Welcome to The Blog of the Kurgan

I found his questions interesting and this is my attempt at answering them after years of observing (and rejecting) their generic existence:

And here I have some pertinent questions:

1. What is the point of scanning for faults that you can criticize?

I believe it’s the classic “by tearing them down I prove I am better than them”. Fully nased in trying to fill the black hole of ego deapair they have in their soul.

1. Do you feel as if you are somehow scoring points each time you are able to identify a problem, a mistake, or a flaw?

Yes. Undoubtedly, in their mind it makes them smarter and the more points they score the “better” they are than others.

1. Does complimenting others or paying them their due for legitimate achievement cause you pain or otherwise bother you?

Yes. In their mind it lowers them in the eyes of the other and is therefore only to be done insincerely when trying to curry favour (with a man) or gain sexual favours/intimacy (from a woman).

1. Do you even notice when others do things well or achieve something positive?

Oh yes, they notice, and it makes them seethe!

1. Can you tell when people don’t want to be informed of their faults?

Probably bit it will NEVER stop them because scoring points to become the “better man” is far more important!

1. Does that make any difference to whether you will inform them or not?

None, as far as I can tell.

1. Is it the identification of the fault or the criticism provided on the basis of the fault that provides you with the most joy?

The crowd noticing both their identification of it and their SUPERIOR criticism AND suggested complex solution, that gives them the biggest rush as they expect accolades medals and imagine everyone sees them as the superstars they clearly are in their own mind.

At any rate, those are my best guesses as to the internal motives of the gamma free from subterfuge.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This is basically a postcard sized 1 explanation for those of you who are interested in being, believe you are, or actually are Catholic. For the rest of you, feel free to read on, but PLEASE don’t bother me with detailed questions that I have already answered exhaustively a 1,000 times. If you want to know more, read Believe! (short and quick read with references) or Reclaiming the Catholic Church (autistically long and exhaustive), you can get both here.

People ignoring the above paragraph will most likely be banned or blocked without any further warning.

The positions

1. Novus Orco – Totally heretical, Satanic, Freemasonic at every level of the Clergy. While I accept there COULD be some retarded Novus Orco “priest” who believes truly he is Catholic, it’s about as likely as an Elf going to Orc school and coming out the other side of it, with the sodomy, heresy, blasphemy, cocaine parties, child rape, and so on, believing he is acting for the good of Elvenkind/Mankind. It’s a POWERFUL level of retardation, and we certainly can’t base our Church on such obviously mentally handicapped men.
2. Any of the Fake Trad Grifters – Con men. They are in it for the money. This covers:
   1. The unrepentant faggot Gary/Michael/Michelle Voris and his “church militant” which would have been more properly labelled as “Fudgepackers of Latter Day Faggotry”.
   2. The spectacular grifter E.M. Jones, or Emo Jones, as I refer to him. He too was/is funded by the same Opus Day supernumerary wealthy patron that Gary Voris and others are (or were) financially backed by (I forget the details, but fairly sure it included the other two below as well).
   3. Taylor “Tay-Tay” Marshall, this noxious grifting gnome used to vacuum money from Protestants originally, then as that headspace is so filled with grifters he remodelled himself as a “Catholic”, wrote and unreadable pile of trash called “infiltration” where he literally dodges and avoids making any point or drawing any conclusions, or calling out anyone properly with regard to the usurpation that was and is Vatican II, hedging his way through the whole thing in language and grammar that would make a 12 year old laugh. Which is partly why I think he probably DID write it himself.
   4. Milo Yank-my-pole-us, another faggot, this one supposedly “repentant” but who immediately after his “I no longer take it in the ass from big black men” conversion, immediately hooked up, joined with Gary Voris in his fudgepakers-are-us “church” before it imploded. After I exposed him as a total Freemason, he has essentially fallen off the face of the Earth and his probably hiding somewhere hoping his Freemason buddies don’t gut him, as their rules say they should if he exposes them too much (which he did by his own obvious Freemasonic symbol throwing in many images).
   5. Many other examples, but these above are the ones I have covered more extensively also at the OG blog.
3. SSPX, The Cassiciacum Thesis (Sedeprivationists), Ann Barnhardt, Vigano, and a couple of others – These pretend to be, or claim allegiance to, some version of “Sedevacantism” reject some or all of the Popes but not fully, and have a “he’s a valid Pope, but we won’t listen to him!” attitude, which is absolutely schismatic at best, possibly heretical and wholly retarded by Catholic Dogma. If you believe a Pope is the Pope then you obey him. End of. Or, as Bishop Sanborn, who has featured here before, has put it, in his own words (I shit you not, go search for his name and see the video I posted): “He is NOT the Pope, no one can say he is the Pope. He IS the Pope.” These are idiots, fakers, heretics, and wolves in sheep’s clothing basically saying that all the Satanists in the Vatican have to do is say “Oh, sorry mmmhkay?” and they magically become the real Pope and Bishops and so on. Their “arguments” are literally absurd lies that contradict Canon Law in obvious ways. If you are autistic and care to see the ways in which the Thesis of Cassiciacum is absurd, you can knock yourself out here. The main problem here is that some of the Sedeprivationists are actually valid Bishops and Priests, but completely in spectacular error. So they are Catholic, and Valid, but they are wrong in their views. In the Case of SSPX and others, they are just completely schismatic at best, and in the case of Bishop Sanborn, they have now broken Canon Law for at least 7 years, so they are now straying into heretic territory, by also lying about Canon Law that is there for all to see in black and white.
4. 1958 Totalist Sedevacantists – these are the ONLY fully Valid, legitimate and Catholic clergy left. They follow Catholic Dogma, Canon Law, and the infallible Magisterium of the Church (as left in the Canon Law Code of 1917 and the Papal encyclicals up to 9th October 1958 when the last Valid Pope died), and believe the Catholic Church is indeed the One, True, Holy and Apostolic one, in the same way the crusaders in 1095 AD, or the knights of Malta in 1565 AD did.
5. The Laity – This one confuses people but is not hard to understand. The above four positions (probably more like 8 or ten if you get into the details) refer to the Catholic CLERGY. And speaks to their validity or lack thereof. Of the above, only Sedeprivationists can claim most or at least SOME of their clergy is valid and legitimate too, BUT, they are in error. The error is not one that will cast them out of the Church as long as it is held as a personal opinion, but when or if they start to lie about Canon Law, break Canon Law, as Bp. Sanborn did in 2019 when he excluded parishioners from receiving the sacraments if they did not subject themselves to his ABSOLUTELY NON-EXISTENT authority, they begin to become pertinacious abandoners of the. Faith and will eventually fall foul of Canon 188.4 just as all the other heretics and never-where Catholics have done. The Laity is a different matter and we can’t really judge them in the same way. In essence if a person truly believes they are Catholic because they have not bothered to educate themselves about the heresies of Vatican II, the dogma of the Catholic Church, Canon Law, and so on, they are at most guilty of Sloth (too lazy to learn the truth about their own supposed religion), and are in error, BUT, they have been lied to since at least 1958, so we can hardly blame them too much. If a Catholic priest turns out to be a pedophile and desecrates the host every mass unbeknownst to the parishioners, they do not incur any guilt. They would do if they KNEW the host was desecrated and STILL took part in the Holy Mass. So, while the “nominal” Novus Ordo attending “Catholic” is in ignorance, due to his own laziness, and thus he is attending fake, blasphemous masses in fake, desecrated Churches presided over by Satanist and Freemasons pretending to be “Catholic” Clergy, they are not actually heretics or schismatics, they are, in effect Catholics. A bit dumb, a bit ignorant, or certainly fooled by lies, but still Catholic.

So… WHERE IS THE CHURCH?

There is only one sure place it resides today, with valid and properly Catholic Clergy, they are all the signatories to Unam Sanctam .

Why? Because this was the only Bishop with enough courage to state the obvious no valid Bishop has had the balls to say for 70 years, which is essence is: We are the Church, we are the only ones that can elect an actually valid Pope. If you disagree, make your argument. Either way, come and meet up and let’s see where we are and how many agree we should hold an imperfect general council and elect a new and valid pope.

And the opposition to is only one of three kinds:

1. Satanists, Freemasons, Grifters. They all either hate the Church or are making their deal with the devil, money for lies, so will attack actual Catholics at every turn, pretending to be the second or third type instead.
2. Cowards. These guys KNOW the Vatican is filled with liars, impostors, child rapists, faggots, actual practicing Satanists and an overwhelming number of Freemasons, but they are SCARED by numbers. The MASS of people that are fooled cower them into being weak, scared and terrified of being even further “ostracised”. To which one must have only contempt for such Lilly livered excuses of “men”. Gideon they certainly are not. Nor properly Catholic. Truth and God are more important than life itself, as all the Catholic Knights, Saints and Martyrs have demonstrated over 2000 years.
3. Lazy Idiots. These are basically a subset of 2. above but they genuinely are too stupid, and also too lazy, to actually educate themselves on Canon Law. Or the history of the Church, or basic Logic, on which, Catholicism is also based, as is Roman Law, on which Canon Law is based. After all Logos is also the root of the word Logic. These unfortunates do NOT understand the arguments, they can barely read them, never understand them, and are in essence just NPCs repeating sound-bytes they heard from the impostors or the Cowards above. They are the people whose mind cannot be changed with facts, but is a nuke hits the Vatican today and all the impostors drop dead as if struck by lightning, they would immediately follow the pope elected by Unam Sanctam as if nothing had changed at all.

If you have been paying attention, the vast majority of the Laity and not an insignificant number of the would-be or quasi-clergy, are in essence swayed not by facts, not by dogma, not by truly understanding God, Faith or the True Church God placed on Earth. They are only following two things:

1. Their own emotions. And these are PRIMARILY set by:
2. The number of people apparently holding the fake/erroneous/Satanic position.

They are essentially the zombie horde. Whoever makes the most noise wins with them. If the majority of people suddenly said loudly that 2+2 = Purple, they would start wearing Purple robes to show their allegiance to the unthinking biomass.

SO… IF you consider yourself a Catholic, and you have read this far, it is incumbent upon you to find out the truth. You can examine all my arguments in great detail by reading Reclaiming the Catholic Church (see earlier link) either in digital or paper format, or get a good sense of elf it by reading BELIEVE! which would both likely save you time as in RTCC I exhaust ALL the objections that have ever been raised to 1958 Sedevacantism, or, feel free to investigate and learn by other means, whatever takes your fancy, but what is a certainty is that the onus is on YOU to know the truth.

Seek and ye shall find is not a statement that is equivalent to sit on your ass and it will come to you magically.

So, get off your ass and start doing some seeking.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This thread is direct, uncompromising and essentially accurate.

Not every comment is 100% accurate. Try not to be a binary thinker. Understand the broad CONCEPT; don’t get lost in the minutiae.

https://substack.com/@darkagesage1/note/c-310465894?r=2gid6q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

This title may not immediately strike you as germane, but I am testing a theory.

Besides, I have loved dinosaurs since a very young age, and women a little bit later after the dinosaurs, though, the similarities don’t end there, and frankly, often it would be far preferable to live in the Xenozoic Era than dealing with the dual brain solipsism of human females.

The dinosaurs would certainly at least balance the human females. Imagine… hunting a rabid T-Rex that has been terrorising a local village, watching herds of Triceratops thundering through the Precambrian vegetation. You could put up with a lot of female weirdness if you could have that sort of life… you and your .460 Weatherby against hungry velociraptors… And I also think the female weirdness would be a lot less than it is today under those conditions. Your Pterodactyl soup would be warm and freshly cooked when you return from dispatching the sabre-tooth tiger that had been stalking the outskirts of the village walls.

Are women even interested in palaeontology? I am not aware of any prominent ones, though I am certainly not an expert in the field. But it is one of those topics that I think may be mostly the domain of men, as, I think, are almost all abstract concept topics (physics, mathematics, cosmology, astronomy). I think Palaeontology is a good test, as definitely bound to something physical and material but removed in time, and I suspect this sort of material too is not appealing to the female brain. See also, history in general. Your theories as to why are welcome. I have my own of course.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Unfortunately, because as Vox has coined the phrase MPAI (Most People Are Idiots) there needs to be a couple of disclaimers regarding this post.

1. It is not a “takedown” of Vox or his ideas. It is what used to happen in the halcyon days of the internet open-source code equivalent. Vox has definite skills that I do not have and vice versa. His willingness to look into the minutiae of things that I find obvious at a higher resolution, and therefore not interesting for me, is far superior to mine. At least unless something genuinely grabs my attention, then I can be as obsessive and detailed as any weaponised autist, as my soon to be published book will show without a doubt in various instances (such as certain aspects of astronomy, or details of WWII). With regard to the details of evolution, and the minutiae of various philosopher’s ideas that I find absurd to begin with, he’s definitely in the lead though.
2. His SSH is definitely useful, and valid. Of course, people do tend to make it both more and less than what it is. Human beings are complex and while the generic term of Gamma, or Sigma, or Delta, etc, is generically correct for a man overall, there are isolated or specific instances where that label might not be the most accurate, and this is something that Vox himself has stated on multiple occasions. To a certain extent, the average midwit takes the SSH and tries to make it into some ironclad box into which all men must fit, at all times, in all circumstances, and are reduced to that in toto. It is the Red Pill equivalent of “all women are whores” and so on.
3. I wholly agree with his books Probability Zero and the Frozen Gene. Insofar as I have looked into them, they are correct. I am aware that he is also continually updating these works and as a general rule his theory on it all is reinforced more with each iteration.

In fact, the publication of his Probability Zero was instrumental in having me review and update from scratch a theory that was already obvious to me 31 years ago when I first published it, but is now an absolute certainty that can no longer be denied, so it’s not as if I have anything against Vox’s ideas concerning the SSH or Evolution in general.

My point here is one that may or may not be of interest to him, as I am also aware he is busy and may not get to this, or, alternatively, being as I am busy too, I may have missed some update that covers what I am critiquing below. If so, being made aware of it would be welcome.

Right, now to the critique. There is a bit of a TL;DR section at the end that starts with the heading The Conclusions of Epigentics

In his latest post on Sigma Game, he characterises Evolutionary Psychology as “fake science squared” and his SSH as proto-science.

I would tend to agree with the description of the SSH. After all, as readers here or of Caveman Theory are aware, I had developed my own version of the SSH long before I knew of Vox at all. So the observation of the traits he ascribes to different types of men is absolutely founded in reality and proper observation.

That said, while I don’t necessarily put a lot of stock in evolutionary psychology, as a model, it can and does predict certain things, if at a different scale than the SSH.

Furthermore, logically, you cannot pretend to have one set of measurements for the competing theory and excuse your own from it:

Regarding the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA), he says:

“Verification of the causal mechanism: zero. Nobody has ever observed a Pleistocene male choosing a mate. Nobody has identified the neural substrate of the alleged module. Nobody has demonstrated the heritability of the preference. Nobody has shown the selection coefficient that would have driven its fixation. The entire causal chain from ancestral selection to modern preference is inferred, not observed, and the inference rests on assumptions about ancestral environments and reproductive payoffs that are themselves unobserved. What’s actually being measured is a correlation between a stimulus and a rating. The evolutionary scaffolding is decoration.”

But is the SSH put under similar testing? Short answer: No.

No one has identified the neural substrate of a Gamma compared to a Delta either.

No one has demonstrated the heritability of any part of the SSH either. Nor any other mechanism that would explain why someone becomes a Gamma instead of Lambda. There has been no empirical study of this any more than anyone has demonstrated heritability in EEA, and arguably quite a bit lees in fact.

As a model that predicts certain behaviours, the SSH works, and at a granularity that is higher resolution than EEA, but EEA also predicts things accurately probably at a similar rate as the SSH just at a different granularity. We could posit that the EEA model is mostly accurate at a macro scale and the SSH is mostly accurate at a micro scale. The REASON as to why the SSH or the EEA “work”, that is the details of the model , are basically opaque in both instances. The why , if you like, that Vox studiously avoids looking at. At least as far as his public posting on the issue goes, as he has repeatedly stated that the does not concern himself with the WHY, only the WHAT.

In which case, whether a model is real or not, becomes academic. If it works use it and if not, ignore it. If you look at the EEA as a large model predictor, it certainly appears to work.

I use Claude to check my theories with regard to sourcing research papers that are relevant to my hypothesis, then also ask Claude to find counter-examples, and I think overall the first part of the argument I am making is fairly solidly proven.

I asked Claude to find the papers related to EEA that not only are statistically significant, but that were risky predictions BEFORE the evidence was in, and predicted it correctly. These are the ones it pulled up.

Strongest cases

Kenrick & Keefe (1992), age preference asymmetry. The naive social-norms account predicts males prefer younger females at every age. Fertility-tracking predicts something odd: teenage males should prefer slightly older females, because peak fertility is above their own age. That’s what the personals-ad and marriage-record data show, across US, Dutch, Indian, and Filipino samples and across decades. The prediction is non-obvious, contradicts the rival theory’s direction, and holds.

Lieberman, Tooby & Cosmides (2003, 2007), kin detection. The model predicts that duration of childhood co-residence — not stated belief about genetic relatedness — is the operative cue for sexual aversion and for moral opposition to third-party incest. It won out over conscious belief in the data, with co-residence duration predicting the aversion in siblings who knew they were unrelated and failing to predict in siblings raised apart who knew they were related. Backed independently by Shepher’s kibbutz cohort data and Wolf’s Taiwanese sim-pua marriage records (elevated divorce, depressed fertility). [Kurgan Note: This study is in my opinion rather weak as it’s essentially quite theoretical in methodology, nevertheless, it has SOME validity]

Euler & Weitzel (1996), grandparental investment ordering. Paternity uncertainty predicts a specific rank order of solicitude: maternal grandmother > maternal grandfather ≈ paternal grandmother > paternal grandfather. Confirmed in German data and replicated in Greek, American, and South African samples. Four-way ordinal prediction — many ways to fail, it doesn’t.

Walter et al. (2020), 45 countries, N≈14,000, preregistered. This one matters because it was a genuine head-to-head. The sociostructural account predicts sex differences in mate preference should attenuate in more gender-egalitarian societies. They didn’t. Preregistered, large, cross-national — and the rival prediction failed. [Kurgan Note: this one seems pretty solid to me in methodology as well as results and is precisely the type of prediction at a larger granular scale that I expect of EEA when the model works]

Öhman & Mineka; Cook & Mineka . Lab-reared rhesus acquire snake fear by observational conditioning but do not acquire equivalent fear of flowers or rabbits from identically-constructed stimuli. Content-specific learning preparedness, demonstrated experimentally rather than inferred from ratings. [Kurgan Note: there are at least two relevant papers on this. The linked one is to three experiments, bit of a rabbit hole, but it produces results that are in keeping with my view of epigenetics, and I was not aware of this paper before toady.]

As stated, I also ask for counter-examples, which do exist, but nevertheless I don’t think invalidate my view that epigenetics plays some role.

Where it failed

• WHR itself. Singh’s 0.7 optimum replicated in Western samples but broke down where it counted. Yu & Shepard found Matsigenka preference for higher WHR; Marlowe’s Hadza data went the same direction. The cross-cultural universality claim — the part that requires the EEA — is the part that failed. [Kurgan note: This is the example Vox used in his post and it is indeed a fail, which frankly, I am not surprised by, I think the original postulation was rather speculative to begin with. However, a subsequent study seems to support the thesis depending on cultural norms (which again would go to my epigenetics theory) ]
• Ovulatory shift. Gildersleeve’s meta-analysis said yes, Wood et al. said no, and Jones et al. (2018), a large within-subject longitudinal design, found no cycle-contingent shift in masculinity preference. Effectively dead.

The caveat that bears on your Vox Day argument

Every confirmed case above is consistent with EEA reasoning but underdetermined by it — none of them observes the ancestral selection episode, which is exactly his complaint, and the complaint is not answered by any of this. What the good cases show is something narrower and still useful: that EEA reasoning generated non-obvious predictions which then beat their rivals in the data. That’s a real epistemic achievement and a different one from demonstrating the causal history.

Which cuts back at him. If the standard is “made a risky prediction, could have failed, didn’t, and beat a competitor theory head-to-head” — Kenrick & Keefe and Lieberman et al. clear it. The SSH has no equivalent: no preregistered head-to-head, no rival framework it has outperformed on a shared dataset, no case where its prediction and a competitor’s diverged and it won. He’s comparing his best-case reading of SSH against evopsych’s worst-case output.

That last paragraph is in essence my view too, however, I also grant that Vox has a valid point even so, but one that I believe diminishes considerably once you bring epigenetics into it.

In Layman’s Terms:

Here is a simple definition of epigenetics:

The literal sense first: epi- means “on top of” or “in addition to.” Epigenetics is what sits on top of the DNA sequence — changes in whether and how strongly a gene gets used, without any change to the sequence itself.

The problem it solves is this. Every cell in your body carries the same genome. A liver cell and a neuron have identical DNA and behave nothing alike. So the sequence alone can’t be what makes them different. What differs is which genes are switched on, how strongly, and when. Epigenetics is the machinery that does that switching — and, crucially, that keeps a cell remembering what it is after it divides.

The methodology it works by:

The main mechanisms

DNA methylation. A methyl group — one carbon, three hydrogens — gets chemically attached to a cytosine base, usually where a C sits next to a G. When these accumulate in the control region at the front of a gene, that gene is typically silenced. Enzymes add the tags; other enzymes strip them off. This is the mechanism people usually mean and the one that’s easiest to measure.

Histone modification. DNA isn’t loose in the cell; it’s wound around spool-like proteins called histones. Chemical tags on the protruding tails of those spools change how tightly the DNA is wound. Loosely packed DNA is accessible to the machinery that reads genes; tightly packed DNA isn’t. Acetyl tags generally loosen, and removing them generally tightens.

Chromatin architecture and non-coding RNA round it out, and whether the RNA side properly belongs under the heading is one of the things specialists argue about.

Now, in principle, my argument is that given that epigenetics has demonstrably been proven to affect the next generation even when the skill or event happened for the first time in the parents, and happens without the Darwinian aspect of selection, I think it plays a significant role that sits on top of, and separate from, the proposed (erroneous) Darwinian evolution aspects of “evolution”.

To try to make a couple of (imperfect but useful) analogies to explain my view of things:

If you assume DNA is a page of text, Darwin says that when you combine two pages to produce a third page, over time, the resulting third page that reads best survives to produce increasingly good literature. Vox essentially proved this is nonsense and that the random mixing of those two pages tends to produce increasingly less fit literature, and only extremely strong survival (legibility) pressures tend to produce better third pages, and even then, the time required is far longer than the universe has been around. He is right in that, and has essentially dragged Darwinian Evolution out into the open street and executed it with a sawn off shotgun.

Epigenetics however is akin to someone highlighting the better parts of each page, and those highlighted parts have a stronger tendency to survive into the third page created by the blending of the two parent pages. So the highlight does not change the baseline text (DNA) but it highlights/activates certain aspects of it. Those aspects are generally positive given the environment in which the parents exist, otherwise such a strong relevance of the skill would not be done by the parents to the degree it activates or deactivates various parts of their DNA. And this advantage is passed on (to some degree at least) to their offspring. But… just as it can be learned in one generation, (and then added to and built upon by succeeding generations) it can also be lost in one generation. This tends to support the idea that families who continue a specific trade or skill over generations become increasingly good at it and learn and are better at that skill than others in general terms, all without darkening selection existing at all.

The empirical studies on epigenetics are:

Meaney’s rat work : variation in maternal licking-and-grooming produces differential methylation of the glucocorticoid receptor promoter in pups, which produces lifelong differences in stress reactivity and dominance behavior. McGowan et al. (2009) found the homologous NR3C1 methylation difference in human post-mortem hippocampus among suicide victims with childhood abuse histories — smaller and noisier, but real.

There are others, which you can source if you re interested.

So, epigenetics is a mechanism that produces exactly what SSH describes. Recognizable, stable, cross-cultural adult male behavioral patterning, arising without any evolutionary process at all. Vox’s descriptive taxonomy might be substantially accurate and still have nothing to do with types.

The same literature concerning epigenetics demolishes the concept of fixity, which then would also apply to the SSH if it is related to it.

The Meaney phenotype is reversible. Cross-fostering, methionine infusion, HDAC inhibitors all shift it. Rank-and-neurochemistry work (vervets, and crudely in crayfish) shows the arrow running from social position to physiology, not only the reverse.

If SSH ranks are epigenetic-developmental phenotypes, which I think they may very well be, then a man’s “rank” is substantially the residue of his traumatic childhood, status history, and includes that of his father in all likelihood, and is at least potentially revisable when the history changes through a concerted and persistent effort. That converts the framework from a typology into what I would classify as a (very strong in most cases) state description, and a state description cannot underwrite the predictive claims he’s resting the whole case on to an absolute degree.

In fairness, as I said at the start, Vox does not claim the SSH is as rigid as some of his fans/exponents make out, but he does tend to assume the rank is generally irreversible. And I agree that it generally is very strongly exhibited, but I do not agree that it is written in stone.

There is a further valid point that Claude highlights,

Where the predictions actually fail

An epigenetic reading generates risky predictions SSH doesn’t make and hasn’t tested: rank distribution should track early-life status contingencies — paternal absence, birth order, early nutritional stress, adolescent status shocks — and should shift measurably after sustained status change. It should show dose-response. It should show partial reversal under intervention. Test any of that and you have science. “Anyone can run the test on people they know” is not that test: unblinded, unpreregistered, classification made post hoc, categories elastic enough that a Gamma who succeeds gets reclassified as a secret Sigma. That’s the structure that made Galenic humors and Kretschmer’s somatotypes look predictive for centuries. His criterion — everyday confirmation by the observer who already holds the theory — is the specific procedure that manufactures confirmation, which is why blinding exists.

Now, there is a weakness in the epigenetic transgenerational theory I am proposing, and that is that it too lacks the kind of solid evidence required in a scientific context to make it watertight. Nevertheless, epigenetic provides at least half of the answer I believe does produce the results I have observed over the last 40 years or so of noticing various things.

The things that CAN be measured by epigenetics are not necessarily relevant to the transference of skills, even if we DO observe the transference of skills. The fact a fencer or a rower tends to produce better fencers or rowers in their family line of fencers or rowers is an observed fact, but other factors can account for it, like skill learning process starting at a young age, including in subtle ways that turn up even before the actual training takes place. So it can’t be attributed solely to epigenetics and once again we would have a working model with a rather unfounded model, which however, is still stronger than the current SSH model, which, as far as I know, is pretty much absent an explanation of why and how it works as it does.

But there is a further aspect I think plays a part.

The Conclusions of Epigentics

What I am saying in more basic language is in essence: the man you meet at forty is largely the settings that got installed in him as a child.

Not the genes he inherited or a type he instantiates (the mechanisms of which would in any case be absolutely mysterious). So he is a Gamma or a Sigma or whatever, mostly by the configuration his early environment wrote into him.

The rat experiment

Some mother rats lick and groom their pups a lot. Some don’t. The pups of the attentive mothers grow into calm adults — low stress hormones, quick recovery, confident exploration. The pups of the inattentive mothers grow into jumpy, reactive adults. This lasts their whole lives.

The obvious objection is that anxious mothers pass on anxious genes. So the experiment: swap the pups at birth. Give the biological pups of a neglectful mother to an attentive one.

They grow up calm. Swap the other way, they grow up jumpy. The genes went one way, the temperament went the other. The mothering did it, not the inheritance.

Then the mechanism. In the calm rats, a particular gene involved in shutting down the stress response is switched more fully on — chemically tagged differently in the brain. And this isn’t just correlation: give a drug that alters those chemical tags and the behaviour changes with them. You can push the phenotype in either direction. So the causal chain is visible end to end — mothering, chemical marking, gene activity, adult behaviour.

So now you have a behavioural pattern that:

• appears reliably and recognisably in adults
• is stable across the whole lifespan
• runs in families, generation after generation
• looks for all the world like an inherited type

But none of it is a type, and none of it is inherited. Attentive mothers raise daughters who become attentive mothers, so the pattern flows down the line looking hereditary while being nothing of the kind.

Everything Vox’s socio-sexual hierarchy observes —recognisable patterns, stable across a man’s life, showing up in every culture, running in families— is exactly what developmental programming produces. His descriptions could be largely accurate and still have nothing to do with types.

The same experiments that explain the stability also demonstrate the reversibility. Swapping the pups works. The drug works. Even in adult animals, not just pups, the intervention shifts the settings back.

So if a man’s rank is a developmental phenotype, it is a record of what happened to him , not a fact about what he is. And a record can be revised when the circumstances change.

That is the difference between a state and a type. A type is what you are; a state is where you currently sit. The SSH sells prediction: identify the category, forecast the man across situations and across years. Only a type supports that. A state doesn’t. Or rather, it can, and it can appear to, and yes I do think changing your state is extremely hard, but absolutely NOT impossible. And my personal experience both in myself and others I think is valid, given I have trained literally hundreds of men (mostly) and some women in at least martial arts, and also have rather extensive work done in hypnotherapy and an understanding of the human mind that in practical terms is superior to a lot of people that work in tat field professionally. I know that sounds “arrogant” but my long experience in this field is a reality, regardless of any false modesty one might try to have (pointlessly).

So, the final point is that with regard to Vox’s SSH, the mechanism that would give his framework a real scientific footing is the same mechanism that says his central practical claim is wrong. He needs the biology to make the taxonomy respectable, and the biology dissolves the taxonomy into a snapshot.

The observations and predictions the SSH makes are real and valid, but pretending they are fixed on some unstated biological or other basis is wholly unsupported.

The SSH is largely a theory of permanent kinds without a supporting underlying structure that can wholly be explained by current states (hard as these may be to change).

And there is a further issue I think plays a part:

Morphic Resonance

The work of Rupert Sheldrake on this has been known to me for over 30 years, at a time when his ideas where considered heretical in the absolute, and are today vindicated by multiple replicated experiments. Explaining the whole thing would make this already long post too long, but I suggest you read up on it yourself if interested.

So… in my opinion, with regard to the SSH, both epigenetics and morphic resonance play a part, and in my life experience I also believe that the so-called SSH rank of a man CAN change, even quite drastically, but usually only due to very extreme conditions. This is not a new theory, I have stated many years ago already in writing (see the OG blog) that only three things can generally help a man change drastically:

1. Continued relentless effort over a period of decades, usually at least 20 years.
2. A well-controlled LSD trip with positive and well done guidance (recidivist in criminality dropped hugely after a single trip before these experiments were banned)
3. Repeated deep hypnosis paired with an honest intent to change.

Options 2 and 3 are faster but option 2 is probably not available without considerable risk. So option 3 is the fastest paired with a good deal of option 1 too.

Anyway, that is my critique and I hope Vox eventually has the time to respond if he sees fit to do so.

The intent, as always, being to improve the overall usefulness of a theory, not critiquing the individual who in any case created something useful even if it does not become any more defined or predictive than it already is.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Now that the Little (fat) Wolf is over a year old, while he has not relented at all on his breastfeeding regimen, I think to some extent, the wife’s body is starting to tell her, and him, that maybe he should slow down a little.

So, around the house, she has taken to wearing little tank tops with no bra, and in all honesty, she looks very good in them. So, of course, the following conversation has ensued in the last week or so…

INT: Getting ready to go out with the kids

Me: Mmmm… you look good like that, you can just go as is…

Her: looks at me like I’m retarded

Me: No really…

Her: Are you kidding me?!

Me: No, I…

Her: Listen, we live in a tiny village, where our kids already behave like savages, I can’t speak the language and everyone probably already thinks I’m simple, and now you want me to parade around town with basically my nipples showing?

Me: But you look hot, and…

Her: No, it does not look “hot” it looks like some desperate woman trying to get attention from the four octogenarians in the town!

Me: Eh… so make their day, what else they got to look forward to?

Her: Rolling eyes. Walks off.

Days later, she again is doing stuff around the house in another tank top, now, in my defence, I need to say, she does NOT look pornographic in it, just well shaped, and honestly women twenty years her junior don’t have much on her other than general youth. Plus, if you lived here and walked around you would see that there are plenty women her age and older that dress far more immodestly, and NOT in good taste. The look, if she listened to me, would be fetchingly sporty and well within age range. So that’s my defence. Which will be somewhat validly attacked by her comments below, as you will see, but still…

Me: See, come on, you look good like this.

Her: Rolling eyes again but now with the intent of educating me. It does NOT look good! It’s NOT a good look! Can’t you even see one is bigger than the other? Noticeably?

Me: Eh, every woman has that disparity…

Her: No! They fill up at different rates, look! Noticeably different!

Me: Eh, so hook him up to the bigger one to rebalance… Besides, no bra makes it easier to breast feed…

Her: Looks at me again like I am retarded. BOOBS LEAK! Do you not understand this? When he breastfeeds on one, the other one leaks! So yeah, sure, everyone WOULD be looking at me! So sexy! (I think there may have been some sarcasm in her voice here.)

Me: Well…when you put it that way… you do paint a slightly different picture…

Her: Oh yes, everyone looking at me with my wet patches! Just the look I want!

Me: Well…

Her: Gives me the: I told you, you’re retarded with my previous looks, this is the confirmation look of it, look.

I think she may have “won” this round. I’ll have to wait until the breastfeeding stops at least before I bring it up again anyway.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I think the best way to do this somewhat quickly is in the form of a logical argument. For background, this previous post of mine stated that women were in for a very bad time indeed, and in essence only had one of four positions to select from:

1. Shrieking lesbian/cat-lady (often obese) – These are the unfuckables. Too ugly, embittered and driven hysterical from lack of male attention. borderline unemployable, living on benefits mostly (while those still last), likely to become homeless or live in a commune when financial crisis hits. Mostly childless, thank almighty God, as any offspring of these harridans would be suffering a Hellish fate. They are irrelevant as human beings, not even qualifying as NPCs. They are more like kobolds. Pointless speed-bumps on the highway of life.
2. Victims – unfortunately this is an increasing number of women and girls. Those rapefugees gotta rape and kill, don’t ya know? And without masses of native men willing to overthrow the pedovores in charge in every government in the West, and then return all those illegals to either their own lands or a shallow grave, this isn’t going to change.
3. Modern Chattel – some women, rather than be constant prey to a revolving retinue of rapefugees may select ONE (hopefully) with whom to pair up. Convert to their culture/religion, and become a fully submissive trophy-wife/concubine/side-piece of an imported invader.
4. Become proper wives – pleasant, obedient, loyal, and sexually and sensually available to their husbands for whom they will happily produce multiple children, and keep a pleasant and well-organised home. Now, to the feminists still in brainwashed mode this “feels” like 3. above, but it absolutely is not. I explain why below.

As a counterpoint, (not directly because of my post, we were unaware of each other’s blogs I think) this lady wrote her own take on men, which boils down to her title:

Outside of dick and stress, what can a man provide? I am curious

Why women would rather be alone than partnered badly

And though it meanders a lot and is somewhat receptive, her basic argument is that since women can earn their own money, etc. etc. the only incentive to being in a marriage or nominally permanent relationship, is physical, mental and emotional compatibility.

It is a valid point, and as for being badly “partnered” I think we all agree that solitude is better than the torture of being with someone that makes your life hell.

HOWEVER… and there are some howevers, but in order to save time, let’s put them as baseline axioms to our logical argument:

1. Most women are solipsistic, say one thing and do and behave in an opposite manner, refuse to take responsibility for the absolutely shitty decisions they make, lack the capacity to organise themselves, lack good intent towards the man in their life, lack of respect, can be gold-digging whores, unreliable, and dishonest throughout.
2. Most men are lazy, unambitious, don’t take care of themselves, are no longer decent providers or protectors, shirk positions of authority because they don’t want the added responsibility, and are in essence also selfish and avoidant.

That’s a fair baseline, also more quickly summarised as: Humans suck.

Which they overwhelmingly do. The primary flaw being stupidity, the secondary flaw being extreme ego-driven, selfish concerns, and the third flaw being their weakness which leads to absolutely petty ways of thinking, living, and “considering” others.

Given that is the baseline, we can also conclude most of the relationships going forward will be an absolute clusterfuck, and lead to some of the most chaotic social upheavals ever seen (we are already living through this, but it can certainly get a lot worse, and almost certainly will).

Now… given as most readers here are NOT part of the zombie horde, what will the relationships that DO become not just healthy, but survive the storm, and quite possibly become the golden standard for success in the future, look like?

Well, here is where the premises come in, and as per my previous post, the learning curve is and will continue to be much steeper and harder for women than it is for men.

Partly due to biology and partly due to the complete chaos of the last 20-25 years of propaganda everyone has marinated in for the last 70 years (but really skyrocketed since about 2000 AD or so).

The PRIMARY thing that needs to change is for WOMEN to learn to be logical and objective; which is to a large extent a real biological hurdle that will not be easily overcome. Millions of years of survival pressure, their bodies, their hormones, their very ability to create babies and give birth to them, NECESSARILY means their own minds have to be far more flexible and “incoherent” from a male perspective than a man can reasonably appreciate. And these are not things that are flaws. They are how they are because it was the way to ensure the survival of the species.

But things have changed VERY rapidly. And women are now seriously behind. The last 70 years of feminist propaganda has “weakened” most men, it’s true, with the concomitant negatives listed above, but it also has allowed men to perhaps contemplate certain asides. From simple examples to large philosophical ones. I think it’s fair to say that the average man today is more aware (almost invariably too much so) of his need for a certain level of emotional nuance when dealing with women. On the other hand, women, seem to have gone more “feral” in the same period, turning life into a semi-permanent state of Sodom and Gomorrah for us all, while (as usual per their biology) avoiding taking ANY responsibility for any negative consequences of their own choices.

Therefore, the only relationships that will survive, reproduce, and create large families and therefore functional, well-integrated societies, will be one of the following:

1. The “new” men (sensitive but still mostly killers, just smart, dangerous and intelligent ones that also have a personal code of ethics that is unbreakable) and “new” women (objective, capable of constructive self-criticism, as well as adapting to factual reality, with a view to being “reconcilers” up to a point) get together, realise they are compatible, form permanent bonds and form stable families. Without a foundation in some form of religious belief such couples will still tend to devolve back to chaos over the period of various decades, however, the religious aspect may be of various kinds.
2. The usual “traditional” enforced by force, women as chattel, and men essentially “owning” them, but not in a caring, loving way, but literally more as a breeding mare for the continuity of his male progeny. Islam essentially works this way, and, to a certain extent, so does traditional Judaism.
3. (Possible but unlikely) some other form of “arrangement” be it throuples, voluntary harems, polyamorous villages, and so on. These will inevitably fail as widely accepted social “tribes”. While possible exceptions MAY work, or even last a lifetime, these would be the exceptions to the rule. The reality is that human beings are too messy as a general rule to even keep ONE relationship going, keeping multiple ones going at once never really ends well, certainly not on a societal level.

I would say that regardless of if you are a man or a woman, option 1. is the best life and outcome. Those who fall into category 2 are unlikely to be happy in general terms, and it can be downright Hellish, and option 3 essentially is Mouse Utopia, which leads to societal collapse and no sustainable model of a functional society survives that sort of widespread set-up.

One last corollary:

The VAST majority of the world is composed of people who can’t even read and digest the concepts of this post. They will almost inevitably fall into some version of option 2 or be modified by “modernity” towards option 3. Almost all of Africa, large parts of Asia and South American all fall into the 2/3 category, with 1 being the sought after exception.

The Caucasian West is a minority globally, but their technological advancements have kept them around longer than any other minority generally would have lasted. And while our overall numbers continue to drop, the fact is that if at least 10-20% of us DO enter into type 1 style relationships, and also BUILD for the future, we have a decent chance of not just continuing to exist, but also of replacing and then getting rid of the Talmudic Pedovores that currently run things on this planet.

So… dear men: Get off your ass, and DO.

And dear women: Get out of your head and take responsibility as well as a good, long, honest, look in the mirror.

Then go forth and multiply!

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Now, this has indeed been my personal observation for literally decades, so I have not bothered to research this any more than I would research water being wet, however, I randomly happened across a Substack post that was in my feed and it is rather fascinating. 1

This however is the smoking gun in the hands of the assassin, live, on multiple video, including VHS tapes so you know it wasn’t produced by AI>

What 50 Million Online Daters Proved

If speed dating is a microcosm, online dating is the full-scale experiment. And the data from online dating platforms tells the same story at industrial scale.

In 2009, OkCupid’s data team published an analysis of how users rated each other’s attractiveness. Men rated women on a normal bell curve – roughly symmetrical, centered around “average,” which is what you’d expect from an accurate perception of reality. Women rated men with a dramatically skewed distribution : they rated a full 80% of men as “below average” in attractiveness.

Eighty percent. Below average. That is not a perception of reality. That is a filtering mechanism operating at a level that women themselves may not even be conscious of.

Now, keep that in mind. On what is essentially one of the most important metrics in life for anyone, and arguably more so for a woman, since we’re ultimately talking about who they are more likely to allow to get inside them. Their bell curve looks as the red one below, when compared to reality, which is also equivalent to the male bell curve, in blue.

Imagine then, if this is how they “see” one of the most important aspects of life, how they “see” pretty much everything else as it relates to their own fantastic idea of themselves and who they are, which, by the way ALSO doesn’t even match their OWN perceptions of “reality”.

That is, that is how they “see” the world, as described and defined and “seen” by them, so if they were at least CONSISTENT in their delusions, they would also act accordingly. Right. Wait… right?

Eh…

But here is where the stated-versus-revealed gap gets even more interesting: despite rating 80% of men as unattractive, women still messaged many of those men. Their messaging behavior tracked much more closely with the normal bell curve that men used to rate women than with their own brutal attractiveness ratings. In other words, women’s stated evaluations (the ratings) bore almost no resemblance to their revealed behavior (the messages).

They said he was a 2. Then they wrote to him anyway . Two different systems. Two different outputs.

Separately, economists Günter Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely at the University of Chicago and MIT analyzed behavioral data from a major online dating platform – not surveys, but actual messaging decisions. They found that women’s revealed preferences (who they actually contacted) diverged from their stated preferences in several key areas. Most notably, women displayed strong same-race preferences in their actual messaging behavior that they did not express – and in many cases actively denied – in their profiles. For men, stated and revealed racial preferences roughly aligned. For women, they did not.

The researchers concluded that online dating data provides “evidence on mate preferences that people might not truthfully reveal in a survey.” They were diplomatic about it. I will not be. Women’s dating surveys are, at best, aspirational fiction. At worst, they are social performance designed to present a version of themselves they want to be perceived as, not a version that predicts their behavior.

Now, I don’t necessarily rate the poster of this as being correct in his assumptions. As he concludes (by implication) that those women messaging the 2 will also be willing to actually meet up with him. I don’t assume that at all. Women will use the messaging and the resulting responses, as psychic blood-lust. Energy vampires, they will soak up the validation without ever having any intention of actually starting anything with he poor 2.

In short:

1. Women lie about what they want when compared to what they really go for.
2. Women are overall quite incapable of seeing pretty much anything objectively, and the more personally it involves them, the less objective they will generally be.
3. Their behaviour is “rationalised” by them in ways so spectacularly false, irrational, and flat out false that most normal men can’t even imagine.

But here is the key thing:

While it may well BE done with malice, and often can be, it is not NECESSARILY done with malice. In some cases, they pretty much can’t help themselves. Their emotions are very strong and driven by various factors outside of their control.

Which is all fine. If you HATE all women in general because of these realities, well… that’s like hating oxygen. Good luck with that.

That said, if you are surprised by such behaviour, well… you probably should take notes. Or read Caveman Theory . Or have secret offshore accounts and duel nationality. Possibly a name change too. Anyway, my point is made, and the science is settled!

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Aryan Girl, being a good little Nazi I mean, sweet blonde girl with striking blue eyes, when I tell her:

“Would you like to go and ask your sister if she wants to finish this yoghurt?”

AG: “No.”

Me: (Momentarily stuck in British thinking mode, I have been editing the final stages of a very long book)… “Uhh… hmm… ok, do you want to ask Pink Astronaut if she wants to finish this yoghurt?”

AG: (With little open hand movement to display frustration) “No!”

Me: “I don’t care! Go ask your sister if she wants to finish the damned yoghurt!”

AG: (Perfectly calm and reasonable as she starts to head off to look for her sister.) “Oh. Well you asked if I wanted to go and do that, so I said, no, as I don’t feel like it, but if you wanted me to go and ask her, you should just have said so.”

No animosity, no irritation, just a very Germanic way of putting it.

Me: (slight silence, possibly tightened lips on my face into a straight line) “Fair enough. You have a point. You’re right.”

She nods as she heads off to look for her sister.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how dialectic thinking works. In fairness it is my own preferred mode of thinking and probably why I understand the Young Viking and Aryan Girl the most. The Little Wolf also seems as if he will be pretty direct in delivery. But the Pink Astronaut is mostly rhetoric. Along with a quite brilliant imagination. Earlier today she wanted an apple and I asked her to get her mom to give a slice of it to the Little Wolf, but for her to stay near him as he ate it, as apple can be a bit dangerous as a chocking hazard.

She came back with an apple with a slice cut out of it and two “eyes” so it looked like pac-man. She had asked her mom to do it that way.

This morning however, she gave the best explanation of a dialectic point using physical rhetoric.

Her mother, as I may have noted at other times, is English.

These primitive people, who still lived in trees when my Roman ancestors conquered them with a couple of slaps and a loud voice, have remained far behind in many technological respects compared even to the now defunct Roman Empire’s technological advancements of a few thousand. years ago.

For my wife, the tragic lacunae of understanding appears to be the concept of time. Like many primitive people of the jungles of the Amazon, probably the inhabitants of Sentinel Island and so on, the idea of minutes, hours, days, just blends into a mysterious fog of “time” which is essentially always NOW and also, always NEVER. A kind of superposition of quantistic behaviour where the only constant is the impossibility of being on time.

So when Pink Astronaut asks the wife to play with her, or teach her to read, or build a tower, the wife, promises to get to it in “just a second/minute” which, due to her primitive nature, can be anything from 75 minutes to never. And Pink Astronaut has suffered these indignities with quiet stoicism. Possibly the occasional frustrated tear. The Young Viking, possibly due to having a stronger percentage of my DNA, will instead repeatedly harass his mother, at increasingly shorter intervals of time, when she told him something “almost definitely” would happen; until she breaks down and gets to it. What can I say, the boy learns from observation, obviously!

But not the Pink Astronaut, so this morning, she made her point…

PA: “Mom, can you read that book with me now?”

Wife: “Yes darling, let me just finish breakfast (she was eating) and then I’ll clear up and come down to you.”

PA: (looks at her mother, who is now distracted by the little Wolf trying to pull food off her plate, and/or climb on her/her chair, and I see the gears turning in PA’s pretty head. She starts talking even as her mother is basically oblivious to the words being said to her, as she tries to wrestle the little wolf, eat her breakfast, and knowing her, probably thinking about three other things, totally unrelated to anything going on here.) “Mom, you always say that and then it doesn’t happen…”

Wife: (Still deep in her pinball-like internal thought processes)…

PA: “…and I feel like this: I say… “I’m not going to slap you in the boobie”… (pauses a couple of seconds, then…) smacks the wife’s left breast (not hard at all, just enough to make someone pay attention) then stands there with a satisfied little face, waiting for a reaction.

Me and the YV burst out into laughter, the wife is partially shocked and doesn’t even know what happened. I literally had to tell her what PA had just said so she understood what had just happened.

Wife: (Sheepishly) “Ok, you made your point, Pink Astronaut.”

And that ladies and gentlemen, is how you talk to people who can’t process dialectical facts by the use of rhetoric. Aristotle would be proud.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here