Tag: Gamma

Into the Gammas’ Den

I’ll be doing an AMA – with the exception of anything related to my family – in the r/gammasecretkings subreddit on Friday at 7 PM EST. Feel free to come and enjoy the repertoire, and if you’ve got a Reddit account, join in the fun.

Same as the Kurgan AMA, Marquess of Queensbury rules will apply. I expect a clean fight and for all parties to be good sports. I’m not saying anybody should pull any punches, just that none will be allowed to fight dirty. u/voxday, whether he intends it or not, is a man that can bring out the worst in both his supporters and detractors.

Of course, it being Thursday, that means tonight at 7 PM EST is Arkhaven Nights. Turn on the lights!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Intellectual Father of Clown World II

Another round of Kant v Day. While people speak frequently about Enlightenment values, they very seldom reference, or presumably, even know, what Enlightenment actually means. Kant, one of the widely recognized central figures of the Enlightenment, and certainly the most respected, defined it as follows:

Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority. Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. This minority is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.

The first thing to note here is that Kant is clearly speaking in rhetoric here. This is not dialectic. Except for being directly cribbed from Aristotle’s objective distinction of the master and the natural slave, there is no genuine information content in this subjective distinction. This is exhortational manipulation designed to appeal to the reader’s emotions, as is the next section.

It is because of laziness and cowardice that so great a part of humankind, after nature has long since emancipated them from other people’s direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remains minors for life, and that it becomes so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book that understands for me, a spiritual advisor who has a conscience for me, a doctor who decides upon a regimen for me, and so forth, I need not trouble myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay; others will readily undertake the irksome business for me. That by far the greatest part of humankind (including the entire fair sex) should hold the step toward majority to be not only troublesome but also highly dangerous will soon be seen to by those guardians who have kindly taken it upon themselves to supervise them; after they have made their domesticated animals dumb and carefully prevented these placid creatures from daring to take a single step without the walking cart in which they have confined them, they then show them the danger that threatens them if they try to walk alone. Now this danger is not in fact so great, for by a few falls they would eventually learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes them timid and usually frightens them away from any further attempt.

Kant has barely, and unsatisfactorily, addressed the What before immediately pivoting to the Why. This is characteristic of a sophistical deceiver, or at least someone who wants to avoid discussing the substance of a matter. Again, the entire paragraph is mere rhetoric devoid of any substantive information. You don’t want to be a coward, do you, anon? You don’t want people to think you are lazy, or a child, right, anon? So grow up! Think for yourself! Be enlightened! Definitely don’t pay any attention to those old books, those old priests, or any of the knowledge painstakingly acknowledged by your predecessors over the millennia!

Surely your massive Smart Boy brain will more than suffice to provide you with anything you actually need to know! Be brave enough to emerge from the childhood in which all those stupid jocks and pretty girls who rejected you dwell, and make use of your own understanding, whatever that may happen to be, without direction from anyone or anything else!

We’ve heard this before. This is Zero History combined with Thelema. This is literally the philosophical foundation for both the Khmer Rouge and the French Revolution justified on the basis of “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”.

The more one reads Kant, the more readily one grasps how his midwit philosophy is little more than the delusions of an angry Gamma seeking to justify his subjective sense of personal superiority in a world that objectively views him as inferior.

DISCUSS ON SG

Go Away, Gamma

In case I haven’t made it entirely and absolutely clear, being “a longtime reader”, being a “supporter”, being a “subscriber”, being a “backer”, or even being “your biggest fan” cuts absolutely no ice with me. In fact, to the contrary, if you are any of those things, I have higher expectations of you than I do of some random drive-by commenter who knows nothing of me or of this community.

Today at Sigma Game, I asked women who had experience of raising, dating, or marrying Deltas to share their opinions concerning some of the pros and cons of Delta males. I also specifically told men to not share their own opinions or experiences, but to limit themselves to commenting on what the women were saying.

Needless to say, there were a few Gammas who were too emotionally incontinent to restrain themselves and simply let the women talk. One, in particular, didn’t hesitate to ignore my directions and go right off the deep end.

Elwin Ransom: Comments are interesting, but as I read them I can’t help feeling that many classifications by commenters are very likely skewed by perception and situational biases. I have long thought about a Myers-Briggs style test for SSH, but instead of just creating one and guessing what certain types will answer, thereby invoking the “this is what me the Alpha/Sigma would say” type response, a better proposal would be to create such a test, then administer it to a known set including all types, then correlate responses based on what the known set of answers. Hard part would be to find and agree upon the classification of the set of base answerees – but once complete, would be more quantitative way of self-assessment.

Man of the Atom: What does your husband do?

[Very long digression by a few commenters on why Man of the Atom, as a commenter, would attempt to keep the comments on track and on topic redacted.]

Elwin Ransom: He’s providing an unasked-for service, anonymously, on a comment board on the internet. That makes him a loser. Not Gamma on your part, and no further contemplation required.

Vox Day: It’s fascinating how the Gammas always identify themselves so quickly. Do you simply not have any idea how transparent all your little machinations are to everyone, ESPECIALLY women, who play those games much better than you do?

Man of the Atom: You still haven’t told us what your husband does.

Elwin Ransom: He shuts the fuck up when no one asked for his opinion, that’s what he does.

Vox Day: You didn’t. Why should he? Also, you’re permanently banned. I don’t wish to turn this into a no-Gammas zone, but it’s probably going to end up that way over time.

But wait, there’s more! Because of course there is. Within 11 minutes of my banning Mr. Ransom from Sigma Game, I received an email which led to the following exchange.

“Elwin Ransom” (real name redacted): The commenter on your Sigma Game thread that you just banned was me. I have been a reader for close to two decades, and subscriber to both Castalia series since they started. No longer.

Vox Day: Excellent. You clearly learned nothing over those two decades. Your behavior was unwanted, disrespectful, vulgar, and you should be embarrassed for yourself. But you won’t be, because you’ll just fire up your Gamma delusion bubble and convince yourself that you were justified. We’ll be pleased to refund you for any books you haven’t received yet. Just email [the usual address] to make the request.

So, for those who didn’t subscribe early enough, if it turns out there is an extra Thucydides, we’ll let you know.

DISCUSS ON SG

Testimonials to the Power

The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is such a powerful predictive model that casual observers are sometimes tempted to suspect they’re being put on. From the comments at Sigma Game, When the Secret King Wins Again:

  • This is so textbook it appears to be fake. But that’s the amazing thing about gammas, their mindset is so distorted that they parody themselves. One almost feels sorry for him, almost.
  • If it was any blogger other than Vox, you’d swear that they’d set up an alternate account in order to make the most QED reply of all time.
  • You are what you are and your basic underlying framework cannot be changed. As pointed out quite well by other commenters, this person displayed the predicted SSH behavior of the Gamma so well that it almost beggars belief. Again, I tip my hat to Vox for recognizing these behavior patterns. They’re so obvious yet they completely eluded modern psychiatry all these years.
  • Not a single clue, not even a fragment of a clue. One of my sons is a gamma and gets all kinds of feedback from his siblings (and me, and his dad) about his egregious behaviour. The other kids call it “resetting to factory defaults”. Whatever feedback he receives, if it doesn’t align with his delusion bubble he flushes it, resets and then carries on gamma-ing. It is painfully hard for him to learn anything productive that might help him.
  • SSH proves to be one of the greatest predictor of behaviour ever devised. In the future in addition to the usual IQ and personality testing, an SSH test will be a mandatory routine practice in the hiring process.

It’s a strong testimonial to the predictive power of the SSH that when one observes it in action, the repetition of the behavioral patterns is often so precise and so reliable that one is tempted to suspect that the anticipated behavior is somehow scripted or faked. But behavioral patterns exist for a reason; they persist because it is very, very difficult and requires a high level of self-discipline to surmount the emotional channels and instinctive reactions that are carved into one’s psyche during the formative years.

At any rate, no matter what happens, no matter what you think you saw, no matter how many iron-clad refutations and mathematical proofs you observed being provided, there can only ever be one result in the end. The Secret King will win again!

He did it again! And everyone applauded…

DISCUSS ON SG

How to Recognize VHIQ

/pol/ considers how the average individual can recognize a highly intelligent individual in public situations:

What are some signs that show someone has a high IQ? The kind of things you can notice within moments of meeting or by spending a few hours with someone?

I have a few anecdotal ones:

  • Friendly, but detached. Like they know they have to play the social game but don’t find it important (they have better things to think about).
  • Can hold a conversation on a wide range of topics.
  • Suddenly light up when esoteric topics come up – they are energised whereas before it was just going through the motions (even their going through the motions is higher level than most people’s high effort)
  • Have a habit of cutting through the crap and saying things very clearly and succinctly. This often shocks people around them with its accuracy.

inb4 IQ score. I don’t give a fuck about that – I’m talking IRL signs which don’t involve asking someone’s IQ like an autist. inb4 is successful businessman/tech guy. Hell no. It’s the midwits that thrive there. I am one.

It’s rather refreshing – and slightly suspicious – to see a midwit who is sufficiently self-aware and modest enough to distinguish between his own superior intelligence and VHIQ. Especially when he is clearly observant enough to recognize some of the genuine signs of high intelligence.

For me, the first sign is always the eyes. Highly intelligent people tend to have a penetrating quality to their eyes, particularly when they aren’t interacting with anyone and aren’t aware they are being observed. It’s often described as “intense” or “lively” by others, and can provoke instinctive reactions such as widening eyes or a physical retreat. It’s also how the highly intelligent can quickly recognize one another. Consider the way that a fictional version of Vladimir Putin is described.

At the time, the tsar was not yet the tsar. His gestures did not then convey the inflexible authority they would later come to acquire, and though his gaze had some trace of the mineral quality we recognize in it today, it was as if veiled by a conscious effort to keep it under control.

Most VHIQ and UHIQ adults know that they will get along better with people if they don’t force them to confront their intelligence. If someone who is not observably shy or lacking in self-confidence, whose posture conveys a high level of self-assurance, tends to habitually avert their eyes or avoid making eye contact, that is a possible indicator.

There are, of course, other indicators. But the eyes are a fairly reliable one, particularly if you see them change from one state of awareness to another in the literal blink of an eye.

One thing to keep in mind is that highly intelligent people always know it. Some will rub your face in it. Others will desperately attempt to conceal it. But the midwit myth of “the smart person who doesn’t know how smart they are” is nothing more than a Gamma coping mechanism. The reality of the VHIQ is the inability to credit how totally fucking retarded the average individual is.

It’s arguably even worse for the UHIQ, since the VHIQ usually has a basic grasp of how the average mind’s logic functions. The UHIQ can’t even understand that.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Case for the Gamma Male

In which a self-styled “dating expert” explains why Gamma Males should be more attractive to women, due to their superior relationship qualities:

In this informative post, I will tell you all about a lesser-known hero – the gamma male.

We’ve all heard of the infamous alpha male archetype; they’re the strong, dominant character who doesn’t take no for an answer. As a dating expert, my take is that the alpha personality type deserves all the praise he’s getting. However, I also believe that the gamma males sure are diamonds in the rough women are missing out on.

A gamma male is a highly intelligent, reflective, and empathic man. To put it simply, he is the epitome of a sensitive guy. Contrary to popular belief, this personality type is nothing short of a man. Although ranking fourth in the social hierarchy ladder, this personality type is first in line for being the most well-rounded.

Top 5 Qualities:

  1. He Is Secure In His Masculinity
  2. He Is A Romantic
  3. He Is Compassionate
  4. He Is A Jack Of All Trades
  5. He Is His Cheerleader

And best of all, he is available! Not only that, but once you get him fixated on you, he will never, ever leave you, not even if you want him to.

Now, I have no doubt that there are women to whom the Gamma Male will harbor special appeal; de gustibus non disputandum est. Everyone has their own particular kryptonite, whether it be curvy, hot-tempered Latinas or haughty ice-blondes with resting bitch face. But it is a little startling to see the behavioral pattern portrayed in a much more positive light than one is accustomed to seeing.

This doesn’t mean the picture being presented is entirely wrong, it’s mostly just… incomplete. Then again, it’s not as if women who prefer Alphas tend to spend much time contemplating the fact that he’s almost certainly going to cheat on her, and usually sooner rather than later.

DISCUSS ON SG

Social Media is MPAI in Action

I posted this on Gab:

War is not a sport. Fatalities are not points. You cannot tell which side is winning a war simply on the basis of comparative KIA. Remember, the Allies took 77 percent of the total casualties in WWII. And yet, the Axis lost the war.

I’m sure it will surprise precisely no one to discover that the Smart Boys policing the Internet couldn’t restrain themselves.

@voxday Did the “Axis” really lose? I concur with General George Patton: “Gentlemen, I’ve come to the inexcusable conclusion that we defeated the wrong enemy. We should have aligned with the Fascists to defeat the communists, not aligned with the Communists to defeat the Fascists.”

Yes, the Axis really fucking lost WWII. Under no possible interpretation can it be said that the Berlin-Toyko-Rome Axis, which is the full and proper name for the WWII military alliance collectively known as “the Axis”, did not lose the war. The signatures on the various surrender documents should suffice to prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

The particularly stupid thing about this specific Smart Boy posturing is that regardless of whether he and General Patton were correct to conclude that the wrong enemy was defeated, the point is that it was, definitively, defeated.

@voxday 77%??? WTF??? ONLY if you count the Russian casualties as Allies!

The Soviet Union absolutely were among the WWII military alliance known as “the Allies” which were opposed to “the Axis”. Not only that, but the Soviet Union was easily the most important Ally, and almost certainly could have won the war by itself. Both the USA and the UK faced only a fraction of the Axis forces that the Soviet Union did, and fielded military forces that were only a fraction of the forces fielded by the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union defeated the primary Axis element, Germany, with help from the USA and the UK, but it almost certainly would have defeated Germany, Italy, and Japan without any help if the two Anglo states had stayed out of the war.

The Lesson, As Always, Is This: More than 9 times out of 10, the average individual would be best served by remembering to shut the fuck up instead of offering one’s unsolicited opinion. And that goes double for the self-styled Smart Boys.

DISCUSS ON SG

Anger is the Tell

It’s never very hard to notice when people are defensive about the choices they have made concerning the way they live their lives. They overreact, usually in an angry and hostile manner, and more often than not, in response to their own actions.

You can usually judge whether or not a lifestyle choice is wrong by how angry.and defensive its practitioners become when you say that they’re making a bad choice.

Here’s an example, and it wasn’t even a judgment, but an assumption I’d made on Facebook about a couple with a child not being the parents because they weren’t wearing wedding rings.

So I figured the woman was the parent and the guy was a boyfriend.

Some woman I went to high school with went totally berserk in my comments. How dare I make that assumption! Oh, I must think I’m perfect! What a judgmental asshole! You don’t have to be married to raise a child you both created!

On and on, stalking every post Id made that month alerting everyone to what an asshole bigot I am up on my high horse.

I just laughed and deleted it all, didn’t even respond. She was living with some guy she’d had a kid with and I think he had kids from another woman. I guess I hit a sore spot.

But if she was comfortable with her choices, my simple generalization wouldn’t have made her raging mad. At most she would’ve felt a little annoyed.

People often think the anger comes from others judging them, but it’s not that they’re being judged. It’s that deep down they KNOW they’ve made the wrong choice. That’s why the real or perceived judgment stings.

Spacebunny has noticed this, particularly with regards to parents who don’t homeschool their children. They know the option is suboptimal for their children, and when it isn’t a matter of necessity, the mere fact of someone else making a different choice makes them proactively defensive:

This is one hundred percent true.

Another example is homeschooling – when I started homeschooling I would get asked why I chose that path – honesty would get them immediately defensive of their choice and then, instead of listening to me, they would start telling why they would/could never do it and blah, blah, blah. To which I generally responded “I don’t care, I didn’t ask you, you asked me.”

DISCUSS ON SG

An Army of Gammas

The US Army’s strange recruiting tactics make a lot more sense once you realize it probably isn’t mobilizing for a war with a near-peer military like China or Russia, but rather, in preparation for the large-scale violent suppression of civilians:

Do you remember when the testosterone-driven “Top Gun” was the ultimate recruitment tool for the US Navy? It’s easy to see why—the movie was packed with adrenaline, rugged men, beautiful women, and plenty of what’s now termed “toxic masculinity.” Contrast that with today’s military, which has totally shifted focus. Instead of seeking out traditionally masculine men, their recruitment now heavily includes the LGBTQ community and men who wear pantyhose. This change might be why their recruitment numbers are in the toilet.

The United States military’s newest recruitment tactic is taking a really bizarre turn. Gone are the days of scouting for robust young men at gyms or high school football practices. Now, they’re adopting a different strategy: dressing up as anime characters and visiting “conventions” across the nation.

The Bolsheviks didn’t unleash an elite and well-disciplined military against the kulaks of the Ukraine. To the contrary, they unleashed a horde of coked-up gammas to steal, slaughter, and suppress the population, if the accounts of the Holodomor are even remotely accurate.

So, either the US Army has no idea what sort of young men it is going to attract by shifting its focus toward recruiting sexual deviants and “socially-awkward weirdos” or it is preparing for a very different sort of war than most people anticipate it fighting.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Tragic Error

The Kurgan explains how situational advantages are generally insufficient to break ingrained patterns of behavior for the Gamma.

The Alpha may actually get quite stung at rejection, especially if it is public and from a high status woman. His ego and need to be seen as the Alpha may in fact also cause him to be quite caustic or dismissive, but if so it will be only in the moment and temporarily. After all, no real Alpha wants to be seen as a pitiful shadow of a man that is pining after some woman. Besides, there are usually several waiting in the wings for him happy to heal his broken heart. In the Alpha mind, getting angry at rejection from a woman is essentially below his dignity and status to do. He may privately be quite hurt, but rage, even to himself, goes against his nature, which is essentially generous and expectant of plentifulness (be it women, business, fame, and so on). The Alpha is a reacher for things, including women, but usually not a desperate grabber in the normal course of affairs.

The Delta is more of a balanced individual and generally will take rejection on the chin, be hurt, then move on with his life and try and find peace where he can. These are the majority of well balanced men.

The Gamma however has wholly different internal mechanisms and they end up being the really creepy and dangerous ones, even if they present as easy-going, liberal, modern metrosexual men in touch with their feminine side. In almost diametric opposition to Sigmas, the Game has a profound (and un-admitted) lack of self-confidence. This is a root cause in their very core and they try to cover up that existential hole in their soul with all manner of fakery. Be it money, status, recognition by the masses for their achievements (real or most often imagined or “manufactured”), it is never enough to really fill that essential lack of self-truth.

A Gamma can be a billionaire (see Bezos) and still behave in a completely creepy/loser/gamma way with women. It is true that and Alpha or a Sigma or even a Delta, that is really a millionaire or billionaire can have his pick of women willing to be his sexual partners, and many of those women, initially attracted by the power, wealth and status, may even end up having genuine feelings for the man in question, but there is a core difference in the dynamics with a Gamma.

The billionaire alpha, sigma or even delta, may be perfectly aware of the sexual liaison with women being purely transactional. Their temporary thrill at being on a private jet, or even just seen with the billionaire in question, is enough for them to permit sex between them. The Delta will eventually be a bit sad at such an arrangement and over time get disillusioned with this woman or perhaps even women in general if the pattern repeats. An Alpha may even prefer the situation to be transactional and be fine with it and get a new “performer” once he bores with the first one, or have multiple ones in play or make a proper business contract out of a “marriage”. A Sigma may do the same, or become a pimp, or a celibate monk by choice. But a Gamma will simply think that his material wealth gives him the right and the authority to do what he imagines Alphas do or get away with doing. And this is the tragic error.

Jeff Bezos really is the quintessential example of the triumph of behavioral patterns over situational status. But if you want a visual example of what the Kurgan is describing, you can’t do better than watch the clip from The Big Bang Theory, when Stuart dreams of being what he thinks is an Alpha dating Penny, complete with top hat.

For some reason, Gammas have very strange ideas about hats…

DISCUSS ON SG