Agree. Buchanan and Derbyshire are more popular than Vox in the dissident right and you never see Vox attacking them. I guess you could even say the same of Milo, or at least you could have until recently. Vox is always arrogant and often aggressively unpleasant but like you say, his ideas are interesting. I would add that they are important too.Athanasius said:I just don't get that sense from Vox, that it's about getting back at those more popular than himself. He even admits he's arrogant and a niche product. I think he's largely an honest observer who, for example, thinks Peterson and Shapiro are dishonest gatekeepers. He also doesn't really like gossip.Easy_C said:My answer to the commonly made argument that Vox's critics are just jealous of his success:
Do you not realize that impression is exactly what his own behavior causes? Vox tends to aggressively insult, belittle, and attack anyone who is more popular than himself. He does it with such frequency and consistency that it gives off the impression of not a strong movement leader, but of someone who is triggered by the observation of anyone else being more popular than himself. The behavior isn't "alpha". Trying to climb status hierarchies through the creation of social drama is feminine behavior.
His imperious behavior is ridiculous and embarrassing (he's almost autistic at times), which obscures his interesting thoughts to some degree. But I think it's a personality flaw borne from arrogance, not secret-king style resentment.
Another thing is that Vox attacks nobodies who disagree with him (i.e. "gamma males") at least as aggressively. He just went after another one on his blog today.