I Picked a Fight With Vox Day
A fight I knew I couldn't win, I wasn't trying to win and got banned not surprisingly, but I learned something about my misgivings for the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, Sigma Game
I was in a foul mood last Thursday afternoon. I had been on a ladder for three straight days, up to 24ft in the air, scraping, prepping, priming and painting the window trim of a local church. Maybe the guys who built the windows and installed the trim painted them properly, but after several generations of ignorant DIY and general neglect, the job was not made easier.
In this mood I made the mistake of reading a post from Vox Day at
, called The Sigma in Literature.
I’ve been subscribed and a regular reader of Vox Day for the greater part of a year, finding much of his work interesting and informative. This one however, perhaps irrationally, pissed me off, and I fired off a comment without really thinking about it, but definitely spoiling for a fight.
This might by why this sigma has some contempt for your take on the sigma.
The thing about Vox Day’s work, it has always left me cold. I see the utility of organizing one’s worldview according to the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy (SSH), but I have always felt a little uncomfortable with it too, which I did not understand and admittedly did not put a lot of thought or research into it, as I do not organize my own world-view according to it necessarily.
What flared me about this post, The Sigma in Literature, is the character portrayed as a Sigma. He fucks the wives and girlfriends of his “friends.” Presumably, though it is not stated, he seeks out men to befriend, in order to fuck their female partner. This is not couched in any discussion, not the least concern, by Vox Day, he seemed to see that as a mere explication of the Sigma character. As he seems to think of himself as a Sigma, I took it to mean, in my mood, that we should aspire to be a sociopathic libertine sex addict cuckolding our “friends.” Of the behavior of this young man, this is what Vox Day said about it, which I find wanting:
What is interesting is that Murakami accurately describes many of the attributes of a Sigma decades before the concept was first articulated. The young illustrator is solitary, but successful with women despite being physically unremarkable, is likable and makes friends easily, but has little interest in a social life. He possesses unusual motivations and preferences, has strong willpower and a high level of self-discipline, and exists almost completely outside the normal social hierarchies. His interests fall on the obsessive side. He understands women on a level few men do, but has very little interest in them beyond their sexual utility for him and is more inclined to view them with contempt than place them on a pedestal. Relationships, both friendly and romantic, are open to him, but he instinctively shies away from them.
Vox Day has written a number of attacks against Neil Gaiman, who it seems is something of a sexual predator. What I could not understand, or perhaps countenance, was the seeming contradiction between his attacks on Neil Gaiman, but his seeming, if not celebration of, at least a total lack of judgment of any kind, of the sexual predator in the story by Murakami. The only difference I can discern is the fact that Vox Day sees Gaiman as a Gamma, and the character in this story as a Sigma. The most salient difference to me is Gaiman preying upon his fans, while this Murakami character is preying upon his friends. It cannot be merely consent by the women that justifies Vox Day’s seeming indifference to the Murakami character’s behavior; presumably many of the women Gaiman has pursued were willing, even as some evidently were not. This Murakami character, surely many of the women were willing, but some conceivably later regretted it. Never mind the cuckolded chuds apparently. Whatever the monster Gaiman is, I think this Murakami Sigma is worse.
Which is doubly strange to me, as Vox Day says the only way to salvation for anybody is through Jesus Christ. I’m not sure how Vox Day can claim that, and not be instinctually and viscerally appalled by the behavior of the Murakami character.
Anyway, my initial comment was a provocation, insofar as I have never before referred to myself as a Sigma, and I knew it would piss him off and set off his gamma radar. Like I said, I was picking a fight. The commentariat did not disappoint.
I am accustomed to lefties claiming I am stupid, anytime I question them. One and all of Vox Day’s commentariat who responded to me, in lieu of a strict argument, asserted that obviously, ackshually, I am clearly not smart enough to participate in Vox Day’s precious comment section. I generally don’t take people seriously who call me too stupid to understand whatever. My general attitude in such discussion is to egg them on, entice them into revealing their true character (it never fails.)
It became clear, no one responding to me was particularly perturbed by dude fucking his “friends” girlfriends and wives. Cuckolding his friends, see, he is doing a service, the men weren’t performing. He gave the women what they wanted. I wonder though, if the Sigma has so much indifference and contempt for women, why is it then good to cuckold the men with such contemptible women?
Vox Day did not step into the conversation until after it was all said and done, he did not engage me but repeatedly denounced me as a gamma and then banned me indefinitely.
It is a good thing my self worth does not depend on Vox Day’s or his commentariat’s opinion of me.
That said, what I learned about my misgivings about the SSH, is the incessant need, nay, demand of the commentariat to separate behavior and morality, which more than one of the commentariat said are two entirely different things and totally unrelated. This strikes me as an attempt to make the behavior justify itself, outside any moral framework. Sigma acts, therefore it is justified. Vox Day would not say it like that, but that is essentially what is implied by Vox Day and the commentariat and their seeming indifference to the behavior of the Murakami character, which at least one of the commenters openly celebrated.
In most tribal cultures, adultery would often lead to exile, a fate worse than death. Adultery could tear a tribe apart, it could not be countenanced. Even one so great as Crazy Horse loved the wife of another, he got shot in the face for it, it threatened war between tribes. The seventh Commandment in the Christian tradition is Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. It is the gravest of sins in the Muslim tradition. Adultery is contrary to community, society and civilization to pretty much everybody everywhere.
The fact that Vox Day and his commentariat seemed indifferent at best and supportive at worst of the behavior of the Murakami character, makes me wonder if the Sigma Game is about training sociopathy. It strikes me as just another sign of a generalized deconstruction of every boundary, the demolition of every moral and ethical rule, most often associated with the left but not exclusively apparently. It strikes me as might-makes-right, my behavior as an Alpha or a Sigma justifies itself, regardless of the consequences for everybody else.
I’m not saying Vox Day is training his people that way, but that seems what some of his commentariat is taking from his lessons - and it was me Vox Day denounced, a good deal more than the behavior of the Muarkami character.
The New/Dissident Right is trying to find a way to counter and overcome the left’s stranglehold on America and Europe, and the general trend toward the controlled demolition of the West. But no one wants to trade the pathological death cult of the left for a bunch of ubermenschen who think they are justified to cuckold their frens just because they can. Morality and behavior cannot really be separated, if you really believe in God, Vox Day.
Vox Day is immensely more well known and influential, compared to my simple solitary self. I’m sure he did not think a thing about it after he banned me, just another gamma retard shitting in his comment page. I came away from it though, distinctly not wanting anything to do with Vox Day’s Sigma Game, if immorality is the name of that game. I will stick with Anarch, thanks, my empathy, my appreciation for women, my moral and ethical compass and my utter indifference for hierarchies of all kinds.
For anyone interested, and for full disclosure, the discussion is reprinted here.
This might by why this sigma has some contempt for your take on the sigma.
Like
Reply (2)
Share
Author
You clearly don't even know what a sigma is.
Like
Reply
Share
What is contemptible about Vox's take on the sigma?
Liked (2)
Reply (1)
Share
A guy who makes "friends" so he can fuck their girlfriends and wives is an immoral sociopath, not someone to look up to as a model. What sort of friend turns you into a cuck? Worse than Neil Gaiman.
Like (1)
Reply (2)
Share
You've forgotten or ignored that the women are doing it with him.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
So he is even worse, fucking his "friends" immoral wives and girlfriends.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
On the contrary, he isn't worse, he is better.
If your boss doesn't think you're doing your job, he's getting someone else. If your wife or girlfriend doesn't think you're doing your job, she's getting someone who does it for her. Women don't do that when the husband or boyfriend does his job as she wants it done to her.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
I'm starting to think you guys are just as bad as the death cult lefties, just as ready to destroy community, society and civilization.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
If you confuse competency with morality, then I doubt you get either very well.
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Share
I'm not really interested in high status, intelligent elite who are neither or either or.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
The socio-sexual hierarchy is an observation of typical male patterns of behavior. Morality has nothing to do with it. You can have moral, righteous alphas, and you can have vile, reprehensible, monstrous alphas too.
If you can't separate morality from what is an intellectual discussion on observable male behaviors, then you aren't smart enough to be hanging around here. No one is impressed by the white knighting and holier-than-thou crap; leave all that at the door please.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Everybody responding to me sure is fond of telling me how dumb I am. I'm not so certain that is a sign of my stupidity, though. But see, this one seemed like it crossed a line, glorifying the vile, reprehensible, monstrous. If I am wrong about that, telling me I am an idiot and too dumb to get it is not persuasive, but mostly confirms my assessment.
Author
Gamma confirmed.
Like
Reply
Share
I don’t necessarily think your IQ is below average, but I do think it is quite obvious what your SSH rank is — the one that tends toward moral lecturing and self-identifying as Sigma.
If you don't understand that high status does not mean moral, you aren't intelligent enough for this discussion.
Yes, there are high status men who are Alphas or Sigmas who are not good friend material because they would commit adultery with your wife given the opportunity.
Like (2)
Reply (1)
Share
6 hrs ago·edited 6 hrs ago
Well, where I come from, Alpha or Sigma fucking their “friends” wives and girlfriends might end buried in a swamp, no matter how intelligent they think they are.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
The concept of Alpha/Sigma has zero relation to how your local community deals with adulterers. Though that is good practice to prevent high status men from abusing their status to seduce wives and girlfriends.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
The way you guys talk the Alpha/Sigma concept applies everywhere all the time.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
I don't think I can dumb the concept down for you.
Bad Sigma is bad, but bad Sigma is still Sigma.
The fact you think he should be killed for seducing women belong to other men proves his Sigma status. He was successful in seducing them due to his Sigma ability to read and connect to women.
Judging him or killing him doesn't stop him from being Sigma.
If you don't get it, you don't get it. Why lie that you're a Sigma if you don't know what Sigma even is?
Like (1)
Reply (1)
Share
You sound like you are on a hamster wheel. Even convicts and criminals have a moral code, woe be the one who flaunts it. I've been here mostly just reading for quite some time. I find most of it interesting, But this post and these convos make me think, I will stick with Anarch, so I can hold on to my empathy, appreciation for women and some morality. Have fun seducing your friends wives.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
You're definitely not a Sigma. Sigmas seduce women effectively because they appreciate women too well.
Pointing out that Sigmas do immoral things is part of maintaining morality. Sigma does not mean good person.
You have zero control over whether you are a Sigma or not. You do control if you do the right thing, such as by keeping the marriage bed pure and policing adulterers.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
I just said I am an Anarch. That said, you must be a Sigma, to know for sure I am not one. So, like, were you born that way? Couldn't have turned out otherwise? My point in stepping in on this one, when I have not before, was not to question the Sigma concept, but to question the idea of associating sociopathy with Sigma, which this post seemed to do. Nothing of your comments or Cedrics has disabused me of that assessment.
Also, btw, condescension is definitely not a sign of superior intelligence.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
" the idea of associating sociopathy with Sigma,"
Is this (wrong) idea because you are unable to separate the accurate description of sigma and his tendencies, from your OWN distress over the idea of a sigma being immoral, which you lump in with sociopathy? Every human demonstrating any part of the SSH can be a sociopath or a saint! Neither path of actions is born of sociopathic tendencies, nor -- I think? -- CAUSES what you would claim are sociopathic tendencies.
"btw, condescension is definitely not a sign of superior intelligence."
Notice that, here too, you seem unable to separate a discussion OF the SSH with self-targeted defense/offense because "I'm not LIKE that!" With the "so it's NOT true!" caboose tagging along behind?
Sigma "A" would likely not notice he was being condescended to, because unless it were a particular sigma "B" whom sigma A thought was carelessly overt about it. In neither case would sigma A give a rat's patooty about B's opinion - unless he wanted something from B.
Been written before above: moral or immoral is NOT a part of this description of behaviours. You taking offense, and throwing insults about that part of every human's quiver of behaviors speaks to who/how you are, not to sigmas in general or the SSH in particular. And that you can't / won't see it is why we-all keep trying to point to the moon.
Sociopathy is a mental issue, not a moral one. Even sociopaths can act according to moral boundaries - if their behavior is moral, does it really matter that they themselves don't actually believe in the morality they practice?
Again though, this post is not associating immoral behaviors to the male behavioral pattern of "sigma". Morality and behavioral patterns are completely unrelated subjects. There's no way to dumb that down further - if you don't understand that, you simply haven't got the mental horsepower to keep up around here. That's not an insult, mind you; I'm just suggesting that your sticking around on this blog won't be good for your mental health, and that you leaving or remaining silent would be doing everyone a favor, including yourself.
Like
Reply (1)
Share
(Banned)
User was indefinitely suspended for this comment. Show
Who the hell is holier than thou, now? Geez, you have a very high opinion of yourself if you think my mental health depends on the commentariat at Vox Day's site. Touchy as a lefty dei trans/woke, fuck.
The problem here seems this insistence, nay, demand, to separate behavior and morality, as totally unrelated, full stop, which seems like generating sociopathy to me, but WDIK?
Like
Reply (1)
Share
Author
Banned for Self-Righteousness and Excessive Gamma.
Like (1)
Reply
Share
Vox Day responded with a post. I will merely point out that he did not comment on my post, nor can I comment on his site, which here in Minnesota we call passive aggressive.
https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/an-object-lesson-in-midwittery?triedRedirect=true
Vox is interesting, I’ll continue to read his blog, but this sexual hierarchy theory of his is tendentious.. There’s obviously something to it in broad outline, but there seems to be something off with the gamma and sigma categories and analyses. Watching this Sigma blog unfold, I’m struck by the sense that Vox himself often exhibits behavior redolent of what he calls gamma-hood.. He’s an awful smart boy, Vox, and he has an awfully high opinion of himself. He doesn’t brook much criticism or dissent before turning to insults and banning. It’s not a good look, really, and smacks of some psychological and spiritual disorder, of arrogance, insecurity and pride.. Gamma qualities, in other words.