It may be the case that up until this point a lot of Bravos have been effectively gatekept. They may secretly loathe the current regime but they still tacitly support it, lest they throw in with the true dissidents and risk their public reputation.
I’d be interested to know how many right-leaning Bravos got the clot shot.
I think too many on the right are highly idealistic. With regard to Christian people, they have a tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good. To a worldly materialist, gradual gains are acceptable as long as the cost/benefit tradeoff works.
Also, the right has no champions in the highest levels of power. In a way, true leftism doesn't either. This is not really a battle between two equally matched sides, wherein one side is performing better. The elites that govern us are actually probably much more apolitical than we would assume. It's about money and control and their internecine competition. Politics is merely a social control mechanism. One big circus - endless arguments about arguments. Politically left philosophy is the choice because it is an easier sell and it suits the end goal better.
Leadership and Followership. You should be as fierce a follower as you are a leader. Both should be selfless and oriented towards the higher good. That's part of what makes effective teams.
I'm not opposed to joining a group and lifting other people up. It's just that I've seen so few people on either side that I want to lift up. There are no politicians on the right that I want to invite to my house or pay good money to support.
There are very few on the right who even have a clue of what the socialists are doing and what they've got planned. They don't know who their enemies are in the upcoming war. They are still thinking about enemies from 20 years ago.
The only conservative who knows who the enemy is is Ted Cruz, and that's because of his Cuban background. And none of the Republicans can even come together to agree on anything.
I would add that there seem to be a number of Gammas on the right as well. Those who can't conform on the left, but who can turn themselves into secret kings by debunking all the claims of the left. They add an incredible amount of backstabbing and drama to any incipient attempt to organize.
Interesting analysis. I suspect in some cases the lack of cooperation between those on the Right is because they're in fact controlled opposition, and genuine success for the views they pretend to hold and the culture they pretend to push is not part of the agenda. On the Left, I think some of the cooperation is driven by the directives of their handlers rather than being organic, for political reasons or to drive sales or both.
But I think the analysis holds true anyway, disregarding the above cases. Alphas and Sigma's are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the right, and as you argued, are not inclined to co-operate. Is it even possible for an Alpha or Sigma to identify with today's Left? Are there any examples? Maybe an idea for a future post.
As an aside regarding the Gamma concept, as a child I had a silent nickname for my father long before I'd ever heard of the Gamma term. I called him The Little Prince. So when I heard about your Secret King concept, a light bulb went off. I think you're onto something with the Sigma concept too. Keep it up, a lot of people out here really appreciate what you're doing.
In around 2018 I came to the conclusion that almost everyone on the Right/Alt-Right with more than 50,000 subscribers to any social media account was controlled opposition.
Are you familiar about the concept of Foxes and Lions from Machiavelli's The Prince? I get the impression according to your Socio-Sexual Hierarchy that many betas and especially gammas would probably be foxes (especially since foxes can be more conniving and manipulating). I think Lions would more often range amongst Alphas and Sigmas (They tend to be more direct, blunt, and rely on raw power.)
I'm curious if you've thought and this, and what you'd think.
Interesting. As an analogy, supportive of your pattern observation, consider those that resisted getting the Vax. I believe Naked Emperor did a substack survey on Myers Briggs personality type vs resisters and they over represent those types most likely to be in the right tail of the IQ histogram. You can still key word search and pull up the data on IQ vs Myers Briggs type (with percent) and also MB vs % in the general population. As a group, the resistors lack the go along to get along drive most humanity have. They have been described as lone wolves. I would say that if you don't agree 100% with them they are likely to take their ball and go home. I had also thought this to be the general problem with the right vs the left. It would be interesting to know if the SSH sorts into MB with a particular skew with regard to Sigma vs Alpha and perhaps Bravo. Not holding hope that accurate data could be obtained from Gamma directly, bet that could be spitballed. Center of gravity MB @ 115. If Sigma skews right tail vs Alpha, that would be useful information, as well as if there is no skew.
One part of the dearth of bravos might be the utter mistreatment of them by the current society. Vox has spoken of Sigma's as a broken Alpha, what happens to broken Bravo's?
Our current society absolutely abuses us bravo's. There's no loyalty at all, in any kind of hierarchy. Company's have ditched us. Sociopaths and Psychopaths are on the rise, and are just Bravo bait. Alpha's aren't taught how to retain loyalty of their underlings.
~9 years ago, I converted to Catholicism and switched from working in Theatre as a Set and lighting designer to Electrician. Took Vox's advice on job that he had expressed in the blog posts because it matched my skill set and made enough money to support a family. Anyways, went from being a Bravo making people's visions happen in theatre, to the hierarchy of the trades.
High intelligence, dealing with the average trade person, and lowest on the hierarchy, is rough. But you accept your lot and deal with it. However, when foremen realize you catch on quick, know electricity from past jobs, and by 3rd and 4th year apprenticeship you're running 15 man crews over people in the 30 years senior than you... You need someone to have your back.
When you have methed up addicts go at you with lineman plyers
When you have roid'd out, jealous apprentices your year that could smash your face
When you have a project manager lying and stealing, while the company hiring your outfit is doing the same, and you're the go between.
SOMEONE NEEDS TO BACK THE BRAVOS
Because, in our head, our authority comes from above. That's how authority works, and to us, you undermine your own damn self when you undermine us, and we wash our hands of the whole thing as soon as possible if you don't back us. Because we don't mind conflict, and we know our worth, we'll drop things quicker than Deltas who will hang around, fearful they can't find better. We know we can.
So, the damaged Bravos start their own little outfits. We become our own authority. AND WE HATE IT. I hate the constant conflict. The desire to tear everything down around me, and knowing how to do it. I can do conflict up to a point, but then shakes and adrenaline kick in, and it's either go away, give in, or get physical. Or to give in forever, work for someone else, and be a slave again. Because to the damaged Bravo, there's no in between without a good leader. It's Delta and misery, or conflict and burning bridges. Bouncing rubble. We're not leaders, but we look for them, yearn for them, and fear being taken in by a false one. Because we have a great deal to lose, and the system is set up for us to keep losing it.
The abuse of Bravo loyalty is a good observation. Continuing from your line about bravos starting their own outfits, the bravo type tends to rise and conform to groups he naturally finds himself in, rather than staking forth and choosing their own alpha. That means that the incumbent groups, which are largely leftist, monopolize the bravos. All those places modern children MUST attend by default: Schools, corporate, construction, Daily Show watchers, etc. Thus, the bravos end up as glue holding together these awful leftist institutions.
The failure is from Right-Alphas who aren't harvesting bravos from the crowd. Because, being on the right, they are not mainstream so they have to make an extra effort to get bravos. I truly think one of Trump's biggest failures was neglecting Mike Flynn in favor of Mike Pence. Flynn looked to me the ideal Bravo who would have gladly executed Trump's agendas with both loyalty and finesse yet Trump didn't grab him and elevate him.
As to -why- right-alphas can't harvest bravos? I think it's that right-alphas don't want to assume responsibility for capable bravos. In taking Flynn, Trump would have had to use his own prestige to shield Flynn, whereas with Pence he was so boring Trump didn't have to put any skin in the game to host him. Alphas are so used to hierarchies naturally sorting themselves out around them that they lack the awareness to personally invest risk to graft outsiders into it. Ex: Trump restricting his cabinet positions to choosing the best out of the swamp pool instead of potent outsiders. The alpha leader may escape the leftist system but they need to help bravos and deltas follow them out of it after them. Unfortunately it's Sigma, omegas and even gammas who can see the world outside their immediate pool.
Maybe, but I got tired of it. I have to play the cards I'm dealt with in my local community, as any bravo does. But as far as work goes, I just won't put up with it anymore. So I started my own business instead. I can do conflict, to a point where it's either up it to the next level or back away. Just this week it came to that on a work order - I backed away, plugged away at things for a few days, and addressed the issue from a better bargaining position and with my head on better rather than wanting to throttle the guy with my hands shaking. I won't work for him again, and I'll move on where a delta would keep plugging away or not even work for himself.
I don't know about the bigger names. It seems like they get too paranoid about being taken in, that they're never willing to risk putting their reputation on the line for someone else, even when it's in their own organization. They don't realize that by failing to do so they undercut their own reputation and authority long term. You can get away with it once or twice, but you can't do that and keep any amount of loyalty within your hierarchy or get anyone to take risks on your behalf. If you want some lukewarm, pansy, limpwristed agenda - then that would work. If your out to send your enemies running before you and take their womenfolk, you need to realize you're going to have to tend to your fallen as they come in.
Sounds like my stint as a fracer. Current effort - I'm sigma or something - find a Bravo doing the sole businessman thing, support him by dealing with bullshit so he doens't have to.
Sounds like a good plan. Aurini, did you ever write a second book? It's been awhile, but I remember enjoying the first one if I'm remembering it correctly.
The guy who keeps the coke machine filled; aka the RIO,: the top gun second-seat.
The one I know is tall, blonde, confident, chill, nabbed the tier 1b blonde, and after leaving the Navy got a nice job at Major Corporation, where he promptly topped out at V.P. All the ladies in his life adore him; none of their husbands are threatened by him.
On a side note, I hope the series gets to the monogamous Christian Alpha. It used to be a commonplace in Christendom.
Sadly, I don’t see any widespread effective solutions either other than the one I posited a decade ago now, which is the rise of city-states, as these can at least reasonably (if with great difficulty) come into being through the efforts of mostly one leader.
I suspect the process will initially be an accumulation of omegas and deltas with a chasing out of would-be alphas until a tipping point of partially/periodically supporting sigmas and natural evolution/progression of some deltas into pseudo-bravos until actual bravos get attracted to the budding community.
The great advantage of city states is you have to mka a militia, which means you can train alphas to support bravos. Except you will be saying that the captain of the militia needs his Sargents. Teach em when they are young and then build the guilds.
I agree. You're concept: "Would be Alpha's", Reminded me of something: "Controlled Alpha's".
That's the other problem I see the article addressing. There's a lot of Controlled Opposition Alpha's on The Right, (Trump). Who people love to follow; even though he didn't build the wall or deport the illegals. When the whole thing collapses and we have to rebuild. "Controlled Alpha's" are going to be spending their energy convincing everyone that they should be in charge, while Alpha's and Sigma's are actually leading the rebuilding of society.
One of the common traits of the real unauthorized is sincerity. Not-grifting definitionally. The fake right sprinkles in some truth, but in service to the larger lie. That ecosystem is an extended delusion bubble. Gammas profiles are optimized there. High status males would leave in minutes.
How many on genuine right-wing figures besides Trump are actually Alphas? They tend to be Sigmas like VD and Cerno who wear the crown of leadership *reluctantly* and don’t truly enjoy doing it at a large scale and for a long period time.
“I am the leader of GamerGate and so are you” was probably the best example of this outlook.
If there were more right-wing Alphas willing to lead in a big way, perhaps the Bravos will come out of the woodwork.
Vox, yes ... but Cerno? That lisping dork with a history of tranny loving is neither alpha nor sigma ... he's classic Gamma. Cerno goes on and on about "China" and "good blacks" and his homosexual friends while avoiding the unmentionables. He's a gatekeeper, and a piece of shit.
I disagree that the SSH is the main reason that "the opinion leaders of the ideological Right have never, for many decades, ever been able to successfully cooperate the way the apparent leaders of other groups, many of whom are considerably less intelligent, are observably able to work together, despite the obvious advantages that accrue to those who do."
I think the lack of successful cooperation is a deliberate, planned-on event by the Deep State/communists currently entrenched in power. In short, I think the Deep State/communists deliberately target any nascent right-wing organization or group and either converge them if possible or, if they can't converge, use law enforcement and smear campaigns to destroy them before they can gain cultural/legal victories.
What turned me onto this theory is the quote "politics is warfare continued with other means". When I read this, and applied it to right-wing or counter-communist politics for the last 100 years, I see a pattern akin to counter-guerrilla strategy and tactics.
In counter-guerrilla warfare, the goal of the occupying force is to infiltrate the guerillas, usurp leadership positions, arrest/kill those you can, and then draw the mass of guerillas out into open in a pitched battle with the occupying army before the guerillas are sufficiently organized, numerous, and goal-oriented. If the occupying army, can do that, the majority of guerillas will be slaughtered, the survivors scattered and untrusting of one another, and the remaining populace will be thoroughly demoralized from joining the resistance and submit more easily to the occupying army.
Since at least the 1920s, the communists in the U.S. have successfully infiltrated universities, unions, churches, media, and government, as well as common social clubs (Rotary Club, veterans organizations, etc.), converging them from within and shredding their effectiveness in countering communist causes. Either that, or they thoroughly have them attacked as "evil" by their minions in the government.
For example, take the Klan. By the 1940s and 50s the KKK and its various splinter groups, while not at its power in the 1920s or the 1870s, was sufficiently strong enough locally to defend local southerners against black barbarism in case law enforcement couldn't (e.g. Emmet Till) and drive out communist organizers (e.g. communist-backed unions). And the Klan was thoroughly nativivist and anti-communist ---being a Bircher and being a Klan member at the same time were common.
So the Marxists had U.S. national government force integration in the South (drawing out the Klan before they were organized as they were in the 1920s or 19th century), infiltrated the Klan, and then launched national smear campaigns via Hollywood and national news media---notably, Superman during this period of time was actually engaged in fighting the Klan. The result was the Klan disintegrated ---it became toxic to the general public, it was degraded through repeated hit pieces by the media, its members got arrested by informants, and its membership splintered through distrust and lack of organization. This was all deliberate design---the communists directly targeted them and won.
Notice today how quickly the Deep State's organizations jump onto any new right-wing political organization (even nominally) today and paint them in the same broad strokes as they painted the Klan (and still do), but without any evidence. Tea Party? Racist white supremacists. Proud Boys? Racist white supremacists. Etc. And they either infiltrate and coopt the leadership (Tea Party) or else break them apart using targeted prosecution (Proud Boys). The FBI investigations and infiltrates and gets some informers. The result in either case is the same: an organization that suddenly finds it impossible to achieve anything remotely right wing, finds its members under indictment, and finds itself continually harassed by law enforcement.
I could go on about the infiltration of other areas, including social clubs. But to be brief: about the only private social organizations today that are implicitly right wing and non-converged are gun clubs (even in Blue States, such as the one I live in). And, not coincidentally, one of the few areas of culture/law today where the right wing has achieved notable success in the last 50 years has been....2nd Amendment rights. And, to go back to disagree with yout SSH theory, most of these gun club guys are solid Deltas (in my experience), with Bravos, Sigmas, and the occasional Alpha sprinkled in.
So I don't think the main problem is the SSH here. I think the problem is the Deep State/SJWs/Communists deliberately targeting any non-communist organization with lighting speed once such organizations emerge and either fully converge them or else, if that is impossible, destroying them with law enforcement before they can actually organize well enough to take down prevailing Marxist orgs. If I am right, then any effective right-wing counter offensive would have to be launched from secret societies who are long-simmering sub rosa; otherwise, the left will zealously assault them with counter-guerilla tactics once their existence is even hinted at.
In sum: I believe we can't get organized to achieve success not because our SSH makeup makes it difficult but because of a deliberate, top-down strategy by the Deep State/communists/globalists to disrupt any attempt by us to organize effectively.
There is a fair amount of truth in that, but the point is that due to the various things you mentioned, it is only individuals of a certain SSH profile who are able to withstand it. And without Bravos and Deltas who aren't infiltrators, you tend to end up with "leaders" who are lone wolves by nature and by preference if they aren't manufactured gatekeepers.
Rather ingenious, really, if it is by design and not just a fortuitous consequence.
And as a final note: this may relate to the SSH in another way: many a right-wing Sigma might have been an Alpha, but because he could not find any organization of like-minded right-wing folks he perhaps developed into a Sigma. Later, when attempting to found or develop right-wing orgs, the Sigmas are too entrenched in their SSH role to revert to their Alpha-ness, which necessarily hinders the new org further since Alphas will draw Bravos and Deltas in (e.g. Trump drawing followers).
No, that's absolutely incorrect. You have failed to understand that behavioral profiles are formed in childhood, long before there is any hint of political consciousness.
It may be the case that up until this point a lot of Bravos have been effectively gatekept. They may secretly loathe the current regime but they still tacitly support it, lest they throw in with the true dissidents and risk their public reputation.
I’d be interested to know how many right-leaning Bravos got the clot shot.
Vox, great you're getting guys to think about the importance of taking part in a crew of men.
I think too many on the right are highly idealistic. With regard to Christian people, they have a tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good. To a worldly materialist, gradual gains are acceptable as long as the cost/benefit tradeoff works.
Also, the right has no champions in the highest levels of power. In a way, true leftism doesn't either. This is not really a battle between two equally matched sides, wherein one side is performing better. The elites that govern us are actually probably much more apolitical than we would assume. It's about money and control and their internecine competition. Politics is merely a social control mechanism. One big circus - endless arguments about arguments. Politically left philosophy is the choice because it is an easier sell and it suits the end goal better.
Leadership and Followership. You should be as fierce a follower as you are a leader. Both should be selfless and oriented towards the higher good. That's part of what makes effective teams.
I'm not opposed to joining a group and lifting other people up. It's just that I've seen so few people on either side that I want to lift up. There are no politicians on the right that I want to invite to my house or pay good money to support.
There are very few on the right who even have a clue of what the socialists are doing and what they've got planned. They don't know who their enemies are in the upcoming war. They are still thinking about enemies from 20 years ago.
The only conservative who knows who the enemy is is Ted Cruz, and that's because of his Cuban background. And none of the Republicans can even come together to agree on anything.
I would add that there seem to be a number of Gammas on the right as well. Those who can't conform on the left, but who can turn themselves into secret kings by debunking all the claims of the left. They add an incredible amount of backstabbing and drama to any incipient attempt to organize.
Interesting analysis. I suspect in some cases the lack of cooperation between those on the Right is because they're in fact controlled opposition, and genuine success for the views they pretend to hold and the culture they pretend to push is not part of the agenda. On the Left, I think some of the cooperation is driven by the directives of their handlers rather than being organic, for political reasons or to drive sales or both.
But I think the analysis holds true anyway, disregarding the above cases. Alphas and Sigma's are disproportionately represented in the ranks of the right, and as you argued, are not inclined to co-operate. Is it even possible for an Alpha or Sigma to identify with today's Left? Are there any examples? Maybe an idea for a future post.
As an aside regarding the Gamma concept, as a child I had a silent nickname for my father long before I'd ever heard of the Gamma term. I called him The Little Prince. So when I heard about your Secret King concept, a light bulb went off. I think you're onto something with the Sigma concept too. Keep it up, a lot of people out here really appreciate what you're doing.
In around 2018 I came to the conclusion that almost everyone on the Right/Alt-Right with more than 50,000 subscribers to any social media account was controlled opposition.
Are you familiar about the concept of Foxes and Lions from Machiavelli's The Prince? I get the impression according to your Socio-Sexual Hierarchy that many betas and especially gammas would probably be foxes (especially since foxes can be more conniving and manipulating). I think Lions would more often range amongst Alphas and Sigmas (They tend to be more direct, blunt, and rely on raw power.)
I'm curious if you've thought and this, and what you'd think.
Thanks! I have enjoyed reading your blog.
Hi, What is the difference between Alphas and Sigmas? what is the reality of female human behavior ?
Alpha = high-status leader. Sigma = high-status outsider.
The reality of female behavior is the endless war between hormones and reason.
Spot on with the female description. Thank you for voicing what it is like to be female.
Interesting. As an analogy, supportive of your pattern observation, consider those that resisted getting the Vax. I believe Naked Emperor did a substack survey on Myers Briggs personality type vs resisters and they over represent those types most likely to be in the right tail of the IQ histogram. You can still key word search and pull up the data on IQ vs Myers Briggs type (with percent) and also MB vs % in the general population. As a group, the resistors lack the go along to get along drive most humanity have. They have been described as lone wolves. I would say that if you don't agree 100% with them they are likely to take their ball and go home. I had also thought this to be the general problem with the right vs the left. It would be interesting to know if the SSH sorts into MB with a particular skew with regard to Sigma vs Alpha and perhaps Bravo. Not holding hope that accurate data could be obtained from Gamma directly, bet that could be spitballed. Center of gravity MB @ 115. If Sigma skews right tail vs Alpha, that would be useful information, as well as if there is no skew.
One part of the dearth of bravos might be the utter mistreatment of them by the current society. Vox has spoken of Sigma's as a broken Alpha, what happens to broken Bravo's?
Our current society absolutely abuses us bravo's. There's no loyalty at all, in any kind of hierarchy. Company's have ditched us. Sociopaths and Psychopaths are on the rise, and are just Bravo bait. Alpha's aren't taught how to retain loyalty of their underlings.
~9 years ago, I converted to Catholicism and switched from working in Theatre as a Set and lighting designer to Electrician. Took Vox's advice on job that he had expressed in the blog posts because it matched my skill set and made enough money to support a family. Anyways, went from being a Bravo making people's visions happen in theatre, to the hierarchy of the trades.
High intelligence, dealing with the average trade person, and lowest on the hierarchy, is rough. But you accept your lot and deal with it. However, when foremen realize you catch on quick, know electricity from past jobs, and by 3rd and 4th year apprenticeship you're running 15 man crews over people in the 30 years senior than you... You need someone to have your back.
When you have methed up addicts go at you with lineman plyers
When you have roid'd out, jealous apprentices your year that could smash your face
When you have a project manager lying and stealing, while the company hiring your outfit is doing the same, and you're the go between.
SOMEONE NEEDS TO BACK THE BRAVOS
Because, in our head, our authority comes from above. That's how authority works, and to us, you undermine your own damn self when you undermine us, and we wash our hands of the whole thing as soon as possible if you don't back us. Because we don't mind conflict, and we know our worth, we'll drop things quicker than Deltas who will hang around, fearful they can't find better. We know we can.
So, the damaged Bravos start their own little outfits. We become our own authority. AND WE HATE IT. I hate the constant conflict. The desire to tear everything down around me, and knowing how to do it. I can do conflict up to a point, but then shakes and adrenaline kick in, and it's either go away, give in, or get physical. Or to give in forever, work for someone else, and be a slave again. Because to the damaged Bravo, there's no in between without a good leader. It's Delta and misery, or conflict and burning bridges. Bouncing rubble. We're not leaders, but we look for them, yearn for them, and fear being taken in by a false one. Because we have a great deal to lose, and the system is set up for us to keep losing it.
The abuse of Bravo loyalty is a good observation. Continuing from your line about bravos starting their own outfits, the bravo type tends to rise and conform to groups he naturally finds himself in, rather than staking forth and choosing their own alpha. That means that the incumbent groups, which are largely leftist, monopolize the bravos. All those places modern children MUST attend by default: Schools, corporate, construction, Daily Show watchers, etc. Thus, the bravos end up as glue holding together these awful leftist institutions.
The failure is from Right-Alphas who aren't harvesting bravos from the crowd. Because, being on the right, they are not mainstream so they have to make an extra effort to get bravos. I truly think one of Trump's biggest failures was neglecting Mike Flynn in favor of Mike Pence. Flynn looked to me the ideal Bravo who would have gladly executed Trump's agendas with both loyalty and finesse yet Trump didn't grab him and elevate him.
As to -why- right-alphas can't harvest bravos? I think it's that right-alphas don't want to assume responsibility for capable bravos. In taking Flynn, Trump would have had to use his own prestige to shield Flynn, whereas with Pence he was so boring Trump didn't have to put any skin in the game to host him. Alphas are so used to hierarchies naturally sorting themselves out around them that they lack the awareness to personally invest risk to graft outsiders into it. Ex: Trump restricting his cabinet positions to choosing the best out of the swamp pool instead of potent outsiders. The alpha leader may escape the leftist system but they need to help bravos and deltas follow them out of it after them. Unfortunately it's Sigma, omegas and even gammas who can see the world outside their immediate pool.
Maybe, but I got tired of it. I have to play the cards I'm dealt with in my local community, as any bravo does. But as far as work goes, I just won't put up with it anymore. So I started my own business instead. I can do conflict, to a point where it's either up it to the next level or back away. Just this week it came to that on a work order - I backed away, plugged away at things for a few days, and addressed the issue from a better bargaining position and with my head on better rather than wanting to throttle the guy with my hands shaking. I won't work for him again, and I'll move on where a delta would keep plugging away or not even work for himself.
I don't know about the bigger names. It seems like they get too paranoid about being taken in, that they're never willing to risk putting their reputation on the line for someone else, even when it's in their own organization. They don't realize that by failing to do so they undercut their own reputation and authority long term. You can get away with it once or twice, but you can't do that and keep any amount of loyalty within your hierarchy or get anyone to take risks on your behalf. If you want some lukewarm, pansy, limpwristed agenda - then that would work. If your out to send your enemies running before you and take their womenfolk, you need to realize you're going to have to tend to your fallen as they come in.
But yeah, I think they're all just too paranoid.
Sounds like my stint as a fracer. Current effort - I'm sigma or something - find a Bravo doing the sole businessman thing, support him by dealing with bullshit so he doens't have to.
Sounds like a good plan. Aurini, did you ever write a second book? It's been awhile, but I remember enjoying the first one if I'm remembering it correctly.
No one has mentioned *the* classic* Bravo:
The guy who keeps the coke machine filled; aka the RIO,: the top gun second-seat.
The one I know is tall, blonde, confident, chill, nabbed the tier 1b blonde, and after leaving the Navy got a nice job at Major Corporation, where he promptly topped out at V.P. All the ladies in his life adore him; none of their husbands are threatened by him.
On a side note, I hope the series gets to the monogamous Christian Alpha. It used to be a commonplace in Christendom.
I don’t see any flaws with the analysis.
Sadly, I don’t see any widespread effective solutions either other than the one I posited a decade ago now, which is the rise of city-states, as these can at least reasonably (if with great difficulty) come into being through the efforts of mostly one leader.
I suspect the process will initially be an accumulation of omegas and deltas with a chasing out of would-be alphas until a tipping point of partially/periodically supporting sigmas and natural evolution/progression of some deltas into pseudo-bravos until actual bravos get attracted to the budding community.
The great advantage of city states is you have to mka a militia, which means you can train alphas to support bravos. Except you will be saying that the captain of the militia needs his Sargents. Teach em when they are young and then build the guilds.
Yes this is how Venice and Florence used to work.
I agree. You're concept: "Would be Alpha's", Reminded me of something: "Controlled Alpha's".
That's the other problem I see the article addressing. There's a lot of Controlled Opposition Alpha's on The Right, (Trump). Who people love to follow; even though he didn't build the wall or deport the illegals. When the whole thing collapses and we have to rebuild. "Controlled Alpha's" are going to be spending their energy convincing everyone that they should be in charge, while Alpha's and Sigma's are actually leading the rebuilding of society.
One of the common traits of the real unauthorized is sincerity. Not-grifting definitionally. The fake right sprinkles in some truth, but in service to the larger lie. That ecosystem is an extended delusion bubble. Gammas profiles are optimized there. High status males would leave in minutes.
How many on genuine right-wing figures besides Trump are actually Alphas? They tend to be Sigmas like VD and Cerno who wear the crown of leadership *reluctantly* and don’t truly enjoy doing it at a large scale and for a long period time.
“I am the leader of GamerGate and so are you” was probably the best example of this outlook.
If there were more right-wing Alphas willing to lead in a big way, perhaps the Bravos will come out of the woodwork.
"They tend to be Sigmas like VD and Cerno ..."
Vox, yes ... but Cerno? That lisping dork with a history of tranny loving is neither alpha nor sigma ... he's classic Gamma. Cerno goes on and on about "China" and "good blacks" and his homosexual friends while avoiding the unmentionables. He's a gatekeeper, and a piece of shit.
You beat me to it. Controlled Opposition.
I disagree that the SSH is the main reason that "the opinion leaders of the ideological Right have never, for many decades, ever been able to successfully cooperate the way the apparent leaders of other groups, many of whom are considerably less intelligent, are observably able to work together, despite the obvious advantages that accrue to those who do."
I think the lack of successful cooperation is a deliberate, planned-on event by the Deep State/communists currently entrenched in power. In short, I think the Deep State/communists deliberately target any nascent right-wing organization or group and either converge them if possible or, if they can't converge, use law enforcement and smear campaigns to destroy them before they can gain cultural/legal victories.
What turned me onto this theory is the quote "politics is warfare continued with other means". When I read this, and applied it to right-wing or counter-communist politics for the last 100 years, I see a pattern akin to counter-guerrilla strategy and tactics.
In counter-guerrilla warfare, the goal of the occupying force is to infiltrate the guerillas, usurp leadership positions, arrest/kill those you can, and then draw the mass of guerillas out into open in a pitched battle with the occupying army before the guerillas are sufficiently organized, numerous, and goal-oriented. If the occupying army, can do that, the majority of guerillas will be slaughtered, the survivors scattered and untrusting of one another, and the remaining populace will be thoroughly demoralized from joining the resistance and submit more easily to the occupying army.
Since at least the 1920s, the communists in the U.S. have successfully infiltrated universities, unions, churches, media, and government, as well as common social clubs (Rotary Club, veterans organizations, etc.), converging them from within and shredding their effectiveness in countering communist causes. Either that, or they thoroughly have them attacked as "evil" by their minions in the government.
For example, take the Klan. By the 1940s and 50s the KKK and its various splinter groups, while not at its power in the 1920s or the 1870s, was sufficiently strong enough locally to defend local southerners against black barbarism in case law enforcement couldn't (e.g. Emmet Till) and drive out communist organizers (e.g. communist-backed unions). And the Klan was thoroughly nativivist and anti-communist ---being a Bircher and being a Klan member at the same time were common.
So the Marxists had U.S. national government force integration in the South (drawing out the Klan before they were organized as they were in the 1920s or 19th century), infiltrated the Klan, and then launched national smear campaigns via Hollywood and national news media---notably, Superman during this period of time was actually engaged in fighting the Klan. The result was the Klan disintegrated ---it became toxic to the general public, it was degraded through repeated hit pieces by the media, its members got arrested by informants, and its membership splintered through distrust and lack of organization. This was all deliberate design---the communists directly targeted them and won.
Notice today how quickly the Deep State's organizations jump onto any new right-wing political organization (even nominally) today and paint them in the same broad strokes as they painted the Klan (and still do), but without any evidence. Tea Party? Racist white supremacists. Proud Boys? Racist white supremacists. Etc. And they either infiltrate and coopt the leadership (Tea Party) or else break them apart using targeted prosecution (Proud Boys). The FBI investigations and infiltrates and gets some informers. The result in either case is the same: an organization that suddenly finds it impossible to achieve anything remotely right wing, finds its members under indictment, and finds itself continually harassed by law enforcement.
I could go on about the infiltration of other areas, including social clubs. But to be brief: about the only private social organizations today that are implicitly right wing and non-converged are gun clubs (even in Blue States, such as the one I live in). And, not coincidentally, one of the few areas of culture/law today where the right wing has achieved notable success in the last 50 years has been....2nd Amendment rights. And, to go back to disagree with yout SSH theory, most of these gun club guys are solid Deltas (in my experience), with Bravos, Sigmas, and the occasional Alpha sprinkled in.
So I don't think the main problem is the SSH here. I think the problem is the Deep State/SJWs/Communists deliberately targeting any non-communist organization with lighting speed once such organizations emerge and either fully converge them or else, if that is impossible, destroying them with law enforcement before they can actually organize well enough to take down prevailing Marxist orgs. If I am right, then any effective right-wing counter offensive would have to be launched from secret societies who are long-simmering sub rosa; otherwise, the left will zealously assault them with counter-guerilla tactics once their existence is even hinted at.
In sum: I believe we can't get organized to achieve success not because our SSH makeup makes it difficult but because of a deliberate, top-down strategy by the Deep State/communists/globalists to disrupt any attempt by us to organize effectively.
There is a fair amount of truth in that, but the point is that due to the various things you mentioned, it is only individuals of a certain SSH profile who are able to withstand it. And without Bravos and Deltas who aren't infiltrators, you tend to end up with "leaders" who are lone wolves by nature and by preference if they aren't manufactured gatekeepers.
Rather ingenious, really, if it is by design and not just a fortuitous consequence.
And as a final note: this may relate to the SSH in another way: many a right-wing Sigma might have been an Alpha, but because he could not find any organization of like-minded right-wing folks he perhaps developed into a Sigma. Later, when attempting to found or develop right-wing orgs, the Sigmas are too entrenched in their SSH role to revert to their Alpha-ness, which necessarily hinders the new org further since Alphas will draw Bravos and Deltas in (e.g. Trump drawing followers).
No, that's absolutely incorrect. You have failed to understand that behavioral profiles are formed in childhood, long before there is any hint of political consciousness.