In the past I enjoyed a good amount of what Vox Day produced. Lately though, there's been too many times when he's tried to have his cake and eat it too.
Vox used to curate the blog "Aplha Game", and one of its posts from back in 2011 talks about the socio-sexual hierarchy as he defined it. One interesting part of that post is as follows:
Now, it is important to keep in mind that it serves absolutely no purpose to identify yourself in some manner that you think is "better" or higher up the hierarchy. No one cares what you think you are and your opinion about your place in the social hierarchy is probably the opinion that matters least.
If I ever run for Emperor of Man, my platform will include mandatory euthanasia for gamma males at the age of 18, with a second round at 25 just in case we missed any of them. I expect I'll win 100 percent of the female vote with that policy.
Mama's Boys and Smart Boys are inevitably a serious challenge for any organization, because virtue-signaling on behalf of women is always their first and foremost priority.
Whose vote was locked in for his hypothetical election bid for Emperor of Man again?
How smart does Vox think he is again?
Such a waste of natural talent playing games to win the favor of people he openly resents.
Or does he expect that many folks who aren't "secret kings" are going to be interested in the escapist entertainment ventures?
Thre's a reason that certain hobbies and interests earned the social stigmas they still largely possess today.
One of the complaints I have seen in increasing frequency relating to video games is that people are bored playing the game. What makes this distinctive isn't just that they're bored, but that they didn't used to be bored by the same game. They'll point to changes in how the game plays, the activities it offers, the balance and function of items and abilities, the lists are exhaustive on why what was once enjoyed is enjoyed no longer.
The problem common to all these different players, though, is that they're boring people, and the video game no longer distracts them sufficiently from that fact.
Take World of Warcraft as an example. It's still the same basic game it was on release. Oh sure, it looks different and the details on how each class' function works has changed, but the fundamentals haven't changed one bit. You hit buttons in the proper sequence to kill monsters faster than they kill you.
Every class in the game is a variation on this basic concept. Every mechanic of the monsters you fight is built on that foundation. Perform a pattern correctly and you'll be rewarded.
This is why derision and scorn are so rightfully heaped upon people who so openly boast of their accomplishments in video games, because such feats do not display any real achievement in the "real world". Should power go out, all the digital accomplishments mean nothing. Further, while being able to perform a pattern of activities may appear impressive to someone who has not mastered the patterns, even people who are not very intelligent can be trained.
So with games like World of Warcraft, what really changed?
According to some, the game "got easier". The patterns required of players were simplified, and so where people felt a sense of accomplishment before due to the complexity of the patterns they could master, as shallow and vapid as that is, even that feeling is now gone, and they're stuck with playing a game that they don't fundamentally see as a good way to spend their time without any feeling of achievement to distract them from such truths.
Video games aren't inherently bad for what they are - entertainment. I am always baffled at how people do not realize that when they brag about an achievement, it's akin to declaring one's favorite flavor of ice cream. It doesn't mean anything more than what that person attaches to it, and if they attach that much meaning and value to how they are entertained, it often speaks to their complete failure to prioritize anything else that is tangibly more important.
As another anecdote, I knew someone who flunked out of college because they couldn't demonstrate the discipline to learn skills that college was trying to teach them. They were good at WoW, but they weren't smart or trained to be any more valuable than that.
Such people are boring, and they represent a growing number of people who are desperate to avoid coming to that realization by blaming the activities.
Another explanation was that where the "old WoW" forced players to cooperate, the new game doesn't, and so people feel detached and disconnected, and then act as if such a revelation is meaningful.
What these players don't seem to realize is that they lack the basic social skills required to become part of a group in the first place. When the game forced everyone to play together, even the socially awkward could find others required to interact with them in order to achieve some common goal. When that requirement is removed, the true social capacity of an individual is put to the test, and a lot of gamers don't have the skills to make and sustain friendships with new people.
What this means is that WoW social dynamics reflect more of reality, and if these folks were trying to escape the dynamics of reality through playing a game, such a change which reveals their own deficiencies will promptly be blamed on the game for exposing them, rather than take ownership for their own failings which exist whether the game is there to highlight them or not.
So if you are ever tempted to declare yourself bored, or to explain how some activity you used to enjoy no longer holds the same value, be aware that others will pick up on the projection, even if they can't quite explain it with words. Other people see bored and socially challenged people for what they really are, and gamers are simply less and less able to convincingly distract themselves from that harsh reality.
Men who are natural "alphas" will naturally form a "tribe" around themselves. They become a focal point for a social circle, and they are usually the one who is responsible for determining who is "inside" or "outside" said circle.
Newcomers seeking to gain entry in the group must pass the criteria set by the one who defines that social group's policies.
The problem with this is that most people have been brought up on the idea that exclusivity is evil, that segregation is inherently wrong, and so any group that someone wishes to belong to should not ever reject them, or make their participation difficult, for any reason at all. As such, most people do not understand how their behavior will be regulated by the leader of their group. What they are allowed to do or not to is not unlimited.
Groups where there is no definition struggle with coherency, because if there is nothing that defines the group, how does one know it even exists, let alone demonstrate membership of it?
Given that, there is a difference then between disliking someone because they perform that role at all, and disliking the traits of the specific social circle that they shepherd.
Owen Benjamin is a popular fellow, famous or infamous depending on who you talk to, and in large part it's because he's forming a "tribe" through the internet, and what he's doing is so foreign to so many people, they don't even know how to frame their reactions.
For him, it's natural, because his personality is more "alpha", so while it's possible he's applying conscious thought to the process, a lot of it will be instinctual as well, and because of how naturally he looks after "his own", outsiders think that the problem they have with him is that. In his care for and protection of those who he cares most about.
The reality is that they probably just don't like the particulars of his "tribe", because they don't and shouldn't belong to "his", and so instead of trying to change Owen to suit them, they need to go find someone they are already suited for better in the first place.
They need to go elsewhere to find their "tribe", instead of trying to get Owen to change his to accommodate.
What complicates this is ease of access, so natural laziness will prevent people from putting in the work that they should to find "their people", and they'll instead try to project themselves out into the internet and complain when people don't live up to their expectations.
I was listening to a somewhat older Darkstream and the nature of the complains fielded were that people were attracted to Owen, but then repulsed by some of his behaviors. They were attracted to the role that Owen was playing, because of how natural and synthetic male alphas have been denigrated and undermined in Western Civilization, but they were put out by the particulars of the "tribe" that he presided over not being "theirs".
The problem isn't Owen, it's them. They are the ones who tried to latch onto the first person resembling a leader that came along, instead of doing their own part to make sure that said leader was someone they could or should even be following in the first place.
Owen is establishing his own terms, and if you don't like them, that doesn't mean you don't like him, just that he's not the correct fit. Move on. He's not the only fish in the sea.
Appreciate and respect that he cares enough about the social circle that he is cultivating to define it, to give it an identity, to ensure that it is kept safe from predators and manipulators who would seek to do harm to those under his digital care.
You don't need to agree with him on anything to understand that the role he is fulfilling, and the consequences of fulfilling that role, are natural and essential to the proper functioning of society.
Instead of getting Owen to change, we should instead be encouraging more men to stand up for their own "tribe", to stop being ashamed of having preferences, to stop pretending that people and cultures which are different and incompatible are anything else than that.
Leave Owen, and Owen's "tribe", alone. They owe you nothing, and acting like they do only reinforces why you are still "outside".
By default, when we see anyone else doing something, we immediately fill in a "why did they do that" blank with ourselves. We assume that when other people act like us, they obviously have the same motivations as us, and acted like we do for the same reasons that we do.
This is a phenomenon which is hardwired into us, and even greatly superior intelligence does not avert our tendency to do this.
The troubling result of this is that when other people obviously act for completely different reasons, with entirely different motivations, one is then forced to scramble for an explanation as to why the original presumptions were still correct.
Due to pride, it is hard for people to accept that they were wrong about someone, even when further evidence comes along which demonstrates that what they did was project themselves onto that someone else.
Vox is fallible, he's human, and such things shouldn't be so surprising or hurtful, but when such events do occur, when someone like Vox has shown himself to be less reliable than he otherwise claims, folks like me just need to calibrate how we process Vox's claims moving forward.
Vox Day is considerably smarter than me, but that intelligence isn't a superpower which makes him immune to the phenomenon of projection.
This reminds me of the sports media, and the way that
they constantly complain that the athletes either don't talk to them or
refuse to give them anything but canned answers. Who do they think
taught them to do that? The media clearly doesn't like the fact that we
won't talk to them on the phone, and it won't be long before they are
complaining that we don't bother responding to their emails anymore.
Well, you see, Mr. Journalist Reporter, since you're obviously not going
to utilize any of the answers we're giving you, there simply isn't any
reason to talk to you in the first place.
This is why Stefan Molyneux doesn't bother with them at all. I may need
to further alter my media policy in imitation of his. Or perhaps I'll
simply tell everyone who contacts me to go talk to Milo. All they really
want is quotes from him anyhow, so we might as well cut right to the
chase.
If the media is promoting someone on the nominal Right,
you can be all but certain that they are bought-and-paid-for Fake Right.
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Rubin. They are fake,
fake, fake, fake, fake. All of the cucks are Fake Right.
Calibrate claims with facts and data. Don't dismiss outright, that's not a useful heuristic, but understand that when Vox supports someone else, it may very well be because they've done something that Vox would have done, and he naturally defaults to the presumption that they're doing it for the same reasons he'd be doing it.
If Stefan is nominally "of the right", and claims to not talk to "the media", yet is appearing on the show of a man who is simply part of the latest effort for "the media" to rebrand itself, do we place more weight on the claims, or on the actions?
In Vox's crucifying of Jordan Peterson, he exposed how people who were fans didn't really know what Peterson was talking about at all, what he really supported, and in circumstances like this it's apparent that such oversight is not uncommon at all.
The reason folks shouldn't be embarrassed about having supported Peterson is evidenced in that some of the folks that Vox himself supports have made claims and taken stances on topics which are in stark contrast with what Vox promotes, yet because such things can be easily overlooked unless one spends time studying what others say or write, we can't be surprised if something is missed.
This isn't helped by his "private criticism, public support" mantra which, while based on good intentions, does not change that there are folks who are trying to insert themselves into the nationalist right that are fundamentally incompatible, but because many have been so busy focusing on "the left", they hadn't noticed folks of "the left" setting themselves up as #FakeRight as a means of insulating themselves from the critical examination that would expose their deceptions.
It's not "division" to point out that those who claim to be part of your tribe are not actually so at all. It's not "punching right" to go after the moderates and cucks "in the middle". It's not "punching right" to kick out the godless and the heretics, the mutants and the depraved.
It may very well be a testament to why President Trump has been so effectively framed as so ineffectual that folks tried to create a movement from collections of people who were simply the enemies of enemies. If he can see that "the right" is simply one ideological standard away from completely falling apart, what trust can be placed in The People to support him when push comes to shove?
What happens if, for reasons other than are stated, the wall literally won't change anything at all, because where it would be built now won't reflect the border of what is rebuilt from the United States after our next "civil war", wherein the various nations of people vying for control inadvertently destroy or neuter the federal government and, like Yugoslavia in the 80's/90's, the "United States" Balkanizes into much smaller regional states such that the existence of a border wall between the current Mexico and United States becomes entirely immaterial?
Stop relying on other people to think for you, to tell you when to act, or not to act. Grow the wisdom and knowledge to make that determination yourself, and while you can learn from other people, they are not responsible for making choices in your life. You are the one who chooses, you are the one whose shoulders will bear the consequences of those choices, quit pretending like there is anyone else on this planet that you can ultimately trust with your own life, your own future.
There's an adage that goes "oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."
Winking of the eyes, or shuffling of the feet, are old testament phrases which connote when someone is scheming or planning something, or when you need to be able to send secret messages, and which in a high-trust society, would look entirely out of place and suspicious.
It's thus not difficult to imagine that even pretending to "send signals" will draw undue attention and problems, whether you've really anything to hide or not. Just think about it briefly, why would you behave like someone sketchy without a good reason? Why would you intentionally draw attention to your own behavior in this manner?
In addition, we've got a direct repeat of the prior phrase about prating fools, the obnoxious and verbose type of fool who runs at the mouth. So, what's the contrast here?
While behaving in an odd manner causes problems, or at least implies them, regardless of one's intent, it won't necessarily cause problems like blabbing endlessly can. While causing trouble is not good, falling is downright bad.
People may think you odd, and you may have to explain your behavior to alleviate curiosity, but if you're incessant in conversation, you'll blurt out things which you have no need to say at all in the first place.
More than once in popular culture have there been comedy routines where someone was trying to convey some sort of secret message, and their failure to do so was the source of the humor. These types of scenarios often endear us to the characters, because we can understand communication difficulties, and how perceptions can mislead and cause unintended problems.
However, we do not ever really like the chatterbox. The humor is always at their expense, mocking who they are and not just what they're doing at that time. We laugh at them, not with them.
Similarly, when outside the realm of comedy, we treat people different based on their behaviors, because those behaviors have a reason behind them and we're responding to that reason, as best we understand it.
While those who scheme may still be fools, the consequences for their behavior are different, and in the process of seeking wisdom it's good to understand that not all bad behavior leads to the exact same negative consequences. This is not to redeem or to suggest that the "less bad" are acceptable, but just to understand the dynamics of behavior and what's really going on and how our actions lead to different consequences.
