Money cannot compensate

When it comes to intersexual relations, money is a force multiplier. It is not a complete replacement for any element of attraction. Didactic Mind considers the Gates divorce from the perspective of the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy:

First among these is that money CANNOT compensate for Gammatude. It doesn’t matter how rich, wealthy, or influential you are – if you are a hardcore Gamma, this will show through eventually and inevitably. The list of such men goes on at some length – Jeff Bezos, Harvey Weinstein, Harry the Ginger Whinger, and now Bill Gates. And, in the case of Weinstein, the Gammatude has devastating consequences for those women unfortunate enough to be caught up in his web of influence and corruption.

The second, related, lesson has to do with an old maxim of Roissy’s from back in the day. Essentially, the sum of testosterone in a marriage equals the sum of oestrogen. A low-T man like Bill Gates will eventually end up with a low-E woman. By contrast, a high-T man will inevitably end up with a high-E woman.

Case in point: Hazy history of Melania Trump’s immigration status raises …

The third lesson can be found in the key phrase, “irretrievably damaged”, used in the statement to describe the couple’s separation. Think about it from Bill’s point of view. He is one of the richest, most powerful, most influential men on the entire planet. He has deceived himself into thinking that he is on a quest to save Mankind from itself. And his best buddies are all liberal, progressive, right-on loonie gazillionaires like him – and every single one of them has the approximate musculature of a chipmunk. (Even Jeff Bezos isn’t in that great shape, these days.)

Yet, even then, he knows, somewhere deep down, that he can do better than what he has. He could buy himself a harem of the most jaw-droppingly beautiful Eastern European women to rival King Solomon’s, but he stays with a woman whose best days are thirty years in the past.

Would you be able to avoid straying under those circumstances? Especially given the reputation that Melinda Gates has for being an unpleasant ball-buster?

That’s not me saying this about Melinda Gates, by the way: Given her appearance, I can WELL believe it, though.

The overriding lesson of all of this remains the same for all men, of any age:

Money, power, and influence do not make up for innate Gamma traits, and never will. The ONLY way out of that particular Hell is through relentless, focused, careful, structured self-improvement.

Money is just a tool. And the love of it is the root of all evil. So never, ever, rely upon it for anything, especially not as a foundation for your relationships.


The silence of the anklebiters

A socialgalactician marvels at the way in which gammas assiduously avoid admitting that they are wrong:

Seen any ankle-biters admit that Vox was right about:

Milo and Roosh being genuine seekers of the Truth

Richard Spencer being a fake-right clown BEFORE he endorsed Biden

Anyone?

As you might expect, while gammas will repeatedly insist that honor – they love that word despite possessing no understanding of what it means – requires that you publicly flagellate yourself every time your opinion happens to be incorrect in some way, they will never admit it when their pronouncements of absolute fact turn out to be entirely false.

Instead, they retreat to their delusion bubbles and redefine every necessary term and reinterpret every necessary event in order to pronounce themselves to be retroactively correct. This is why they literally can’t admit that they are wrong, and why the best thing to do is to simply ignore them, refuse to engage with them, and banish them from the community as soon as they are detected.

That’s why fewer and fewer gamma comments are seen here: every day the moderators delete comments for nothing more than the crime of exhibiting signs of gamma behavior. It becomes extremely obvious when you see the juxtaposition of gamma vs non-gamma communication on a regular basis. In much the same way that women can sense even the mild stink of gamma in a man’s compliment, the moderators have developed finely tuned instincts for that familiar combination of envy, insecurity, and false superiority.

Let them whine about free speech, echo chambers, and the importance of discussion in vain. All of those concepts are merely ideas dreamed up by undesirables in attempts to convince others to permit them to crash the party. But every party, and every organization, should devote as much effort to keeping out gammas as it does to keeping out SJWs.


Sigma on Gamma

Orson Wells wouldn’t be at all surprised that Woody Allen eventually became a creepy sex pest who groomed his adopted daughter.

OW: I hate Woody Allen physically, I dislike that kind of man. I can hardly bear to talk to him. He has the Chaplin disease. That particular combination of arrogance and timidity sets my teeth on edge.

HJ: He’s not arrogant; he’s shy.

OW: He is arrogant. Like all people with timid personalities, his arrogance is unlimited. Anybody who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant. He acts shy, but he’s not. He’s scared. He hates himself, and he loves himself, a very tense situation. It’s people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest. To me, it’s the most embarrassing thing in the world – a man who presents himself at his worse to get laughs, in order to free himself from his hang-ups. Everything he does on the screen is therapeutic.

The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy and the behavioral patterns it identifies have been around since before the dawn of human writing, it just hadn’t been articulated in a sufficiently useful manner until recently. 

And I can guarantee that Woody Allen still hates Wells with a burning passion. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest to find that he has attempted to mock Wells somewhere in one of his films. But I’ll never know, because you couldn’t pay me to watch Woody Allen movies.


And this is why

Here is yet another example of why I am increasingly disinclined to answer emails anymore. The larger the audience, the more likely that even the most simple, straightforward answer runs the risk of triggering yet another Gamma wall of text. It always starts very simply, although I had a pretty good idea what was going to happen given the fact that a) he said he’d “included a word doc” and b) had forgotten to actually attach it.

Vox a moderator deleted some of my posts on SG so can I ask why, I have included a word doc with the post that were deleted for your perusal if you so choose.

My response: Because you violated the Clean Speech policy. This isn’t hard.

One guess what came next…

Ok Vox, since we cant talk about the enemy of our Savior God you are actually tying one of our hands behind our backs in the battle against Satan. So according to your Clean Speech policy Vox, then even Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to be post here…

6 Times Jesus Talked About Satan

Matthew 4:10

In Matthew 4:10 it states: “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Be gone, Satan! For it is written that you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.’” This verse teaches us about the authority that Jesus has over the devil. During this time Satan was trying to switch Jesus to the dark side. Jesus had to pass the test that Adam failed in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:16–17; 3:1–6). Jesus refused to believe the devil’s lies and instead obeyed His Father. Jesus was tempted but did not sin (Heb. 4:15). Satan has power, but Jesus has ultimate power over all creation. When Jesus said, “Be gone, Satan!” the devil had to obey him (Matt. 4:11). We can be confident in the midst of any trial that God is in control.

John 8:44

Speaking to a group of Jews, Jesus says, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Satan is the “father of lies” in that he is the original liar. Satan told the first lie in recorded history to Eve, in the Garden of Eden. Lying is Satan’s primary weapon against God’s children. He uses the tactic of deceit to separate people from their heavenly Father. Jesus knew this, and wanted us to understand the tricks the devil might use so we could arm ourselves with knowledge. Some of his more common lies are “there is no God,” “God doesn’t care about you,” “the Bible cannot be trusted,” and “your good works will get you into heaven.”

Mark 5:7-8

Not everyone believes in demonic procession, but Jesus talked about it in the Bible on several occasions. Mark 5 tells the story of Jesus removing Satan’s evil spirits from a suffering man. Mark 5:7-8 says “[C]rying out with a loud voice, [the demoniac] said, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ For he had said to him, “’Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’” This, again, shows us that Jesus has the ultimate authority over the devil and his group of angels. Jesus can cleanse us of evil spirits and feel rejuvenated once again.

Luke 10:17-19

Luke 10:17-19 says “The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!’ And He said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.’” The context of these words is the return of the 70 disciples that Jesus had sent out to evangelize and prepare His way to Jerusalem. The group was so impressed that Satan and his demons had bowed down to the name of Jesus, but Jesus already knew they were well protected. The fall of Satan that Jesus saw happened after Lucifer’s sin. In his pride, Lucifer had lifted himself up, but God had cast him down out of his original place in heaven. Jesus’ statement in Luke 10:18 speaks on the back story of Satan and the Lord’s defeat over the power of Satan.

Matthew 4:7

This piece of scripture says: “Jesus said to him, ‘Again it is written, You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” In this situation, the devil was citing Psalm 91:11-12 to entice Jesus to jump off the roof of a temple to test God’s love for His Son. Jesus quickly fought back, but it this passage shows us that Satan does have power. If Satan can do terrible things to try and manipulate our Savior, we should never underestimate his power here on earth. He was able to twist scripture to be used for evil purposes, and it’s a major way that Satan attacks Christians even today. Christians must be equipped with God’s Word like Jesus was so they can stand strong against the devil.

Matthew 25:41

When Jesus sits on His thrown in Heaven, He will separate those who were true believers by those who were not. Matthew 25:41 says: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” Those who did not follow Jesus will be sent to Satan’s kingdom, where they will suffer for eternity. It also shares with us that Satan has fellow fallen angels that work under him, committing to doing his evil wrongdoings.

Jesus was very clear on the evil power that Satan holds, and wanted to ensure that we as Christian understood everything we could about the fallen angel. The Bible is filled with information on Satan and how Jesus sees the enemy. The more knowledge we have on Satan, the easier it will be to fight and resist him and his temptations.

This isn’t hard, well yes it is Vox because you make it so…

Vox, I have cancelled my subscription to Darkstream which automatically cancels SG its not even two months old, keep the money I don’t want it back…

You say Vox that you defend free speech but in actuality you really don’t.

Don’t bother emailing me from now on. I’m not wasting any more time on email from so-called fans and supporters. When you email and you don’t get an answer, now you know why.


He had his dream job

The Dark Herald delves deep into the Gammatude of Joss Whedon at Arkhaven. It is… insightful:

With no other prospects he fell into the family business of TV work as a writer.  He knew how the business operated. The paychecks (when they come) are big, plus, it is notoriously tolerant of obnoxious behavior and sexual abuse. It is the dream job of every Gamma

His connections got him a gig on Roseanne.  He ground out a few decent enough scripts, and it was here that his talent for comedy made itself apparent.  It was snarky comedy, but it was there. 

With a whopping four episodes of Rosanne under his belt he actually got a feature film greenlit.  And I know how he did it.  His family connections got his script put at the top of various in-baskets but what sold it, was a really great title.

Let me assure you, a title is unbelievably important in any writing endeavor, but it is especially important in the movie business. “For Love or Money,” is about the worst title in the history of fiction.  It could apply to any facet of human existence and tells you nothing about it.  There have been five films with this title, and no one remembers what any of them were about. It absolutely sucks.

The greatest title of all time is Legally Blonde.  Why? Because it tells you everything you need to know about the movie in only two words.  Legally blonde, is an assonance on, legally blind, and being blind is associated with being clueless.  It indicates to you the film is a comedy about a dumb blonde. And since it’s an American comedy, the dumb blonde will make good in the legal profession somehow.  The poster with Reese Witherspoon in a hot pink business suit with a toy dog in a purse confirms the prejudices the title gave you.  It’s brilliant.

You probably don’t recall the feelings you had when you first heard the words “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”  But try to approach it with a fresh eye and you will see that it is a great title.  Again, it tells you everything you need to know, to include whether or not you want to give it a shot, in only four words.  

The plot itself was reflective of 1990s urban fantasy settings.  Which was still reasonably new at the time.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer starred Eighties-also-ran Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry when he was still having to make a living as the world’s oldest teenager.  If you don’t remember it, there is a reason for that.  Buffy’s first incarnation pulled in a fairly anemic $12 million.

But he did get a script produced.  That got him his next job writing for Pixar on Toy Story.  That movie was very definitely a hit but for some reason John Lasseter never hired Joss Whedon again.  For some reason he didn’t want him connected with kid’s films.  You often wonder about what red flags executives look for. And sometimes you don’t.

Make no mistake, Whedon is a decent writer. He’s created several legitimate hits. But success, for the Gamma, almost invariably brings with it the seeds of his eventual downfall. And he makes for a very useful teaching example of what a Gamma Boss looks like.


The science behind LOL

Fake laughing utilized in a deprecatory manner is not just a reliable sign of gamma, but of the narcissism and heightened sensitivity that is typical of that socio-sexual class. AC explains, using Creepy Joe Biden’s response to Paul Ryan as an example:

Note how Biden is always desperate to project himself as strong and fit, challenging people to push-up contests, and talking about taking people behind the bleachers and beating them up, or standing up to Corn-Pop. He has probably got a trigger in there about being weak and impotent, and unable to defend himself, probably rooted in being teased as a child about his stutter.

This leads to a further note on deflection-laughing – my narcissist did this. He would even laugh louder and with a higher pitch, as if he thought it was even funnier, when confronted with even more clear, devastating, more verifiable criticism. The purpose would initially appear to be to present a mien of seeing the criticism as so minor he was laughing at it. But he did it in the face of rather devastating criticisms, and the more devastating the criticism, the louder and higher pitched the laughing. He would quickly transition from that deflection-laugh to anger if you continued the attack while dismissing his laughter as if you didn’t notice it.

I do not think he was just deflecting, though. He was unusually sensitive to laughter himself, so he may have been trying to use it as a weapon to assault his opponent. On several occasions, when he approached a group that was laughing, he would ask, almost in a cautious, and paranoid fashion, “What are you all laughing at?” As he did, he would look strangely braced, as if he assumed there was an answer he would not like, rather than looking amused, and like he wanted to join in. It was as if he assumed they were all laughing about something about him as he approached, and it was bothering him. I assumed he was laughed at as a child when being picked on and tortured by other kids, and it became a potent amygdala trigger in him.

Biden may be the same thing, as a stutterer. Kids may have made fun of his stutter when he was a child, and other kids laughed, and it became an amygdala trigger. Projecting now as an adult, as rabbits seem wont to do, he thinks it will hurt others the way it hurts him, and he now tries to employ it as not just a deflection, but a weapon as well, to hurt Ryan….

It is crazy to picture these retards all sitting around together making the sounds of laughter, even though they are miserable, just to try and hurt each other, but I think that is what would happen if you corralled a bunch of them together. It is how different from us they are.

I’ve seen small groups of gammas doing just that, with two or three of them fake-laughing at the others in an attempt to take control of the situation. Their instinctive fear of genuine laughter directed at them is such that they try to weaponize it for use against others. This use of fake laughter as a psychological weapon is why they are always LOLing and LMAOing and ROTFLMFAOing on the Internet, much to the complete bewilderment of psychologically secure men possessing higher socio-sexual status.

Gammas hate the success of others because observing the existence of the successful makes them feel inferior, even if, like Joe Biden, they have achieved a considerable amount of success themselves. But for the insecure, success is primarily a relative metric. That’s why gammas dedicate so much time and effort to completely pointless attempts to tear down those whose perceived success happens to trigger their amygdalas.


Urgent!

An SOS call goes out from the hive:

Urgent Message! Unauthorized cultists are on a mass flagging campaign to shut down our counter narrative. Accounts are getting suspended/deleted. Please keep your wits about things as we continue to fight. I’m working on setting up an off-site backup.

Oh dear, someone is using their tactics against them? How unfortunate!


Stop, Gamma time!

SamuraiJeff illustrates the intrinsic self-delusion of the Gamma mindset:

Btw if you’re wondering why i manage to piss off all the mods, they come to each others aid and attack me. I simply defend and they get mad lol. It’s pretty great

Consider how many assumptions are fundamentally incorrect in these three simple sentences. And, of course, note the inevitable Gamma tell.

  1. No one, literally no one, was wondering how SJ managed to get himself banned. Most were probably wondering why he hadn’t been banned here yet.
  2. The first sentence is not only incorrect, it is incoherent. “I piss off all the mods because they come to each other’s aid and attack me.” That literally doesn’t make any sense.
  3. Solipsistic assumption of emotion. The Gamma is emotion-driven and assumes that everyone else is too. The moderators are seldom “pissed off” or even mildly upset, to the contrary, being given the opportunity to ban someone they had already flagged as a potential problem tends to come as a relief.
  4. Being held accountable to community standards is not an attack, much less a personal one. The primary responsibility of the moderators is to make the judgment calls concerning what actions cross, or do not cross, the line.
  5. The violation of community standards is literally defined as an offense. And it is a shameless lie to claim that one’s offense is a defense. This is pure inversion and would alone be sound justification for banning on SG or anywhere.
  6. A second false imputation of emotion.
  7. And there is the tell. Gammas love to feign that they are above the conflict, and posture in a way that is intended to suggest that the conflict merely amuses a superior being such as himself.
  8. The number of comments and repeated requests for intervention and review strongly suggest that the Gamma does not consider the situation to be “pretty great”.

Relevant verse for the day:

“Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭17:28‬ ‭


ATTENTION BEARS

Do NOT respond to an email that looks like it is from Owen. The Reddit Gammas are trying to harvest your email addresses in order to harass you by sending out emails that appear to be from Owen Benjamin.

Notice that “laugh” is spelled “lauhg” in the example below:

From: Owen Benjamin [whydidnttheylauhg@gmail.com]
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: “whydidnttheylauhg@gmail.com”
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020
Subject: Patreon Lawsuit

Those squirt boys at Patreon are bluffing. Hang in there. But save your money because we will need it to put up a good fight against these grabblers.

-BB


Beating Gammas for fun and profit

It’s also highly educational, for the observer, if not the subject of The Kurgan’s tender ministrations:

Beating gammas like dead horses can be entertaining if done with a view to educate those they try to fool with their assumed “superior intellect and knowledge”.

More importantly, it teaches people to think clearly and see through their never-changing methods, which can be listed as follows:

  • Conflation – mixing two or more topics together in an erroneous fashion in order to come to some new fake “conclusion” that pushes their narrative.
  • Sophistry – the endless arguing about the exact meaning of a word or phrase with a view to twisting it into some abomination if not its exact opposite. The general conflation of words and meanings to try and produce a new and false narrative that supports their lies.
  • Appeal to false authority – “I have a PhD in physics (or nose picking) therefore my ideas on physics (or nose picking) are correct” – No. No they are not. Correct ideas are correct. Wrong ones are wrong. 
  • Appeal to authority falsely – “Jesus said homosexuality/raping children/sexual slavery by Saracens/whatever perversion suits me personally is just fine” – No. No He did not. Not even hinted it might be ok. And specifically stated the opposite. 
  • False Charity – “Well, we can’t PROVE the man who raped that child to death meant harm. It’s an accident, we must be charitable” – No. Burn him at the stake.
  • Outright lying – This one is hard for normal people to actually believe because the lies can be so outrageous and in your face that it’s hard to believe anyone sane would even say such things. But they range the full gamut and can be subtle but insidious or blatant. And very often are based on the conflations and sophistry they laid down to begin with.
  • Gamma Forever – The general endless arguing without ever settling anything in order to frustrate as well as give the impression that the topic is too complex for normal people to care about or alternatively be able to follow. This activity can’t actually be helped by the gamma. They NEED to get the last word in no matter how obviously and thoroughly they have been shown to be wrong, liars and fakes, so that in their own minds (and nowhere else) they “won” and can continue being the secret king!

He then goes on to apply it to a Roman Catholic defender of “papal” heresy who has been resorting to a respectable amount of the aforementioned shenanigans.

Whenever you’re dealing with someone who keeps resorting to “don’t you think” and “isn’t it really” and other justifications of redefinitions, ask yourself, “is this consistent with letting ‘yes’ be yes and ‘no’ be no” or is it more consistent with “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” There are times when genuine complexities and gradations simply do not permit clear-cut answers, but words do have definite and distinct meanings nevertheless.