1965 Immigration Act.

      Everyone who advocates alt-right likes to gloss over this.

      • Lloyd Feb 12, 2017 @ 16:08

        That’s exactly what I mean. It was your question to Spencer as well.

        I’m not seeking an ethno-state, but if someone plans to create one in the US I’d like to know what their plan entails. It would impact every current and future American citizen.

        • Jack Murphy Feb 12, 2017 @ 17:10

          I think they avoid the answer because of a) how unpalatable it is to most or b) how implausible it is. Part of my plan is to bring out the truth. But as you’ve seen, everyone avoids.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *