Here is a post about the dark triad personality type. For those unfamiliar, the dark triad is a triad constituted by three personality traits: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Apparently researchers have found that people with dark triad personalities can have such a thing as empathy. Why is this a new discovery? Surely they could’ve deduced this based off the machiavellian need for empathy to exist and function at all? Either way, this empathy, they claim, is based off understanding people, and not necessarily emotionally sympathizing.
This is where I believe psychology shows how fundamentally flawed it is at a paradigm level. Let’s see how often people cry, and not out of repentance, when they are the ones in the wrong, or how often people get “righteously” angry when, yet again, they are in the wrong; this happens quite often–not to mention how often people get suckered in to outright immoral and dangerous ideas and behaviors because they sympathize with some cause or some person.
It’s clear that things like emotionally fueled, vengeful behavior exists in high degrees among the non-dark triad population. The only difference is that they often have socially acceptable excuses for their behavior.
This leads to my point: Psychology fails to address the problem of evil, and instead chooses to categorize certain personality traits–such as a lack of emotion–as a nuisance to society. This is a trick because it’s a secret moral category, even if they choose to not explicitly state it as such. And in the end, all these categories, such as the dark triad, are more or less labels for the non-compliant. Any moral issues are coincidences based off whether society has proper moral values or not.
The perversion that psychology has foisted upon our culture is very evident when we consider that the etymology of psychopath is “diseased soul,” which is a much more apt title for a moral category used to sort out the bad apples in society.
If society would throw away its moral values entirely, psychology would become very self-evidently a tool used for mind-control of the population; the non-compliant are labeled things such as psychopaths and locked up, whether or not they have committed moral crimes.
PS: my friend told me to tell you that I have met the greatest person in the world (him,) and that this needs to be published on the blog. “Finally some good fucking truth,” he says, probably oblivious to the strong levels of irony. Now he goes “What??? What do you mean??” as I read this out loud.
Anyone that believes the medias coverage–especially on wars–must be completely blind. To this day, the United States of ‘Murrca is responsible for the vast majority of wars around the world, and to believe that this would be different for Ukraine is naive at best.
Here are two videos proving my point. I understand that these are long, and do not contain flashy images and music, but the average media consumer will have to make due as they contain vital information for understanding the conflict in Ukraine.
The fact is that the United States is trying, yet again, to install a “democratic” regime in yet another country (the Ukraine.) Let’s ask ourselves when we’ve seen this happen before, and if it was effective? Last I remember, places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam did not turn out very well. Yet the USA does not seem to learn their lesson.
In short: Ukranian blood is on the US and anyone that wants to believe they’re a “good person” for supporting the Ukranian government.
The Matrix is often referenced when speaking about the truth; most people understand the Matrix-derived phrase “red pilled” as meaning that one has woken up to a certain truth. There’s a truth to this, but also a large, heaping pile of irony–which I’m going to serve to monsieur.
In order to understand the true meaning behind the Matrix one needs to have a philosophical language. The reason for this is 1) that there is nothing new under the sun; every idea has been rehashed a million times over, and 2) that it helps to fully define the concepts which are being used with (some) subtlety in the movies.
First I’ll drag you through a crash course in Platonism, so buckle up: Plato believed there’s a world of pure, abstract forms which the real world is modelled off. His world of abstract forms was more “real” than the physical reality which we experience on a day-to-day basis.The best example of his philosophy is the very short allegory of the cave.
Here’s Gnosticism: There’s an evil Demiurge which created the physical world; The physical world is bad and tainted. The real way to break free is through knowledge.
You may be tipping your fedora violently at hearing this. You may even be whipping your bible around in a fit righteous autism. In any case, I understand that the ideas which I have expressed are not exactly commonplace–yet they are everywhere; these ideas are as old as we could possibly imagine, and they take on different shapes with every generation that passes, but at their core they are all very similar.
Let’s look at The Matrix in order to fully understand this:
Neo is inside a simulation run by evil machines (Demiurge, Gnosticism.) There’s a reality outside of the immediately perceived world (Plato’s allegory of the cave.) The Matrix is a lesser state of enslavement (Plato, Gnosticism.) Neo must download information into his brain (Acquisition of knowledge, Gnosticism.) Morpheus’ name comes from Morpheus in Greek mythology, denoting that Neo must become “woke” from his sleep in the Matrix (Platonic philosophy.)
The list of parallels goes on and on, but suffice it to say that The Matrix is Gnosticism and Platonism rehashed with leather suits and sunglasses indoors. This isn’t to say that the movie isn’t great, but the points which I’m going to gently touch upon to sum it all up are far greater:
to be truly woke–as The Matrix suggests–implies that one needs to understand the HISTORY of ideas such as these. There is nothing new under the sun.
The idea that either pure materialism or pure platonism/gnosticism are in a dialectic war with each other is completely false. Material reality and the metaphysical realm are not in tension with each other. Neither one is bad–or non-existent, for that matter. Reality is TRIADIC, not dualistic or monistic. THREE is the magic number, not two, and not one.
Philosophies which favor mind over matter, such as Platonism and Gnosticism must surely be the favorite philosophies of men LARPing as women, no?
I came across a sigma male meme the other day. The meme was a gif of a man clocking a woman in the face after being shoved by her. This is obviously not normal male behavior. Most men would just take the abuse without reacting. Such curious behavior lead me to research more about what it is to be a sigma. During my research I found that most people do not understand what the term means, much less the male hierarchy that surrounds it. In this post I will clarify these things in the hopes of enriching the poor, unwashed masses of their heresy and ignorance.
In order to fully understand any terminology or concept it can be important to understand it’s etymology. In the case of “sigma male” it can be traced back to the author, blogger, philosopher, and Dark Lord, Vox Day–and so can the hierarchy. However, according to Vox, things relating to the hierarchy have been previously discussed by others.
As I was about to write an elaboration on the topic of the hierarchy, I came across a blog which had a very detailed and systematic approach to the hierarchy. Although my description is bound to be the bomb, this guy has done a very good job, and I suggest you check out his post as supplementary reading.
The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy
Men organize themselves in a hierarchical fashion. There’s no other way around this if you want to achieve something. But what about democracies? Democracies are innately retarded. While there may be democratic elements within the hierarchy, it is most certainly not a democracy–but this does not mean that it is a tyranny. The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is an automatically generated, abstract structure which is divorced from opinionated affect, yet coincidal with most people’s opinions. This means that people’s opinions do little to sway the hierarchy itself, and that people’s opinions tend to align with the hierarchy. My main point here is that there’s always a leader (the alpha) and someone that’s lowest on the totem pole (the gamma,) and potentially someone that’s excluded (the omega,) when it comes to male group action. Someone MUST call the shots and lead or the organization fails, and the group always has standards which must be adhered to.
In any given hierarchy there are certain customs, standards, and etiquette which help to give a more concrete, formal definition to the hierarchy. For example: if everyone stands up and salutes a certain guy when he enters a room, then it is very clear that the guy being saluted is high status. Similarly, if nobody seems to care about a certain guy, especially when he speaks, then it is clear that he’s low status. These are just two examples of the myriad of subtle or overt displays which show status within the hierarchy.
With this in mind it may be easy to confuse work-place status with the socio-sexual hierarchy. After all, doesn’t the alpha run the show, and thus he’s always the boss while the Gamma cleans the toilets? No. The workplace is a type of hierarchical structure, and so they tend to have similarities, but they are not the same. The hierarchy we are talking about is socio-sexual. In addition, the socio-sexual hierarchy only applies to men, and it is “meta” workplace in the sense that it appears everywhere where men are gathered, no matter if their gatherings take place under the roof of a corporation, a ski-resort, a park, or a big LAN-fest. This is most likely why it is called the socio-sexual hierarchy, and not the workplace hierarchy; it is a construction which appears when men socialize with each other.
The secondary part of the socio-sexual hierarchy is the the sexual part. This is because women pick the top dogs of the hierarchy. It’s not more complicated than that. We may ask ourselves whether the chicken or the egg came first. In other words, we may ask ourselves whether it is women’s influence over sexual selection which causes certain types of men to rise to the top, or whether women are innately more interested in the traits which put a man at the top. To be highly redundant–but also highly clarifying–, the question is whether women’s opinions guide the hierarchy, or whether the traits which put a man at the top of the hierarchy guide women’s opinions of the men. I am of the latter opinion, although I would wager that both hold sway over the hierarchy simultaneously, only to varying degrees, with the latter winning the race because it is more grounded in objective reality, and not simply powered by the force of opinion. As I’ve stated previously: people’s opinions tend to coincide with the hierarchy, not form it.
The socio-sexual hierarchy is a cross-racial and cross-cultural phenomenon, although it’s expressions and the values within each culture and race may differ.
Based off the concept of the socio-sexual hierarchy, Vox Day created a taxonomical system to label the various behaviors of the men within the hierarchy. It’s important to note that the hierarchy is fractal, meaning that it can be infinitely divided, and we could create 3.5 billion different taxonomical descriptions to describe every single male person on the planet, but that wouldn’t be very efficient–though it would be very specific. Vox created 7 taxonomical descriptions, and I can’t say that I’ve come across anything better; it’s both specific and broad enough at the same time.
The taxonomy is as follows: Within the hierarchy: Alpha, Bravo, Delta, Gamma. Outside the hierarchy: Omega, Sigma, Lambda.
The men within the hierarchy play by it’s rules. The men outside the hierarchy don’t play by the rules. Below I will provide a brief description of the different taxonomies, and then I will dive deeper.
Inside the hierarchy the Alpha is the top dog, the Bravo the 2nd in command, the Delta is the average joe, and the Gamma is the lowest on the totem pole–usually a sexual reject (but not a social reject.)
Outside the hierarchy is the Omega, existing there usually because he can’t function socially, and is not accepted sexually–although he most definitely wants to be. The Lambda is a homosexual, and has shunned any semblance of the masculine virtues which tie in to the hierarchical function. The sigma doesn’t care about the hierarchy.
A Deeper Explanation
Alpha: physically adept, good looking, and successful with women. Enjoys leadership roles, takes responsibility, is aggressive, socially dominant, and unafraid of physical altercations. Is a typical “bro,” and abides by the “bro-code”.
I have had the pleasure of working alongside an Alpha, and he took the fall for many of my mistakes as I was learning the job. Their personalities tend to be very positive and outgoing. Alphas don’t really care what women say, and as I have heard it expressed by a top-tier Alpha: “it’s as if the devil spit in their mouth; everything that comes out of their mouth is a lie.” He also mentioned that he “hates faggots.”
Many times men will sit around and poke fun of the Alpha, though it usually happens behind his back. Men will also poke fun of the Gamma. The difference is that the Alpha doesn’t care what anyone’s opinion is of him, and it shows. He also usually has a solid retort grounded in objective reality instead of some form of comedic escapism or sperging out. However, the Alpha hates being laughed at.
The Alpha’s mindset is this: if I tell myself I’m awesome, I am. I don’t compare myself to anyone, I’m just great. This is something similar to positive affirmation, which apparently Trump does. In fact, Alphas tend to have confidence which can seem completely delusional. But is it?
The Alpha in the cover picture is The Rock.
The Bravo: We could sum this category up by saying that the Bravo is the “best friend.” I’m lucky enough that this happens to be true in my case; I have a bravo as a best friend, and he’s ALWAYS there no matter what. If there’s something I need, no matter how difficult, he’s there. Before I continue the post I have to express my gratitude toward the man because he’s shown me what it means to be a friend. He’s my Samwise Gamgee.
Bravos are usually better looking than average, more physically capable than average, and do well with women, but not to the degree that the Alphas do. They can be aggressive, but don’t tend toward aggressiveness. They can lead, but tend to be best suited toward middle-management, where they have a boss over them. In fact, Bravos are excellent middle-managers because they are socially gifted. Most men do not feel threatened by them in the way that Alphas can come across, and the Bravo doesn’t tend toward the social disgraces which the Alpha can fall in to (see the borderline delusional confidence.) Most men really enjoy talking to Bravos, and Bravos tend to be the hub of social engagements. Bravos are also extremely generous.
Bravos don’t tend to misunderstand female nature, but they don’t have the instinctive level of understanding that the Alpha or Sigma have. Bravos like women, but don’t tend to pedestalize them, and are comfortable joking around with them and negging.
A Bravo is always loyal to his team, and will always stand up for his friends. As I have heard it expressed by a Bravo: “The one thing I hate is a Judas.” I have had first-hand experience with a Bravo’s sense of loyalty, and I will share some stories to highlight it:
Once upon a time I was out having a drink with my Bravo friend. After the bar closed we went to get some street food. We ended up talking to a tall blonde guy which seemed to be a little hyped up on cocaine. Nonetheless, the tall blonde guy seemed to “get me”–at least that’s what he told me. Before we could continue the conversation, lo and behold, a man walks past us with his pants sagging down so far that his entire underwear were visible for the world to behold. Without a second thought, I was kind enough to enlighten him to this by saying “Hey, pull up your pants.” Now, I hadn’t intended this as an insult, but it was apparently taken as such. The man turns around in a drunken haze and says with an aggressive tone “Whad’chu say’uh’me???” Immediately the tall blonde guy then shouts at him “I fucked your mom.”
Now it’s safe to say that shots were fired. The drunken man began charging toward me. However, before he could get close to me, my Bravo friend comes swooping in from the side. With no questions asked, the Bravo throws the drunken assailant down on the cold, wet ground in one swoop. SMACK. Face down. It looked a little bit painful, but it got the job done.
On another occasion, some drunkard came up to me at a bar and began insulting me for no apparent reason. As I was ignoring him, my Bravo friend seemed to have overheard the shots being fired. My friend then swaggered up toward the drunken miscreant and said “What the fuck did you say to my friend. You wanna go?”
In the end we got kicked out of the bar, but I can’t say that I regret my friend’s sense for a call to action.
The Bravo in the cover picture is Mike Pence.
The Delta: The Delta is the average man. He is usually not too good looking, nor too bad looking. He can be physically adept at something if he chooses to put his mind to it, but it’s not the innate predisposition that an Alpha has. Deltas prefer to not lead, and are generally uncomfortable doing so. They are not aggressive, except if their family is threatened or some call to action is given to them.
Deltas tend to pedestalize women, and have an ideal that can surpass objective reality. This means that when Deltas deal with women, the ideals that have been given to them by society will often surpass what a woman truly needs and wants; because of our modern ideals of equality and feminism, a Delta can often find themselves in a relationship with a woman where the woman starts taking charge–and then wondering why he’s not getting laid. “Happy wife, happy life” is a common Delta Boomerism.
Deltas do most of the work in any given organisation, and tend to become very good at what they do because they put the effort in, focusing on their job instead of constantly going to the watercooler to shoot the breeze as the Alpha often does. Because of this Deltas can sometimes become overworked.
Deltas try to not stand out too much. They really want to be a team player and to have a belonging in a group of other men. This is what makes them excellent to have as a majority on any given team. To demonstrate this I’ll tell a story from one of my previous workplaces:
Once upon a time we had an outside consultant visit us. His purpose was to… improve workplace relations? Or something. I had a strong suspicion that he was a conman, but that’s besides the point. During his presentation he presented us with an analogy to demonstrate how an organisation works. He said that it’s like a train, where you have the conductor at the front, the passengers in the car, and the men shovelling the coal in the back. He then asked us to choose where we would sit in the train. Under the pressure of being seen as “correct,” most people chose to be in the front, leading the charge. When it got to my turn I simply said I’d rather be a passenger or shovelling coal. People looked at me like I’d said something foreign to them. I clarified by saying that the train won’t go anywhere without passengers paying for the ride, men shovelling the coal in the back, and that a train only needs one conductor. The analogy was promptly dropped after that. I suspect the consultant wanted to make the point that everyone should be a special star, come with their own ideas, and drive everything forward.
This is all bullcrap, and something that the Deltas seem to understand innately; there must be a follower, and legwork must be done or we’re not getting anywhere, so once you’ve chosen your group, just shut up and do as you’re told.
On the contrary to this, a Delta yearns for acknowledgement for their hard work. If the Delta is not given this acknowledgement and respect, he will go on strike.
The Delta in the cover picture is John McClane from Die Hard.
The Gamma: The Gamma is the introverted, usually physically and emotionally weak, and usually unattractive male. There are exceptions, however, especially when you look at the many attractive celebrities such as Kurt Shotgun-to-the-brain Cobain or Chris Deathknell Cornell–not that either of them possessed any semblance of strength, physical or emotional.
Gammas are not overtly aggressive, but passive-aggressive, and are very afraid of physical altercations. I don’t believe that the majority of Gammas would put up much of a fight– even for their family.
Gammas tend to be marked by intelligence. For this reason they are often an integral part of any given hierarchy because they act as a much needed knowledge-base. Gammas tend to be good at teaching and explaining for this reason, despite their low levels of empathy. The antithesis to this is the Alpha’s inability to explain things, despite the high levels of empathy that the Alpha tends to have. Of course, the Gamma will want to believe that he has high levels of empathy because he put his ideals and knowledge of what it is to be empathetic above the practice of it.
This leads me to my next point in explaining a Gamma’s psyche: Gammas are liars. They don’t only lie to others, but also to themselves in order to avoid the pain of reality. This is why the saying “be true to yourself” exists. In essence, they live in their imagination more than most other men. It doesn’t help that they are intelligent either, because this only leads them to have a greater ability to fend off the truth using words. One man has described this propensity toward self-deceit as a typically female trait. It is.
Gammas like to believe that they are Alphas. They want to lead, and probably so because they tend to be intelligent. Their failure in leading is that they don’t want to take responsibility, and have a difficult time listening to others.
Gammas are addicted to the social game. They have a desperate need to fit in and be seen as a cool dude. Contrary to the Alpha, who doesn’t care what people think, but is simply being himself, and thus attaining the status of a cool dude, the Gamma puts the ideas of what he believes to be a cool dude ahead of being himself. This can lead to a number of ill-suited behaviors.
One of the typical Gamma behaviors is to become the joker. Who doesn’t like to laugh? Surely the coolest guy is the one that makes everybody laugh! What the Gamma fails to understand is that people will always laugh when someone says something mean, retarded, or both–no matter what their opinion of said joker is. In other words, he fails to understand that the production of comedy doesn’t revert the fact that he’s socially retarded and sexually unattractive. This isn’t to say that all Gammas are of the comedic persuasion, but usually the funny guy tends to be a Gamma.
Many Gammas are very shy and have had all of their masculine aggressiveness stripped from them. Many Gammas will describe themselves as being closer to their mother than their father. While many Gammas choose to be passive-aggressive and mean, many will choose to be “nice”–whatever that means. As we all know, nice guys finish last. Fundamentally, men in the hierarchy don’t care about niceness; they only care about respect. And women are innately skeptical of nice men for good reason–ever heard of a mean pedophile?
Again, this goes to demonstrate that the Gamma is never being himself, but is constantly engaged in LARP. Whether he’s LARPing the “cool dude” or the “nice guy,” he’s never being genuine.
When Gammas eventually do end up asserting themselves, it tends to be a sperg moment; they act with an out of control rage. In contrast, Alphas seem to always be in control of their aggressiveness.
It bears to note that not all Gammas are sexual rejects. Some men which display Gamma behavior will find a girlfriend or a wife, especially if they are rich or famous–or older; eventually women will settle for a Gamma if they have no other choice.
The Gamma wants to be the object of desire in a relationship, similar to what a woman wants.
The Gamma in the cover picture is Jordan Peterson.
That covers all of the categories within the hierarchy. Here are the ones outside the hierarchy:
The Omega: The Omega would very much like to be part of your gang, but he has learned from experience that he doesn’t fit in. The reason for this is individual, but it’s generally summed up in that the Omega has turned out to be a dud. Omegas are the gene-pool’s experimental stage gone wrong, just as most RnD projects turn out to be failures.
But despite this, let’s not overlook Omegas entirely, because while they don’t play a part in the socio-sexual hierarchy, some of them can come from out of the blue with exceptional ideas and inventions. Tesla and Newton were both Omegas, devoting their lives to studying in solitude.
This isn’t to say that every Omega is a genius. Many Omegas are retarded. In fact, Omegas are so varied in their character traits that it is difficult to define them in any other way than to say that they do not fit in; many are spergs, unable to socially fit in; many have disabilities that prevent them from social interactions; some of them are too intelligent, and have drifted off into insanity or into their studies; many of them are emotionally crippled, and can’t handle the hierarchical bullying that takes place in the socio-sexual hierarchy.
Omegas are not always known for their personal hygiene. If you meet a guy with greasy hair and an overpowering odour, he’s probably an Omega… or a Gamma. Omegas are almost never physically attractive or physically adept–aside from the occasional retard strength.
The Omega in the cover picture is Nikola Tesla.
The Sigma: The Sigma is not overly complicated, although there are many misconceptions about them. It’s easiest to understand what constitutes a Sigma when you realize that the Sigma simply doesn’t care about the hierarchy. This is his number-one defining trait. He has the capacity to fit in if he wanted to, but he doesn’t want to put the work in. Every Sigma’s reasons for this will be different, but it usually boils down to a dissatisfaction with the customs, standards, etiquette, and way that the hierarchies are run. When this is coupled with his copacetic attitude toward loneliness, it is no wonder that he doesn’t care.
Another reason is that Sigmas tend to disagree with Alphas on how to do things, and you can’t disagree with the boss. In fact, Sigmas tend to disagree with most people on how things should be done; they are very disagreeable characters.
Unlike the Gamma, the Sigma understands that a fundamental disagreement with an organisation means that one needs to separate oneself from it and do one’s own thing. In contrast, the Gamma will just keep banging his head against the walls as his gnashing of teeth and wailing goes ignored by the Alpha.
It is not only that Sigmas tend to disagree with the vast majority of hierarchical structures, but that they are quintessential loners by nature. Vox Day, a Sigma, has described himself as “burning out” after too much social interaction. Chris Langan, another Sigma, worked as a complete loner for long periods of time, describing that he was satisfied with reading books and minimal social interaction. Though this trait seems to run in varying degrees depending on the Sigma, I have never found a Sigma that didn’t enjoy his alone time.
Sigmas, as Vox Day has noted, are the wild-card. If we look at how varied they are in personality we can get a better picture of what this means: Charles Manson was a Sigma. If you’ve ever seen him in an interview, you may infer that Sigmas are completely nutty psychopaths. But before we jump to conclusions, let’s face the fact: Charlie had 3 gorgeous women that would do literally anything he wanted, even to the point of murder. The man couldn’t have been completely off his rocker.
Another Sigma, ironically, is Marilyn Manson. If you view Charlie and Marilyn side-by-side, you’ll see that one has a very low-key personality, while the other seems to constantly be on some form of stimulants.
Sam Hyde, Stefan Molyneux, and Louis C.K. are other Sigmas with a comedic bent, which we can contrast with Putin, another Sigma who seems to be far-divorced from the comedic.
Sigmas, like Gammas, are marked by intelligence. They tend to be attractive, though not always. They tend to be physically adept, although not all of them exercise the innate ability, and they don’t tend to be as strong as most Alphas. Most Sigmas I have met, although they are few, seem to be able to dance. And as a small tangent, I believe this is why Louis C.K.’s comedy centers around excellent timing and gesticulation, which the famous Gamma comedian Robin Williams had none of.
Being a loner doesn’t mean that the Sigmas is devoid of empathy or an understanding of socializing. In fact, the Sigma has oodles of empathy. It might seem strange, on account of the aforementioned Charles Manson, but let’s remember that a large dose of empathy is needed in order to manipulate people properly. In short, I have found that Sigmas tend to understand human behavior better than most others.
A Sigma tends to have evolved from an Omega. They go through a period of extreme loneliness, usually as a child. This isn’t to say that all Omegas can become Sigmas. Most Omegas can’t.
Sigmas do not tend to be very verbal when they engage in social interactions. I knew a Sigma that would show up to parties and not say a word except maybe “hey,” and then vanish after an undisclosed period of time, leaving you wondering where they went. And don’t mistake Louis C.K.’s comedy sets or Charles Manson’s interviews as being indicative of their “off-stage” personalities.
One of the downfalls I’ve noticed with Sigmas is that if they are in an organisation and don’t socialize enough, people tend to view them as an outsider, and that works against them. They become disliked merely because they don’t express an interest in the people around them, and because people can’t put their finger on them. Another reason is that they can often just do as they please, which will infuriate other co-workers.
The Sigma shares commonalities with the Alpha, not only in physical abilities and sexual attractiveness, but also in the drive to manifest their own vision of things.
The Sigma in the cover picture is Charles Manson.
The Lambda: Lambdas are homosexuals. A common misconception is that it is the pee-pee in the poo-poo that puts them outside the hierarchy. This is not the case. Their sexuality is only a symptom of the core psyche of the Lambda: lambdas have shunned the masculine virtues.
Jack Donovan has an excellent description of this in his book called The Way of Men, where he describes the Lambdas shunning of the hierarchy as flamboyant dishonor.
“Flamboyant dishonor is an insult to the core values of the male group.Flamboyant dishonor is an openly expressed lack of concern for one’s reputation for strength, courage and mastery within the context of an honor group comprised primarily of other men.”
All men are concerned with strength, mastery, and courage. Even though the Alpha does not care what people think about him, he cares about his reputation because he is concerned with the group; If he has a bad reputation, he can not lead his group. The Delta tends to care strongly about mastery because it offers him a position in the hierarchy. The Bravo cares about bravery because he wants to be loyal to his team. This is not to say that the Delta only cares about mastery, or that the Bravo only cares about bravery, and so on.
It isn’t that the Lambda doesn’t care, like the Sigma, but that he is in vehement opposition to these virtues. While the Sigma runs his own race and lets the other men play their game, the Lambda is outspoken against the virtues and will even work to sabotage them.
Whatever gifts the Lambda has, whether it be physical adeptness, looks, or intelligence, it is all used for himself. While the Alpha is busy hustling out favors for his group and taking the fall for bad decisions, the Lambda is working against the group for his own pleasure.
Lambdas, like Gammas, are often passive-aggressive. And like Gammas they have the ability to deceive themselves. In fact, Lambdas are very much like Gammas with the added flamboyant dishonor. This isn’t to say that some Gammas are flamboyantly dishonorable. Many are in today’s society. In other words, there exist heterosexual men which act like homosexuals, but it’s a rare occurrence.
If a Lambda attempts to join the hierarchy he will be, at best, seen as a Gamma. Lambdas are usually afraid of physical altercations–unless they sperg out.
The Lambda’s deep sense of pride may fool you that he doesn’t care what others think. It is a lie, and upon closer investigation, it is abundantly clear that they care very much what people think about them. This is why they have to keep enforcing the narrative that they are wonderful; it is similar to an Alpha’s positive affirmations, except that it involves forcing other people to accept their affirmations or face punishment. It is no wonder that they creep their way into organisations and organize pride-related propaganda; they care, deeply. As an aside, I noticed the police here in Sweden were flying a pride-flag in the place of the Swedish police flag. What do the Swedish police have to do with pee-pee in the poo-poo? One wonders…
Lambdas are obsessed with getting to the young. Not only to have sex with them, which is a very frequent occurrence, but to groom them into hating the hierarchy and the virtues which constitute it. The Lambda must destroy the hierarchy because it causes him psychological pain to realize that he can not have things his way; even the Alpha must conform to the hierarchy.
All heterosexual men conform to external rules. They subject themselves to a greater standard than their own interests and whims, be it “the tribe,” as Jack Donovan would have it, or God, as every Christian knows lies at the bottom of virtue. This is what lets them work together in a group as a cohesive, united people. The Lambda is too selfish for this.
With this in mind, it is clear that Lambdas are the rebels, and however cool it may seem to be a rebel, I’m fairly certain that every man reading this knows that it’s just kind of gay.
The Lambda in the cover picture is Freddie Mercury.
You may be saying to yourself that there’s a lot of overlap between the different categories. If not, then suffice it to say that I brought it up, so now I’m going to talk about it–among a bunch of other thoughts regarding the hierarchy that will pop into my head as I write this. The rest of the post will not be in an organized fashion, but it will still contain all the relevant information to help sway the bedraggled masses into a more monocle’d persuasion.
The Sigma and the Lambda share a few commonalities, mainly that they don’t exist within the hierarchy. The underlying reason for what makes the expression of the disregard for the hierarchy different are their intentions. From their intentions are different outcomes manifest. The Lambda hates the hierarchy, and the Sigma just wants to do his own thing. The Sigma doesn’t actively tell himself that being masculine is just a “stupid social construct that needs to be destroyed.” Sigmas often form their own, usually small, hierarchies in which the masculine virtues flourish. A good example of this is Sam Hyde’s comedy projects, in which he’s spoken about the type of people he hires, and the reasons for hiring them. He expects competence and adherence to many of the masculine virtues.
Stefan Molyneux, the most famous philosopher of our era, has spoken about his days as a software entrepeneur, where he’d hire people and expect them to adhere to the masculine virtues.
A strong difference between the Alpha and Sigma way of running things is that Sigmas do not want to lead; they want the people to autonomously lead themselves toward the goal of the group. In other words, I shall paraphrase Stefan Molyneux by saying: “I just expected them [the employees] to come to work and do their job without me having to tell them what to do. I would make sure I hired people that I didn’t have to boss around. They were allowed to have fun and take breaks when they wanted, as long as they finished their job. One of my colleagues happened to show up withy a nerf-gun one day to shoot me in the head.” His business was successful.
On the topic of working together, I’ve had the displeasure of working with a Lambda on a music project. Personally I don’t want to lead, and he seemed to want to lead very strongly, but under some semblance of a democracy. He said that “we shouldn’t have any leaders.” I told him that it was a very retarded statement, and pointed out that there are no successful organisations that are leaderless. When I began to take the reins, and we began to accomplish things, he would immediately give me pushback. Suffice it to say that the project was a disaster, and I left–only to be bombarded with text messages trying to persuade me to come back.
Another thing to note is that the men at the top of the hierarchy are less emotional than the ones at the bottom. Alphas are very unemotional guys, and Gammas are highly emotional. Of course, women would have it that Alphas are perfectly romantic and express their emotions very well. This is retarded. Alphas are simply not as afraid of being themselves and expressing themselves. That is what women like.
Both the Lambda, and usually the Omega are highly emotional. Sigmas range from emotional to highly unemotional, though none of them are emotionally crippled in the way that some Omegas and Lambdas are.
The drive to be in charge exists both in the Alpha and in the Gamma. I’ve even heard it said that Gammas are just depressed Alphas. It’s a bit of a crude assessment, but it gets a good point across: Gammas have a very negative outlook on life. However, the main attribute of the Alpha is that they are a physical beast. To a large degree this allows them to express their opinions without fear of blowback; they can handle a fight. Many men describe their ability to make eye-contact and assert themselves come to life when they go to the gym. However, don’t make the mistake of assuming that every Alpha is a muscle-mountain. There are plenty of skinny Alphas, such as Machine Gun Kelly or David Bowie. The core element of physical prowess is still high in potential, if not actuality, among them, and has most likely been rooted in them since childhood.
Deltas and Sigmas share the trait of not wanting to lead. The difference lies in that Deltas are not assertive, and that Sigmas just don’t want to bother themselves with it–though I’m not sure if Deltas would want to bother either. Unlike Alphas, Sigmas will run out of steam trying to manage people.
Gammas and Sigmas often share nerdy, obscure interests. Sigmas can also completely master a subject and become excellent teachers. Since the Sigma is not deficient in empathy, Sigmas can become the quintessential teacher if they choose. If you have a Sigma as a teacher everything will become extremely easy to understand, and all ground will be covered in a practical way that often adds information to the existing paradigm–if not completely changing the paradigm. As an example, I have been studying under Leonardo Caminati, who is an ear training teacher. I failed for an entire year to achieve what I’ve achieved under him in only a few months. He is not part of any institution like a university, but just some guy on the internet offering his own courses in ear training. Another music teacher who strikes me as a sigma is Tom Hess. By watching one of his 6 minute videos, I markedly improved my guitar playing.
In contrast to a Sigma’s abilities to teach, I will use Jay Dyer, an Alpha. He is a philosopher, and I’ve never once seen him lose in a debate. In fact, once you understand the philosophical language that he uses, he is an incredibly clear, systematic, and logical thinker. He also does very good impressions of Nicholas Cage. But when it comes to understanding what he’s trying to teach, I simply can not comprehend it without putting in leg work of my own to “meet him half-way.” I often find this to be the case with my Alpha co-worker. Alphas are hopelessly bad at explaining things.
Alphas are extremely accommodating. They make sure that people’s needs are met. Once it was cold at my workplace, and my Alpha friend shows up with a jacket for me. I never asked. These little things happen all the time. This is why people want to follow the alpha. They genuinely like him. Many people, especially Gammas, make the mistake of believing that leadership is a show of force. Very rarely is this the case. Leadership is more about servitude.
Gammas are masters of crying “cringe!” I’m sure many males have felt cringe on some occasion, but because of the Gamma’s emotionality, he feels cringe very easily, often times at things that are not even cringeworthy. If someone doesn’t execute something flawlessly, it’s “cringe.” This is due to the Gamma’s fear of failure, and him projecting that fear onto the other person and then experiencing cringe as a result. Fail in the slightest, and a Gamma will cry “cringe!” This is something you will rarely see an Alpha do, if ever. Alphas have embraced failure completely, and know that it is only a learning experience, hence why they are very forgiving of others’ failures.
Bravos tend to seek out an Alpha to form a team. It’s a very effective strategy for both if them; the Bravo tends to serve the Alpha in many ways such as critical thinking in assessment of risks in certain areas, not to mention social engagement. The Bravo also serves to perfect the Alpha, making him more amenable to the general public, and tying up loose ends. In turn the Alpha supplies the Bravo with a driving force and vision which other men don’t have.
Although it is rare, I have seen Bravos team up with Sigmas, where the Sigma serves the role of the Alpha. There are a few downsides for the Bravo in this scenario: the Bravo will often have to call the shots as the Sigma doesn’t care enough to lead, and the Bravo will have to look forward to a very unconventional–and sometimes lonely–relationship. If a Bravo finds himself in a relationship with a Sigma, I’d suggest keeping the relationship, but funding an Alpha to bond with. The upsides are that the Bravo–depending on the Sigma–will learn to become more free, making his own way in life.
A Common Misconception
Why doth his loftiness have to toil so on thy behalf, peasant?
There was a study done by Rudolph Schenkel which held that there are such things as Alphas, Betas, and Omegas within a wolf pack. This taxonomy could probably be stretched to 5 categories, but that’s besides the point. The point is that nowadays it is not scientific to consider that wolves have an Alpha. Apparently this has been “deboonked.”
The deboonking of the notion of a hierarchy within males goes thusly: Wolves in the wild do not form hierarchies, but only do so in captivity, ergo, humans have no socio-sexual hierarchy.
Implicit within this argument is the axiom that humans are free. Humans are not free, and are grown in captivity for most of their childhood. All humans are socialized in schools where they are not allowed to leave the premise and must do as their teachers tell them or they are punished. Another point to be made is that the wolves in the wild are run by families, usually with 2 parents and a bunch of kids. Humans do not function this way, especially not anymore. Humans are constantly working together in large, socialized groups which far exceed that of a family structure.
There is a second assumption within this debeunking I must address, and that is that humans are in 1:1 correspondence with wolves. They are not, and so any theory predicated upon wolves is bound to have it’s faults; I wouldn’t even bother to rest the socio-sexual hierarchy on studies done on wolves. Why is this? We can study humans directly. In other words, a theory from wolves is completely useless in order to either make or break the case for the socio-sexual hierarchy.
Here is what I suggest for those that doubt me: Go out and take a look at groups of males. See how they act, and then ask yourself if these categories apply. I have found that the easiest way to measure whether the hierarchy is true is to apply the taxonomical behaviors to the men you meet. If someone behaves as a Bravo, then look at his girlfriend. The girlfriend’s attractiveness should correspond to the mans rank in the hierarchy; a 7/10 woman is most likely going to end up with a Bravo.
I can’t say that I’ve found the hierarchy to fail.
I can, however, say that I have found many Gammas and Lambdas which will deny the existence of the hierarchy, or somehow try to redefine the taxonomies–usually into something contradictory which you can not find in the wild.
Here is a citation from a blog post which denies the existence of the hierarchy:
“I’ve been thinking about returning to my series on Healthy Masculinity lately, and it has never seemed quite so relevant. This might have to do with the number of transmasculine people I’m hanging out with these days (Edgar, while nonbinary or agender, also identifies as trans-masculine, and one of our most common drinking buddies is a trans man,) which throws the whole thing into a somewhat different light: it’s been commented that talking to cis people about gender is like taking a 101 course and talking to a transgender person about gender is like taking a master class, and while this is somewhat reductionist, I feel it generally holds true.” – Some fag.
Let’s note that this person believes that by chopping off your phallus and identifying as a woman, you magically transform into something other than a clinically insane freak with no dick.
Have you ever thought about the rebellions that take place in the modern world? There is a sure-fire reason why they have been associated with youth; because there is nothing more rebellious than a toddler throwing a tantrum. Today we'll discuss the macrocosmic tantrum which comes with each generation's fiery, autistic convulsions as they scream "mom and dad are lame and gay!" in their own, idiomatic ways. In other words: we will be discussing what the modern world considers culture.
Courtesy to the Great Heathen, Jack Donovan, who briefly touched upon this subject in one of his books called Becoming a Barbarian. His books can be found here. Secondly, I would like to thank these two tabloid mags (which I will probably never be visiting again) for the stories included in my blog picture. Links are here and here.
To learn what the McCulture is, read my previous article here.
Stacey felt flamboyant as she whipped her hair back before diddling with it playfully. She was listening to the newest track by her favourite rapper, McFaceDoodles. His newest track went *BOOM-TS-TS-TS, KA- BA-BUM-BUM. “Bishes ain’ shieeet butta’ hole 4 me. Smoke a lotta weed n’ make a n1gga bleed.” BROOOOM TS-TS-, KA BRUMDUMMDUMM!* Stacey felt that, despite McFaceDoodles being a caucasian male, his contrived black accent and articulation made the track more appropriate. Either way, whatever made her parents angry was satisfactory to her; it gave her musical tastes a more dangerous and forbidden vibe, no matter how retarded it was.
When she reached her boyfränds car he rolled down his tinted windows and exposed his stoned face to the last remnants of the day’s light. He squinted and smiled awkwardly, as if he didn’t know what he was smiling at due to the copious amounts of marijuana he had recently injected into his bloodstream. Stacey leaned down and kissed him, but once she’d finished smooching her boyfrän’s cheek, she noticed something in the rear-view mirror; she had an odd smudge on her cheek.
She was baffled for a moment. She remembered having meticulously taken care of her appearance in front of a mirror for at least 30 minutes before leaving the house, and she did not remember having a big smudge on her cheek. When she looked at her bouyfrän she noticed that one of his face doodles had turned into a smudge.
There was a moment of silence between the two of them.
“W’sup, bae?” Her boifrenn eventually said, still squinting and looking stoned out of his gourd. Stacey’s face turned sour when she realized what had happened. She couldn’t believe that she hadn’t noticed this; all of her boyfriends face doodles were drawn on with a marker–and it wasn’t even a permanent marker.
Despite his intellect being reduced by half from the vast amount of cannabis he had insufflated during his ride to Stacey’s house, he was able to make sense of what had happened; Stacey’s bhouifraan, aka TriggerFänger69, recognized that she was on to him. He now knew that she knew. The jig was up. His bloodshot eyes grew large, and he stopped smiling. Just as Stacey was about to open her facial orifice to scold him, he immediately hitthe gas and was gone with a SKRRRRAPP!
Stacey couldn’t believe how hustled she had been. After all this time the self-proclaimed “OG” was really just a guy with weedstank and doodles on his face.
Later on that night Stacey saw a post on Facebook from TriggerFänger69: “Yo, am over dat x-gurl shiieeet. She cudnt handle da tats n she aint mad wildnuff 4 me. N e new bitches2 prty wit?”
Today we in the west live in a society where a mono-culture, known as the McCulture, is being imposed upon us. Everything is supposed to be the same, yet we are also supposed to revel in our diversity. Everyone is supposed to be an outrageous and rebellious superstar, yet you’re not allowed to hurt anyone’s feelings. This may strike you as a paradox–and it is–but that doesn’t matter to the modern manhuman organism. The solution to this problem has been this: let there be a multitude of safe subcultures inside of the one, giant McCulture.
What is a safe subculture? It is a subculture which does not disagree with the imposition of the McCulture. It can be as violent and disorderly as it wants, as we see with both punk rock of the late 70’s and hip hop of the 2010’s. As long as the subculture in question doesn’t fight against the imposition of a global state and corporate power upon the individual, destruction of the many distinct Western cultures, or create anything with a deeper meaning, it is allowed to exist within the McCulture; as long as what they stand for is artificial and plastic, they are safe.
The end goal of the McCulture is a unity; a singularity of culture where everything is the same; where everyone’s individuality is erased. This may also seem like a paradox–and it is–because the McCulture utilizes heavy elements of solipsism (self-centeredness) to achieve its goal. No matter, the McCulture isn’t predisposed to logic. It is only predisposed to achieving its ends.
MUSIC AND THE SAFE REBELLION
The McCultured individual feels sassy today, so he pops on one of his favorite tunes. If the lyrics aren’t about a breakup, money, sex, or drugs, then they are invariably trying to foster a “revolution” or “rebellion” of some kind.
Perhaps it is a revolution against “corporate America,” “society in general,” or religion (usually always Christianity.) The specifics of the rebellion do not really matter to the McCultured individual. All people want is an easy fix to feel like they have a purpose without any work. For this the McCulture has an answer: join a subculture and listen to some music.
Let’s go back about two decades and look at an artist named Marilyn Manson. Marilyn Manson was the “antichrist superstar” of his age, leading myriads of brooding teenagers into their new, safe subculture where they could safely cut themselves, drink black coffee, and talk about how bad they feel without ever taking responsibility. He also had an air of “intellectuality,” letting people believe that they were “in” on something if they could “get” his music.
Marilyn’s song “The Dope Show” is a prime example of this. The song is a critique against the McCulture, but…
Marilyn Manson was signed to Nothing Records at the time, who’s parent company is Universal Records, the very people which are capitalizing on “the McDope show.” Ironic? Yes, very, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Perhaps you said to yourself “nothing could beat the irony of that!” Well if this is the case, then you seriously misunderstood just how seriously stupid the McCulture really is.
Next up is Rage Against The Machine. They are a communist band, and almost all of their songs are about their politics. They are signed to a company under Sony Music. Yes, the communists are signed to a huge corporation. This, however is not where the irony lies.
The irony lies in that they consider themselves to be freedom fighters while promoting a global government (and an ideology which is responsible for the deaths of ~100 million people.)
They have also had huge success in the USA with very little real opposition. When I say real opposition I mean people that take your money, your life, your voice, etc. What people forget is that “haters” are not opposition. Rage Against The Machine probably had plenty of haters, but of course such backlash only adds fuel to the fire. Definitely safe.
Let’s have a look at another artist. This time it will be Billie Eilish with her song “Bad Guy.” I wholeheartedly agree that she is the bad guy, but does the culture seem to think so? The obvious answer is a resounding no. This was her most popular song and she was well rewarded for it. The themes of sexuality in this song are also nothing new since the 50’s and 60’s. At this point it’s hardly a real rebellion against any kind of norms because it has become the norm–and it was always safe to rebel in this way, hence why it is now the norm.
You may still be under the impression that your favorite type of music doesn’t fall under the category of safe, but it probably does, no matter how much the artist is trying to convince you that they’re edgy. Unless you find an artist singing about family, God, country, morality, etc, then you are listening to a safe, McCulture approved song.
SUBCULTURES AND THE SAFE REBELLION
Skinheads are an interesting bunch for several reasons. One reason is that people think that all skinheads are nazis, while the truth is that they are extremely polarized between vehement anti-racist globalism and nazism.
Aside from their differing political beliefs they are extremely similar: both wear the same type of clothes, shave their heads, drink too much, get violent, and “represent” the working class (whatever that is supposed to mean.) Both of them are economically socialist, too. The only thing that is different about them are their beliefs regarding race and nationalist/globalist policies.
I bring this particular subculture to light because we only need to look at which one of the skinheads are getting the most negative attention in order to understand which one is safe and which one isn’t.
I shouldn’t need to say this, but it is clearly the case that nazi skinheads are much less safe than the anti-racist, globalist soyskins; so much so that all skinheads get a bad reputation from the nazi skinheads. Even the globalist, anti-racist skins will end up getting hassled and beat up in public because they are mistaken for being nazis. Definitely not safe.
The reason for this is because the nazi skins are nationalist, and therefore oppose the McCulture. One may think that skinheads in general have a bad reputation for their degenerate nature and violent acts, but these accusations are only used as cannon fodder when the anti-McCultural sentiments are already in place.
To understand safe subcultures better, let’s look at black culture.
I used the picture and comical vignette in this post to demonstrate the farcical nature of the McCulture. Most artists, movements, and ideas within the McCulture are fake, and so are the people; when they put up an image of being “hard nigga OG’s,” you can be sure that they are deeply insecure and broken.
Don’t back down in the fight against the McCulture. Despite it’s size it is quite fragile.
Everything has become plastic and disposable. People are superficially diverse, but inwardly all the same. Nobody cares about anything but themselves, yet they pretend to care about everything. Suicidal thoughts, blind consumption, insecurities, and much more are what can be found inside of the McCulture.
There is a type of sterile positivity that airs from McDodlans™ as the yellow dressed clown slides in front of the counter to take your order. He says “hello, welcome to McDankles. May I take your order?” He wears a big, unwavering grin, and you notice that, while the clown is smiling, his eyes reflect a consuming hatred. Suddenly you feel that you’re forced under gunpoint to reciprocate a smile. As you collect your fetid meal the clown doesn’t blink or break eye contact, but stands completely still.
The clown is heard in the distance saying “hello, welcome to McDungle. How may I take your order” as you leave the establishment.
This sterile, “de-humanitized” air isn’t only confined to the McDankles™ franchise, but has almost replaced all of western culture; we have become a McCulture.
For several generations now we have suffered from the imposition of a mono-culture known as the McCulture. Many claim that it is corporate or capitalist in nature. Some would say it is communist or socialist in nature. None of them are entirely wrong, but their view is too simplistic–and, ironically, these views are part of a dialectic which has been forced upon the world by the pioneers of the McCulture itself. I will do away with the dialectic and do away with all preconceived or commonly held notions. We’re starting with a blank page.
To understand the McCulture better we must first ask what it is and where it came from.
The McCulture is the race toward who can be the most superficial person; in the McCulture people do not care about their neighbours or their family, but rather an abstracted notion of “those in need;” the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, etc. Most people in the McCulture avoid helping those who they personally know, and moralize strongly about helping strangers. Thus we can tell that the McCulture is depersonalized. In this way it is sterile and “disinfected” from any sort of humanity.
People care strongly about their Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and other social media platforms; they care about showing an image of themselves, rather than the real self. People feel it is very important to hide their pain behind photos of them on the beach, a club, or wherever is considered “cool” by the McCultural elites–many will even go so far as to fake smiles in their photos. Thus we find that the McCulture is ego driven.
People often say stuff like “that’s just, like, your opinion, man,” “that’s your truth,” or “my truth.” People in the McCulture are afraid of going against the grain, so instead of arguing about what is objectively true, the McCulture allows everyone their own, subjective truth. Naturally this disconnects people from one another, as they end up having less and less in common; There is no communion or communication without commonality in an external reality and external truth which is higher than themselves (ie. God.) Thus we can tell that the McCulture is solipsistic. Everyone implicitly and unconsciously believes that they are the only ones in the world.
Despite having all the knowledge of previous generations at their fingertips, the McCultured people are dumber than ever. The media they consume is intellectually retarded, not to mention its lack of spiritual substance. Even the national IQ of all western countries is declining. Thus we can tell that the McCulture is dumb.
Men become more and more depraved as time goes by; masturbation to pornography and casual sex has them completely addicted, destroying their brains in the process. Women keep selecting men based off social status, looks, and money, rather than virtue–and then vengefully whine about misogyny after they get dumped or mistreated by a man they could have easily avoided. Violence requires not even a pretense of justification anymore, as sports like MMA become more and more popular. Babies are sacrificed for personal gain more than ever before. Thus we can tell that the McCulture is immoral.
WHERE DID THE McCULTURE COME FROM?
The McCulture way is ¡fast!. What is “¡fast!,” you ask? ¡fast! is the kind of thing you get from China. ¡fast! is ¡NOW!–not later. ¡fast! is an obese, 40 year old man suffering from a heart attack as he beats off to videos under porn hub’s BBC category.
The McCulture has always existed within the heart of man. It isn’t as if sloth, greed, lust, narcissism, solipsism, and ego driven consumption appeared out of nowhere. The McCulture didn’t create these, but has merely taken on the role of a petri dish, fostering their growth.
It isn’t either as many people believe, that the McCulture is the result of something which is in its basis political. The McCulture isn’t political in its basis, but cultural. Cultures are made, enforced, overthrown, reshaped, and held in place by people. To look at ideologies as our saviours or destroyers is very basic, and not at all next-level; we need to look into what constitutes humanity, what their very foundational beliefs are, not some superficial, political beliefs.
Many elements of the McCulture can exists perfectly fine under varying types of regimes. A a crony-capitalist regime, a totalitarian, USSR-style regime, and especially the coming technocratic regime all foster McCulture. The end goal is always the same: depersonalize, strip the humanity from people, isolate them, and then to finally kill them all.
It’s possible to see many of the elements of the McCulture during Rome’s last days. In this regard it was called bread and circuses, but it is all the same; they, too, lived in a McCulture of their own before their downfall.
Looking at the rise and fall of Rome, and then our own civilization it is clear that these types of phenomenon come and go in waves, just as they do on the microcosmic, individual level. A person will work for 5 days a week, and then spend the next 2 days doing frivolous, sometimes self-destructive stuff. A nation or continent will undergo the same ebb and flow. The problem is that we in the west are not simply indulging in a weekend period of frivolity, but we are assuming a vacation period and blowing all our money on cocaine and hookers.
The question is then: what would cause a person to pursue such behavior? Whatever causes the average individual to pursue such behavior will be true for society at large.
The main factor for this type of behavior in the individual is fatherlessness, more than anything. There are more factors that enter into the equation, but nothing has the same impact as fatherlessness. Here is an article discussing this–and if that doesn’t convince you, then all you need to look at is the black community in the USA; they have the highest rates of crime, disorder, substance abuse, and, of course, fatherlessness–and it’s certainly not the fictitious “racism” they cry about which is keeping them down.
It should go without saying, but I believe it needs to be mentioned; bad fathers can be just as bad as fatherlessness. Most fathers that end up sticking around are too weak to run their households properly, effectively letting the women run the show. To reiterate: most western dads suck, and therefore their kids get sucked in to the McCulture.
**All claims made by the McCulture are subject to one’s own interpretation. The McCulture will not be held responsible for any negative side-effects. All rights reserved™ 2021, McCulture Inc.
In order to understand when fatherlessness started we need yo understand that the fatherlessness is a symptom, not a cause. The cause of fatherlessness is metaphysical and spiritual to begin with; kill the idea of a father and the fathers will disappear because most of what constitutes western, civilized masculinity is learned and cultivated; it is not innate.
The McCulture we have today started around the enlightenment. This is the period where philosophy sophistry made its big leaps forward in destroying the greatest father figure of them all; God.
All sense of benevolent authority and rule of law comes from God. If man ceases to worship God he becomes subject to the whims of other men (and women;) everyone is a slave to some master, and if it’s not God then it’s the Devil.
This is probably not very convincing to the average atheist. After all, we live in a McCulture, and atheist scientism is a very McRespectable cultreligion accurate and valid opinion–not to mention the lack of exposure that atheists have had to orthodox Christianity. Indeed, Christianity may seem completely pointless when we look at the average MegaChurch® that plays “Jesus is my Boyfriend” during their Sunday service, or where the pastor screams at the top of his lungs and gesticulates wildly in order to heal people of d’gout.
I can assure you–probably to no surprise–that this type of McChristianity is part of the problem.
But let us look at the enlightenment itself for answers. Many sociologists and philosophers noted during the time, despite their own atheist views, that society would collapse without Christianity. This is the origin of the humanitarian cult, which was supposed to replace Christianity. Obviously their meme didn’t work because very few people consider themselves humanists, despite the ceaseless push; and why should anyone care? Humanism is implicitly and explicitly accepting the rule of another human being’s arbitrary rules.
The reason goes like this: if there is no God, then who tells me what’s wrong or what’s right? If you say that “reason” should dictate, then there are two questions which arise: is it simply your reason I should follow, or some abstract, perfect reason (like a god, but impersonal?) In any case, if I see that breaking the rules gives me personal gain, then why should I care about your impersonal, non hell-sending god, or your own, personal opinions which you call reason?
These questions have gone unanswered–unless you consider the circularly reasoned answers they give to be valid–which has led to there being no rules at all. To be fair, there are rules, but they are completely arbitrary; the McRules are just other people’s opinions which they pass for justified and reasoned rules.
Since this point on the western culture hasn’t picked up any new god–they actively avoid it. At most, the McCultured individual will resort to Eastern religions because there is no personal God in them. There is no judgement day, and no rules, only suggestions. The Eastern religions are also easily adopted because they do not conflict with the McCulture. The typical Eastern religions believe that man is god, which is exactly what the McCulture wants, as it leaves people more narcissistic, solipsistic, and judgemental than ever.
This may all have slipped the minds of people. No wonder, the information I have provided does not fit the narrative, and just isn’t ¡fast! enough.
The depersonalization of God (and lack of belief) has put people’s egos in God’s place, making them solipsistic, stupid, and immoral. No wonder we have a McCulture which is full of these trends.
To reverse the McCulture all we need to do is to put God back in the center of our culture, which starts with the center of our own lives.
There's always a particular category which is popular for its time, and which people put their faith in. Said category, whether philosophy, religion, or science becomes the arbiter of what's true and false within that time. After a few revolutions, and a new synthesis is produced, there is a new category which is named as the arbiter of truth. The category of our times is science.
In order to first understand what I mean when I say that science is a meme, we must first understand what a meme is.
The modern conception of the word “meme” comes from Richard Dawkins’ book, The selfish gene. There is also theGreek word mimesis which means toimitate. I’ll be using the latter definition, though both of them apply to this post in varying degrees.
Most opinions or claims of truth and facts which are held in the public square are nothing but memes; one person happened to say something, and others repeated it. This is true for all religions, philosophies, worldviews, and scientific paradigms.
This does not mean that the ideas which said memes point to are intrinsically wrong, but simply that the “noosphere” (for lack of a better word) doesn’t care about the truth, and rarely cares about the idea at all. This is because most people–which make up the majority of the noosphere–don’t care about ideas, abstractions, and such lofty and erudite things. In many circumstances they care even less about the truth.
Please understand that I’m not putting myself in a position above most people in this regard. Regardless, you can easily see that an overwhelming majority of people do not care or know what they are talking about. And as an aside, I would hold that it’s almost impossible for them to do so by their own will.
So why would science in this regard be any different? It isn’t. Most people do not read books on astrophysics, or even bother looking up and analyzing–correctly–the studies which they tout. Not even the Soyentists, aka the “I fkin love science” crowd, have enough understanding of the complex mathematics involved in statistical analysis or any of the specialized knowledge in the fields which they care about (Veritasium’s youtube videos do not count.) They simply don’t understand scientific topics in their entirety–yet they would vehemently defend the slightest skepticism toward their preciously held theories–which is codeword for beliefs. The Deathjab, or more formerly known as the covid vaxine is one example; skepticism of the Killshot is met with hostility. As an aside, these types of people would invariably be burning witches, or even be the witches themselves, had they lived during the dreaded “dark ages.”
So how did science become one of the memes of our time?
SEPARATING SCIENCE FROM SCIENCTISM
In order to understand how science has gone from a methodology practiced by a minority of intelligent men to a meme held by the general public, we must first delineate what real science is, and what its memetic counterpart is.
So what is science, and what is scientism?
Science is a methodology. A very basic description is that it is the creation of a hypothesis, the testing of said hypothesis by experiment, and the conclusion one arrives at after analysing the data produced by said experiment. Below is a more refined outline of the method.
A few keen observers have probably already noticed that a method such as this requires a philosophical foundation for what is true and false–how else does one even deign to arrive at conclusions at all? One such foundational pillar is logic. Without logic as a prerequisite–among other things–, one can not come to conclusions on what is true or false, or even begin to understand how to analyse data correctly.
Since logic is immaterial and requires a preceding belief, many materialist ~soyentists~ decided to dump logic and put all their faith in science, creating scientism, a new, and forcefully un-officiated religion.
This dumping of logic in favor of raw empiricism came about after a few enlightenment philosophers and their forebears, one being Nietczhe, decided that logic is rubbish. You don’t even have to go digging in to the past to find this sentiment; even Neil Degrasse Tyson believes that philosophy is useless–and though I happen to agree with him that a philosophy major can mess someone up, that only proves the point that modern academia will hamfist anti-truth and anti-logic memes down your throat until you go insane.
Perhaps this all befuddles you. It should. One can not have real science or empiricism without logic, but such a conclusion is only come to by a logical mind, something which was decidedly lacking during the enlightenment and onward into our post-reality age. Ironic, indeed.
With all of this in mind it becomes very clear that while modern scientists are capable of producing scientific facts, they do not always play by the rules of reason. And since the spirit of the times has been infused–not only in academia, but also in the public square–with a logic-less mindset, it becomes evident that perhaps what is called science is not science, but just a bunch of memes generated by the scientists, and then enforced by the general public as dogma.
You’ve probably heard of a certain red pill and it’s antithetical cousin, the blue pill. The terms originated from the 1999 movie, The Matrix. Nowadays it’s internet slang for truth and lies; the red pill stands for truth and the blue pill stands for delusion.
In such a dichotomy there is no third option; there is only truth and lies. There may be shades, but they exist between the two poles. So why is my post named the white pill?
The reason is that the red pill community is fundamentally blue pilled, and so there needs to be a new, improved pill. I am not saying that the red pill community is as deluded as the blue pilled horde of soy consuming, blue pilled transhumanists, but it’s fundament is flawed, and will therefore never achieve much in line with truth.
In fact, there’s a term coined for people who try to mix the red pill and blue pill ideas called purple pill, andto reiterate in a more salient manner; the red pill is purple pilled. It has always been.
The conformity to the truth which is needed for a man to be truly red pilled has been selective; the majority of red pillers accept the truth in so far as they believe it will benefit them in order to pursuevanity. Everything from the understanding that meat is part of a healthy diet, to the truth about female nature is only acceptable to the average red piller if it benefits them. Not strange considering that Rollo Tomassi’s book The Rational Male (one of the red pill’s core books) is largely written from an evolutionary point of view; survival of the fittest is not conducive to the self-sacrifice required for truth.
As an aside: I am not saying that it is better to be blue pilled. As stated before, these two pills lay between two binary poles, which I will discuss soon. The red pill is a shade better in this sense than the blue, and Tomassi’s book is certainly worth a read to the uninitiated.
My purpose with this post is to bring your attention to each pole. I am here to expand your view further up toward the macrocosm so that you may look down and see more than you saw before.
Before I begin, I'm aware that the concept of a white pill has already been coined by involuntary celibates. I don't really care. My concept is better--and completely unrelated.
WHAT IS THE WHITE PILL?
There are two poles: truth and lies. The white pill represents a commitment to ultimate reality; to God. It is accepting the truth at all costs. The black pill represents a commitment to lies; to the Devil, accepting truths only in so far as your indoctrination permits or your self-serving ego requires you to (it is most often a mix of both.) Each person will find themselves somewhere along the spectrum, and perhaps we can even call them “blue pilled” or “red pilled” to mark their position, but what sets the “white pilled” person apart is the acknowledgement of ultimate reality; the Truth; God.
The reason that the red pill community is not much better than the blue is because most of the red pillers are simply trying to get laid or to access material gain. They are using the truth and perverting it for their own gratification–and the destruction of society by using women as if they were cheap condoms.
Each pump-and-dump (one night stand) creates a scarred, dysfunctional woman who is whittling away at her ability to bond with men, creating further destruction in society as she inevitably releases her frustrations upon other people. The abused always becomes the abuser; in time she will become more radicalized along the lines of feminism and other destructive ideologies as a means of getting revenge. This is only scratching the surface of the countless amounts of ways a woman is capable of getting revenge.
If these so-called “red pilled” men were to look at themselves, perhaps they would understand that they are not fundamentally different from a woman who lies in court about having been raped. Both the red pilled man and the woman are only trying to serve themselves. The man is trying to gratify his own sexual desires, and the woman is trying to get money (or just destroy the man who happened to dump her because she has become vengeful.)
Both of them have not, at any fundamental level, grasped truth. And in particular, the red pilled man is only using a surface layer of truth in order to advance himself.
The truth is that sacrifice is the only road toward the Truth. Putting aside one’s own self–the gratification of the ego and all passion-fueled frivolity–is absolutely crucial if one wants to accept the Truth and begin to reshape society into a better place. In this sense the truth is not about accumulating external knowledge, but understanding oneself; self-knowledge.
SOME CLOSING NOTES
The man, because of his masculine nature (comprehension of such things as logic) must bear a greater burden toward the truth. Men need to lead the way. There is absolutely no use in expecting a woman to even be able to handle the truth if you can not hold it up for her.
So before the resentful feel the need to chastise me for not holding men and women to the same standards, just remember that this mentality is only part of your indoctrination of equality.
Humans learn language mainly through exposure from social settings. This can prove a problem when emotional signals become associated and attached to the words which are used instead of their true meaning.
WHAT, EXACTLY ARE SOCIAL DEFINITIONS?
A social definition is a process used in memorization of language and substitution for meaning within language. It is mostly an unconscious process.
The process starts with the subject hearing a word used within a social setting (TV, video games, and YouTube all count as social settings in this case.) The word has a connotation attached to it (stigma, merit, disapproval, approval, etc,) which the subject unconsciously adds as the definition of the word.
The context is then added to the value of the word, just as the connotation was, and now serves as the mechanism for association (If you ever had a teacher tell you about finding context clues to figure out what a word might mean, then you understand what I’m talking about.)
Instead of associating based off of meaning within context, the subject searches for similarity of context and then inserts the connotation as meaning. This is will always end up with a misunderstanding, unless both the speaker and listener are using the same connotation as definition–though that is an effect of chance, and not sentient communication.
As I’m sure you understand, this is a very shallow and inaccurate way to learn new words, but nevertheless, I would wager that this is one of the most popular methods by which people learn language.
I believe some may argue that all language, no matter what, is learned through this method because all language comes through other humans. I’m not going to bother going down that path of argument. It’s wrong. Let’s continue with an example to clarify my aforementioned definition.
Example: Jane said “The federal banks are printing money because it becomes a hidden tax through inflation. There are people which control this system in order to keep us in a form of slavery.” John laughed, waved his hand dismissively and said “That’s just a conspiracy, Jane. Don’t be silly!”
“Conspiracy” is a very loaded term (infused with emotion through connotation,) which is exactly why I used it. Let’s look at what the word really means, and not what some people think that it means.
Although I am not here to argue on the particular point of conspiracies, let’s say for arguments’ sake that Jane is correct; the government and banks knowingly use inflation as a means to extract a hidden tax on the unsuspecting, dumbed down populous–which will very gladly print more money to “create jobs” (or whichever fancy slogan happens to work at that particular time.)
We can then logically derive that she is, by definition, talking about a conspiracy; a group of people (the banks and government) acting toward a harmful end. Why is it that John seems to think that he can dismiss her statement on the basis that it is a conspiracy, as if there was something intrinsically wrong with the word conspiracy?
He is implicitly affirming what she is talking about: “I understand that what you’re talking about is a conspiracy.” But then decides that she is being silly on that very basis.
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that a government is based on conspiracies. Do governments not, by definition, conspire?
Now that we’re done understanding what a social definition is, let’s look in to my previous two questions.
THE UNDERLYING PSYCHOLOGY
It is clear that John doesn’t understand the word he is using. He has probably never looked it up in a dictionary, and probably doesn’t bother looking up any words at all. He’s the type of person that just believes he ~gets it~ without putting in any work at all.
Nevertheless, let’s say that he did look up the words which he used. Would he still be capable of misusing them as he does? In other words, are we dealing with a simple misunderstanding from a simpleton, opining in ignorance through a bloated sense of pride, or are we dealing with something more malevolent? It is clear that, either way, there is a malevolence behind such action.
The first case is very straightforward: Jane is dealing with a complete idiot that thinks rhetorically. In other words, John thinks by way of his emotions. If the word is infused with a connotation within a social circumstance, then John would rather listen to the connotation’s emotional/rhetorical content than the word’s true meaning.
He may do this as a result of peer pressure (others have connoted or alluded to that conspiracies are stupid and non-existent, and therefore he also feels compelled to believe that conspiracies are all stupid and non-existent,) or simply because he enjoys the feeling of superiority he gets when he guffaws and dismisses a person; my point is that he could do it for any multitude of reasons. In any case he does it because of his emotions: pride, fear, hatred, etc.
The second case is more difficult for me to put my finger on because I haven’t had too much exposure to such a mind, but I will do my best to describe what may be lying behind the more malevolent sort. In order to describe this as accurately as possible I will resort to two anecdotes.
I once knew a guy that said he “flowed in and out of definitions.” He was a very intelligent man, apparently registering at 127 IQ–and I definitely believe he was somewhere around 127 IQ based off the conversations we had. At such a high IQ you would assume that he was fully capable of grasping logic, and I believe that he was; as he said, he flowed in and out of definitions, meaning that he was at least sometimes bound by them. This suggests that he could, at will, stop caring about the definition of a word–but it could also be a case of wordnesia? Probably not.
If this doesn’t strike you as a more complicated form of saying “I lie when I feel the need,” then I don’t know what you’re smoking–but it’s probably green and reducing your IQ by at least 30 points, ~maaaaaan~.
The second time I came in contact with such a blatant display of linguistic abuse was when I was in a debate and someone said that Sweden was a very nationalist country. I immediately told them that they’re producing verbal excrement. I gave the definition of the word and pointed toward Sweden’s social policies. It’s fair to say that Sweden is the antithesis of a nationalist country in it’s current state as it is sacrificing it’s own culture for immigration which disproportionately outnumbers that of any surrounding country–except perhaps Germany? Either way, compared to the rest of the world it is one of the least nationalist countries.
The person in question simply responded with “well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” This isn’t an argument of any kind, and it certainly isn’t an admission of being wrong. But more than this, it is telltale sign of the psychology of the individual in question.
You see, to them facts or arguments are just opinions. Opinions have no factual basis, no external standard of right and wrong.
If you have ever heard anyone say “my truth,” then you can be very sure that they are on a road of opinionated opinion-ness, floating about in the aether of “Whatever, man, that’s just, like, your opinion, dude.” Apart from being a very cowardly way out of an argument from a debate–yes, it was a debate, not just a social gathering–it is intellectually dishonest.
Both the guy with 127 IQ and this latter, opinionated person have at least one thing in common: they are both asserting their wills over what is external to them. They are narcissistically choosing their own opinions in favor of what is external and true. The malevolent factor, I find, grows with the amount of intelligence a person has. With great power, great responsibility is expected.
I am going to hit you with an incredibly anti-climactic ending. I must confess that I made this all very, very complicated. But at least it was very fun, right? Right?
Basically we have intelligent and deceptive people lying through the use of emotional content in words. When their lies get spread, they become absorbed by the dumber, yet also deceptive people. The intelligent kind are intellectually deceptive. I don’t know whether they are as emotionally governed as their dumber counterparts, but they certainly have no problem governing their dumber counterparts by way of emotion–perhaps the intelligent are just better at hiding it behind weighty rationalizations.
This is one reason why I believe that truth has nothing to do with intelligence. The acquisition of what is true isn’t based solely off intellectual rigor, but also off the intention of one’s heart. But that’s a topic for another time.
I've read many books on mindset and mindset related topics such as business and philosophy. At this point I've come to a few mindset principles of my own. Although you have probably heard some of them before, you will not have heard them all.
WHAT IS MINDSET?
“In decision theory and general systems theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods, or notions held by one or more people or groups of people. A mindset can also be seen as arising out of a person’s world view or philosophy of life.” – Wikipedia
Not every mindset has the same tint or color, but they all serve the same function; determining your path through life. Any belief (political, philosophical, religious, or otherwise) will automatically create a feedback loop into your mindset. The mindset itself tends to be the origin of many beliefs, too. Mindset is belief; belief is mindset.
GROWTH MINDSET AND FIXED MINDSET
Before we continue, I would like to note that the two mindsets which we are about to discuss are not the only ones. Mindsets are only constellations among specific beliefs, and in this sense everyone’s head is a different universe. What I mean by this is that a constellation is not the stars, and that it doesn’t encapsulate all the stars, only some of them. Each person also has their own unique set of beliefs in their head, even if we share many in common. Keep this in mind.
A growth mindset is, in essence, the mindset of a winner. The person with a growth mindset believes that challenges make them stronger. They believe that any challenge can be overcome. They believe that new things, people, places, and ideas are exciting and fun.
A fixed mindset is, in essence, the mindset of a loser. The person with a fixed mindset believes that challenges wear them down. They believe that challenges can not be overcome. They believe new things, people, places, and ideas are best to avoid.
Naturally, I do not subscribe wholeheartedly to either one. Nobody does. However, I am partial to a growth mindset because I know that it’s what’s best for me–and it’s the most true.
In my estimation a stereotypically fixed mindset is complete lunacy and a weight put on the individual through childhood trauma. It is almost always wrong about everything.
That said, some people with a growth mindset seem to avoid certain dimensions of reality like IQ or body types. Not everyone can be the president; like them or not, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have IQs above 130; some people are born midgets, and will never play basketball for the NBA–unless it’s some sort of “make a wish” thing, or an imposition of social justice upon everyone’s sanity and enjoyment.
Stay positive, but don’t try to break reality, is my point.
TH3 J3ST3R’S MINDSET NUGGETS
Here are some of my stars you could add to your universe.
No pain, no gain. There are absolutely no drugs, supplements, technologies, or anything else that will ever give you any gains in the long run. No gains in wealth, health, attractiveness, or anything. If you do not work for it, you don’t get it. Apply this to absolutely everything and see how it works.
You take testosterone supplements? Your body will stop producing as much testosterone. You drink coffee to stay awake and be productive? You get worse sleep and lose productivity in the long run. You lied to her in order to sleep with her? Here come the rape allegations.
With great responsibility comes great power. Spiderman only gave you half of the truth; the maintenance of power. The other half is that great power comes when you take great responsibility. Once you start holding yourself accountable for EVERYTHING that happens in your life, then you will gain great power as a consequence. The mark of a person with oodles of power is that they start holding themselves responsible for other people’s mistakes–Isn’t that what a boss is supposed to do?
Your girlfriend is terrible or left you? You chose her. Your mistake. You made it happen. You lost your job? You sucked too much. You didn’t get friendly with the people at work or provide anything your boss needed. You failed. You’re depressed? You eat too much junk food and spend your leisure time smoking weed and binging cartoons and video games. You don’t exercise. You don’t try. You are the problem.
A caveat: There's no reason to beat yourself up about anything. Feeling bad about yourself is not taking responsibility. Just take responsibility.
There are no mistakes, only opportunities to learn. Obviously mistakes exist, but the way we frame them is important. Do not dwell on them as mistakes, but as opportunities to learn. Yesterday I learned that while using photoshop to make my blog art, I need to rasterize my layers (I have no clue what that means,) before outlining everything. If I don’t rasterize first, then I just waste my time outlining an object. Why do I remember this lesson? Because it was 5 minutes of my life that I wasted by not rasterizing. At this point I have become so efficient at transmuting feelings of frustration into fuel for learning that I hardly care about the mistakes. All the energy you spend caring about the mistake is supposed to go into learning the lesson.
If they won’t take a bullet for you, they aren’t your friend. Having more than ~12 friends is shallow. Facebook is for the vain. Instagram is a waste of time. Nobody really cares about you. It’s all very true, you know. If you can not be entirely honest with your friends, they are only acquaintances. If you feel like you have to walk on eggshells around them in order to not push certain buttons, then they are your enemy in disguise. If there is no truth, there is no friend. Honor is what binds people together, and there’s no honor without truth.