A Narrative Fail

What we observe in the aftermath of The Guardian’s most recent hit piece on yours truly is the declining ability of the mainstream media to drive a narrative. Consider the search results on several different search engines:

1. The Guardian
2. Sigma Game comments

1. Sigma Game
2. The Guardian
3. Press Reader Australia
4. Vox Popoli

1. Sigma Game
2. The Guardian
3. Sigma Game comments
4. Press Reader Australia
5. Vox Popoli

1. Sigma Game
2. The Guardian
3. Vox Popoli

Ironically, giving the small subset of Guardian readers that actually read any one story that isn’t a front-page headliner, it is very probable that more people either read about the hit piece on Sigma Game or here on VP than they read the piece itself in the newspaper or on the paper’s site. And the fact that Google is the only search engine where the Guardian appeared first is quite likely due to Sundar Pikachu’s shadowbanning of any site related to me.


The Sad, Stupid Rise of the Sigma Male

The Guardian has come a long way since it first started trying to discredit me back in 2013. Back then, I didn’t merit identification by name, but was merely “one particular individual” and John Scalzi’s “bête noir”. They started identifying me as Vox Day in 2016 when the Rabid Puppies upended the Hugo Awards, but now that the concepts of the Sigma Male and the SSH have entered the mainstream discourse, I’ve been upgraded to full “real name” status, complete with unequivocal libel and false attributions:

The sad, stupid rise of the sigma male: how toxic masculinity took over social media

The “sigma male” emerged from this primordial testosterone swamp largely thanks to a 55-year-old American science-fiction writer and publisher named Theodore Robert Beale, who blogs under the name Vox Day. A proud Christian nationalist, racist and misogynist, Beale has argued that black men are genetically more inclined to violence than white men, that women should not be allowed to vote, and that feminism was “a seductive but destructive Jewish ideology that was more incoherent than communism, more bloodthirsty than nazism, and more histrionic than fascism”.

In 2010 Beale wrote a blog post in which he attempted to expand the “overly simplistic” division of men into alphas and betas. He came up with his own “sociosexual hierarchy”, with alphas at the top – “the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust” – followed by betas, deltas, gammas, lambdas, right down to omegas – “the losers”. Sitting outside this imaginary pyramid of masculinity were sigmas – “the lone wolves”. Beale defined sigmas as “outsiders who don’t play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow” and who “often like women, but also tend to be contemptuous of them”. They were on a par with alphas, but just didn’t show off about it.

“There is very little – if any – convincing science behind the notion that personality types exist or are fixed,” says Debbie Ging, professor of digital media and gender at Dublin City University. “It’s basically a really simplistic, misguided and bio-determinist account of human behaviour, which doesn’t take into account the sociocultural construction of gender identity or the impact of economic and political forces on people’s choices or lack thereof.”

The purpose, of course, is to seed Wikipedia and provide other publications with identification and spotting in order to encourage them to fire for effect. That’s why the full name, nationality, and age are provided, to ensure that the journalists in the SJW school follow this particular turn of direction correctly. So, we can anticipate a few more hit pieces from the lesser media sites, although I expect the Swiss journalists have learned their lesson about the validity of Internet sources by now and are less than enthusiastic about sitting down for another round of interviews with the police.

The piece by a pretty good specimen of journalistic deceit. The author, Steve Rose, is almost certainly aware that the idea that “black men are genetically more inclined to violence than white men” is not my argument, but rather an observation by the British editor of Science, Nature, and the science section of The New York Times, Nicholas Wade, in his controversial 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.

Rose knows this, because there are no less than 11 references to Wade’s work on this blog, including the direct quote from the book that is the basis for the argument to which Rose is referring and falsely attributing to me.

“As it happens, the promoter for MAO-A is quite variable in the human population. People may have two, three, four or five copies of it, and the more copies they have, the more of the MAO-A enzyme their cells produce. What difference does this make to a person’s behavior? Quite a lot, it turns out. People with three, four or five copies of the MAO-A promoter are normal but those with only two copies have a much higher level of delinquency…. He and his colleagues looked at the MAO-A promoters in African Americans. The subjects were the same 2,524 American youths in the study by Shih mentioned above. Of the African American men in the sample, 5% carried two MAO-A promoters, the condition that Shih had found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency. Members of the two-promoter group were significantly more likely to have been arrested and imprisoned than African Americans who carried three or four promoters. The same comparison could not be made in white, or Caucasian, males, the researchers report, because only 0.1% carry the two-promoter allele.”

Now, why would my fellow former contributor to the Atlanta Journal/Constitution – Rose didn’t mention that either, naughty naughty – falsely attribute my reference to Wade’s book and Shi’s study as being an original argument of my own? Because it’s just another hit piece, of course.

Anyhow, just as the Swiss hit piece only made me look like a prescient genius with regards to the Russian military victory in Ukraine, this British hit piece is going to demonstrate, once more, that I’m well ahead of the scientists and the current state of scientage. Because while the mainstream Narrative is asserting, correctly, that there is no “convincing science behind the notion that personality types exist or are fixed”, they are too low-IQ to understand that scientage is a dynamic and incomplete collection of accepted knowledge, some of which is verifiably true and some of which is provably false.

There is little, if any, scientific evidence for generally fixed behavioral profiles because I am the one who provided the original hypothesis, just as I was the one who provided the original hypothesis in 2007, now supported by the scientific evidence of several studies, for the link between atheism and autism. The fact that the evidence has not yet been provided by professional scientists for a new scientific hypothesis says absolutely nothing about the hypothesis being supported or falsified by the scientody required to produce, or fail to produce, the scientific evidence.

And the fact that the SSH is a taxonomy, one that describes real and observable patterns of human behavior, means that the evidence to back the hypothesis will inevitably be forthcoming. There are no amount of experiments and studies that will deny the existence of the readily observable; deny the okapi all you like, but everyone can go and literally see it at the zoo.

Which is why I find this particular hit piece to be both informative and extremely useful. It’s informative because it tells us that the SSH is getting popular enough that Clown World wants to either a) disappear it or at least b) sever its link with me, and it’s useful because it will serve as additional proof of precedence for what will eventually be my well-deserved claim to be the father of anthrothesiology once the scientists begin to catch up with the concepts I’ve introduced and begin not only substantiating them, but utilizing them.

The Rise of Anthrothesiology


46 Billion

Sometimes, I can almost empathize with the clowns whose job it is to suppress the various Unauthorized creators and prevent us from becoming mainstream figures. It’s got to be frustrating to keep us off all of the mainstream platforms, and yet see our ideas still winning out over all of their ticket-takers and approved, algorithm-pushed, and well-funded pet intellectuals. From Wikipedia:

Sigma male
Sigma male (or simply sigma) (/sɪɡmə məɪl/ ⓘ) is a term in internet slang used most often to describe archetype of a male who is a “lone wolf”. The name is a product of the manosphere message boards in the 2010s, the term has gained widespread prominence within internet culture, and since the early 2020s, has become an internet meme. Commonly regarded as the “rarest” type of male, a sigma male is typically denoted as an archetype of a male who is similar to the alpha male. Unlike an alpha male, sigma males are more introverted and seek to dominate themselves, in other words “self-mastery”. On social media, the term is often used to describe the idolization of masculine characters from films and TV shows, or celebrities.

Alternatively, the term has taken on an ironic and satirical meaning, mocking the concept of the manosphere and the sigma grindset.

In 2023, #sigma gained over 46 billion views on the social media platform TikTok.

I find it more than a little ironic that a) it is deemed a “contentious topic” and b) despite it having its own page, there is no reference to it on the Wikipedia page about me. It appears the Wikipedia admins would prefer to believe that I am known for imaginary things I’ve never said than for genuine things I have.

Anyhow, this is why you should contemplate subscribing to UATV if you haven’t already. It will put you somewhere between ten and 20 years ahead of the curve, depending upon the topic.


Nothing is Real

From very large and significant matters to very small and trivial ones, the media is constantly massaging your perceptions of reality:

Vanity Fair France has apologised after it was found to have photoshopped an image of actor Guy Pearce, removing a pin of the Palestinian flag that he wore at the Cannes Film Festival. The ‘Time Machine’ and ‘Prometheus’ star posed for a photo shoot wearing a badge displaying the Palestinian flag on his jacket. The item was reportedly visible in the French magazine edition of Vanity Fair, but absent from images shared by the publication’s website and Instagram account.

Now, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter in the slightest if an actor wears a Palestine pin or not. But his doing so violates the Narrative, which is that all good and right-thinking people support Israel’s right to defend itself by bombing refugee camps full of women and children situated on foreign territory, and therefore his action has to be disappeared before it reaches the public eye.

Never forget that if the media is reporting it, it is almost certainly false or misleading in some way.


You Get What You’ll Pay For

Now, I’ve never paid any attention to either the Kardashians or Kanye West, and wouldn’t grieve in the slightest if the entire Hellmouth vanished in a nuclear tidal wave triggered by a Russian super-torpedo. But that being said, people complaining about nepo babies being given opportunities that are denied to less-talented nonentities is an illogical appeal to a nonexistent meritocracy which never really existed and very much does not exist today.

The reason the third-generation Kardashian daughter was gifted the coveted role in The Lion King is entirely obvious:

Earlier this month, it was announced that North was cast in the live-to-film concert event which ran for two nights on May 24 and May 25. The Hollywood Bowl can notably hold up to 17,500 people and tickets for the concert began at $60.

She was given the role for one of three reasons, and it may very well be that all of them apply:

  • Her parents helped fund the event.
  • Her parents’ fame helped sell tickets for the event.
  • The event organizers are either seeking or repaying a favor done to the parents or one of the various organizations to which the parents are connected.

If you don’t like nepotism, stop supporting the parents. The individual who decries North West being handed a celebrity career on a silver platter but watches the Kardashians or listens to Kanye is literally responsible for the very thing she – and it’s usually going to be a she in this specific case – is decrying.

Furthermore, the idea that there is any meritocracy in the world of entertainment in general, or the Hellmouth in particular, is totally absurd. The Big Bear has to hold his comedy events in a barn or an aircraft hanger since he’s not allowed to perform in comedy clubs. I have to publish my own books since I’m not allowed to publish them through mainstream book publishers. We both have to stream on alternative channels and our access to marketing is limited since we’re banned from YouTube and X, among other places.

They metaphorically have to line us up 20 meters behind the starting blocks and weigh us down with weights just to be able to compete with us! How is that a “meritocracy” of any kind?


The Gazacaust is Bad PR

Mitt Romney is bewildered. He can’t figure out why Israel is suddenly getting all this bad PR when all they’re doing is defending themselves from an attack that took place seven months ago.

Social media is partially responsible for the widespread international criticism of Israel’s conduct during its military campaign in Gaza, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suggested. The top American diplomat made the comment during an exchange with Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) at the McCain Institute’s 2024 Sedona Forum in Sedona, Arizona on Friday.

Romney asked Blinken why “the PR [has] been so awful” for Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. “Why has [Palestinian armed group] Hamas disappeared in terms of public perception? An offer is on the table to have a ceasefire, and yet the world is screaming about Israel,” he said. “Typically, the Israelis are good at PR. What’s happened here?” Romney said.

The Secretary of State recalled that when he started working in Washington in the early 1990s “everyone did the same thing,” which was reading newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, and watching national news networks to get information about world events.

But now, in the 2020s, “we are on an intravenous feed of information with new impulses, inputs every millisecond” and social media “has dominated the narrative,” he said.

Now, I’m no marketing expert, but it strikes me that the combination of a) mass graves being found in Gaza, b) unprecedented crackdowns on college protesters, and c) passing anti-Constitutional laws to threaten anyone who objects to genocide is not particularly amenable to positive public relations.

When you’ve lost Scott Adams to the point that he is dropping more F-bombs than an Iranian drone strike, it can’t be long before you lose the rest of the Boomers.

UPDATE: The IDF expanded its defensive operations with airstrikes on the city of Rafah tonight.


Ben Shapiro is “a Sneaky Rat”

It’s not exactly news that the Littlest Chickenhawk is absolutely terrified of anyone who isn’t a college student, and therefore, is capable of unmasking what a mediocre little midwit he is. Lauren Witzke broke the news of the Daily Wire’s secret gag order that Little Benny managed to have imposed on Candace Owens in order to avoid the public debate he claims to have wanted:

“But the debate was never going to happen. That is because the Daily Wire — in secret and unbeknownst to its readers — sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate. They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time that they were claiming in public that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her. To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.

When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company. To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens’ initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement, along with concerns she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them by publicly maligning Owens’s views to explain her departure from the company. While the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a “healthy debate,” it urged the imposition of gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.

To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had “liked.” This proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified. Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite. On March 22, Daily Wire host Andrew Klaven published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens. The Daily Wire cited Owens’ response to that video — her defense of herself from those multiple accusations — as further proof that she needed to be gagged.”

“After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them and against Owens. The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens’ call to debate Shapiro, and her follow-up negotiations of the debate, constituted “disparagement” of the company and Shapiro. The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well her suggesting that the debate would expose the Daily Wire’s real “priorities,” constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro, criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.

The arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens. Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and/or Ben Shapiro. Given that the Daily Wire had argued, and the arbitrator agreed, that Owens’ offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and anti-semitism were themselves “disparaging,” the Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place. Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.”

The ironic thing is that Shapiro will never understand how much his cowardice and “cleverness” is the cause of all the hatred directed toward him. No one envies his manufactured “success”. He’s a miserable little midwit, eaten up by his certain knowledge that he’s an imposter. I know this, because I was there when he was a young man deciding between making his own way and taking the ticket. And against my advice, he chose the latter.

Now he has learned that there is no amount of money that can compensate a man for selling his soul.

More details from Glenn Greenwald. And the New York Post.

Daily Wire obtains gag order against Candace Owens despite Ben Shapiro wanting debate


The Carlson-Dugin Interview

A selection from the complete transcript of the interview:

Tucker Carlson: So what you’re describing is clearly happening and it’s horrifying. But it’s not the definition of liberalism I have in mind when I describe myself, as what we say the United States is a classical liberal. So you think of liberalism as individual freedom and choice from slavery. Right? So the options as we conceive them, as I was growing up, were the individual who can follow his conscience, say what he thinks, defend himself against the state versus the statism, the totalitarianism embodied in the government that you fought against: the Soviet government. And I think most Americans think of it that way. What’s the difference?

Aleksandr Dugin: Very interesting question. I think that the problem is in two definitions of liberalism. There is old liberalism, classical liberalism. And new liberalism. So classical liberalism was in favor of democracy. Democracy understood as the power of majority of consensus, of individual freedom. That should be combined somehow with the freedom of other. And now we have totally the next station already. Next phase: new liberalism. Now it is not about the rule of majority, but it is about the rule of minorities. It is not about individual freedom, but it is about wokism. So you should be so individualistic that you should criticize not only the state, but individual, the old understanding of individual. So you need now – you are invited to liberate yourself from individuality to go further in that direction. I have spoken once with Fukuyama, Francis Fukuyama on TV. And he has said, before, democracy has meant the rule of majority. And now it is about the rule of minorities against majority, because majority could choose Hitler or Putin. So we need to be very careful with majority, and majority should be taken under control and minorities should rule over majority. It is not democracy, it is already totalitarianism. And now we are not about defense of the individual of freedom, but about prescription to be woke, to be modern, to be progressive. It is not your right to be or not to be progressive. It is your duty to be progressive, to follow this agenda. So you are free to be a left liberal. You are no more free enough to be a right liberal. You should be a left liberal. And that is a kind of duty. It is prescription. So liberalism fought during its history against any kind of prescription. And now it at its turn became totalitarian, prescriptive, not free as it was.

Tucker Carlson: And do you believe that was inevitable, that process? That was always going to happen?

Aleksandr Dugin: I perceive here a kind of logic. So a kind of logic that is not just a reversion or deviation. You start with one thing. You want to liberate individual. When you arrive at the point when it is possible, it is realized. So you need to go further. And you start to liberate ourselves from this time from old understanding of individual in favor of more progressive concepts. So you could not stop here. That is my vision. So if you say “Oh, I prefer old liberalism,” they would say, the progressives, they would say, it is not about old liberalism. It is about fascism. You are defender of traditionalism, conservatism, fascism. So stop here. Either be progressive liberal or you are done, or we will cancel you. That is what we observe, I would say.


The Decline of the Literary West

Reader’s Digest is shutting down in the UK:

Reader’s Digest’s UK edition has closed down after 86 years due to ‘financial pressures, as the iconic magazine’s editor-in-chief shares a touching tribute. In an honest and heartfelt tribute, the iconic magazine’s editor-in-chief Eva Mackevic said ‘the company just couldn’t withstand the financial pressures of today’s unforgiving magazine publishing landscape’.

The closure comes 14 years after it fell into administration because of a £125m pension fund deficit.

Founded in the the US in 1922, Reader’s Digest – whose motto was ‘Articles of enduring interest’ – was first published in the UK in 1938. Back in 2000 Reader’s Digest UK was selling more than one million copies a month.

I loved Reader’s Digest. My grandparents were subscribers, and whenever I visited them I would read several of those thick little magazines a day. Laughter the Best Medicine was all right, but I preferred the more subtle humor to be found in Life in These United States. And the abridged novels it contained often provided exposure to interesting authors to be explored more fully in the the future.

But diversity doesn’t read. And increasingly, neither does the three-second attention span crowd. Books are in the process of returning to the elite status they once held prior to the release of the dime novel and the mass market paperback, which is not a bad thing for deluxe leather book binders, but isn’t a healthy sign for society.

With more than 3 million subscribers in the USA, the original magazine should be around for a while. But the failure of the once-powerful UK edition is a good reminder of the vagaries of time. Yesterday’s success not only doesn’t guarantee success today, it often plants the seeds for tomorrow’s failure.


How the Media Sausage is Made

The media consists of a shrinking collection of genuine lowlives. Seriously, they collectively have the ethics of criminals and the morals of pimps, as a recent revelation in the Trump trial in New York City demonstrates:

The head of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, took the stand during the Trump hush money trial in New York and, according to the New York Post, admitted that he helped cover up a story on Woods back in 2007.

Woods apparently had been caught in an affair with his then-mistress Mindy Lawton, with photos being taken of the two in Woods’ Cadillac Escalade. Pecker admitted under cross-examination that he had bought the photos, then approached Tiger about making a deal to avoid publishing them.

Sure enough, soon afterwards, Woods appeared on the cover of Men’s Health, another magazine title under the American Media Inc. parent company umbrella. Woods also consented to a 12-page long story inside, a lengthy, in-depth article for the usually private Woods.

The Post spoke to a source described as part of his “inner circle,” who said that Woods was essentially forced into agreeing to the interview. “It was a total shakedown,” the source told The Post. “He was totally blackmailed, but what could he do? He had to play ball. He didn’t have any other choice.”

This isn’t at all unusual either. Every time they are working on a hit piece, they contact the target, explain a few of the accusations against you, then offer you “the chance to tell your side of the story”. But they don’t print anything you say that will offer a reasonable justification or a convincing defense, they just quote-mine the interview in order to support their narrative.

At best, they don’t run anything at all and you might as well have turned down the interview. At worst, you say something they can take out of context that looks even worse than anything they had already, something that will permit you to be deplatformed, debanked, de-employed, and further discredited.

Which underlines why you never, ever, talk to the media about yourself, your opinions, your accomplishments, or your friends and family. And just to address the spergs and pedants, I will add that if you’re not particularly controversial, sending out corporate press releases to industry-specific publications are probably fine.