Rock Stars: the Socio-Sexual Scale

This post revisits the male socio-sexual hierarchy as conceptualized by Vox Day. I am using rock stars to illustrate each rank on the hierarchy, along with my own tagline for each rank  (ie., Sigma being analogous to “Rebel,” etc.). Justly or not, I placed each of the recording artists in his category based on common perception plus my own insight in a few cases.

It occurred to me that there aren’t many classic alphas on the microphone end of the industry — men like Donald Trump — who are masters of both women and men. Plenty of rock’s apex alphas have the yin side of the charisma, with the screaming girls at concerts. But not much on the yang half. How many of those characters would you take a bullet for? The reason for this may be the nature of the business. Under the hype, the performer is fundamentally part poet, part carnival jester.

[Update: see Lucius Somesuch’s reminder in the comments about Mick Jagger’s command failure at Altamont in ’69. There are no George Pattons in rock n roll, it seems.]

Fame is a confounding factor in categorizing these men’s socio-sexual rank, not just due to its superhuman injection of status, but also because it conflates myth with reality. Elvis Presley, for example: his persona, like with many figures in show business, was in part manufactured. He was the sex symbol of the century but he was also reportedly shy with women and taken advantage of by his hangers-on. Yet given the sheer grandeur of his legend, it would be wrong to call him anything other than, well, “The King.”

The hierarchy:

Alpha – the King. Magnetic, dominant personality. Natural leader of men. Women lose their self-control around him.

  • Mick Jagger
  • Elvis Presley
  • Steven Tyler [Update 1/2019: Kris Kristofferson]

Sigma – the Rebel. Dominant, independent personality. Struggles as leader due to his lone-wolf nature. Women are intrigued by him.

  • Jim Morrison
  • Eddie Vedder
  • Roger Waters

Beta – the Nobleman. Dominant personality. Competent leader. Women are attracted to him.

  • David Gilmour
  • Don Henley
  • Bruce Springsteen

Delta – the Citizen. Men respect him. Women are comfortable around him. The vast majority of men are Deltas.

  • Bryan Adams
  • Huey Lewis
  • Paul McCartney

Gamma – the Thief. “Alpha ambition without the alpha goods.” Passive-aggressive personality. Men despise him. Women are uneasy around him.

  • John Lennon
  • Michael Stipe
  • Josh Tillman, a.k.a. Father John Misty

Omega – the Hobo. Antisocial loner, outcast. Neither men nor women notice him.

  • Kurt Cobain
  • Peter Gabriel (just because)
  • Michael Jackson

Lambda – the Madman. Homosexual male. Alternately idolized and hunted.

  • Elton John
  • Freddy Mercury
  • George Michael

66 thoughts on “Rock Stars: the Socio-Sexual Scale

  1. Hi PA great post. I would have thought Lennon was Alpha or even Sigma with his ZFG attitude. But the glasses, the passive-aggressiveness…makes sense Gamma.

    Lamda? Madman would be Syd Barrett, or perhaps Axl Rose. But Axl has Gamma traits: the self-righteous, passive aggressive rants.

    I see Slash as Sigma. Jim Morrison, Sigma…Ray Manzarek is the trusty Beta… John Densmore is the Gamma and Robbie Krieger is the Delta.

    Ringo: Delta.

  2. Hey Wala, great minds think alike. In an earlier draft I had Slash as Sigma as well, along with a bunch of other names. I decided to keep each list at exactly three though, because they started getting unbalanced in length.

    I have Lennon at Gamma based on what I read, in that he would go into depressive spells and beg Yoko for reassurance that she loves him. I also had Axl as gamma in the first draft based on a Rolling Stone interview with him I read in 1990 or so.

    Lambda per Vox’s concept is specifically a homosexual male but it’s fair here to expand the definition and add Barrett and others there.

  3. It is a good list, and i like the categorization scheme. The simpler alpha / beta / omega works more simply for rating men’s attractiveness to women, and not incorporating their more complex relations with other men and society. PA may have made that same point before.

    The disjunction between these two schemes, is of course the cause AND effect of our messed-up society. Without going sperg and cross-diagramming, but for a single example – Lennon is a low gamma in the complex scheme but a high alpha in the other. Sexual selection is given too much preference in our contemporary situation.

    As for Alpha rock stars, none of those guys qualifies. Elvis was a charismatic young man and respectful, but not assertive or confident in the world (of men) – get him on stage, and it was a different story.

    Steven Tyler and Mick Jagger were both confident personalities, but only within their milieus were they so dominant. Were not those milieus available to them, they would be likable guys with big wits, and able to impress and get along with everyone, but – betas and deltas.

  4. “Were not those milieus available to them, they would be likable guys with big wits, and able to impress and get along with everyone, but – betas and deltas.”

    Exactly. I said something similar about Bill Clinton elsewhere.

  5. “Jim Morrison, Sigma…Ray Manzarek is the trusty Beta… John Densmore is the Gamma and Robbie Krieger is the Delta.”

    I read Densmore’s autobiography twenty years ago. Recalling it, he came across as depressive about things like groupies using him as a stepping stone to Morrison. He also describes his conflict with his parents over The Doors song lyrics. He did not come across as a strong personality or even a man who knows who he is.

    Morrison said in an interview that he respected and even feared Manzarek’s disapproval when his antics or drinking got out of hand.

    Nikcrit once mentioned that he had a business lunch with Manzarek. A solid Beta?

  6. @PA I think overall I”m Sigma…a kind of lone wolf but also quite sociable…I like things on my own terms. I had Gamma tendencies which I worked on eliminating—the whole “Everyone sucks, I’m great…really I am” is gamma.

    Beta: yes, worked on eliminating that neediness and people pleasing.

    I think that at different times I may have certain characteristics but overall would be alpha/Sigma…

  7. A lot of readers think that Sigma is the best rank to be — all the power of the Alpha with none of the burden. But there is a downside to being one: loneliness. Sigmas are usually introverts, but more than that, they go through life looking at human contact from the outside-in. They want to be one of the guys but can’t. They are too unusual, too much outside of the male hierarchy. Too wierd, sometimes. Even Alphas get to be one of the guys — with other Alphas, when not fraternizing with Betas and Deltas.

    The key difference between a Sigma and the Omega (who also fits the unhappy loner description) is that Sigmas command a room and get first-tier women.

    As Vox notes, Beta is the sweet spot. High enough status, active attraction from women, with none of the Alpha’s stress of living and dying by the sword.

    For most struggling men such as Gamma and Omega, achieving Delta is deliverance. Suddenly, women actually like them (still gotta work on the attraction part though), and men — even Alphas — respect them.

  8. To graduate from Omega to Delta, one would have to dewierdify himself. To rise from Gamma to Delta requires a truckload’s worth of painfully acquired humility.

    Gammas are normally rare, but are more common now, with no clear rites of passage to manhood, hostile culture, absence of fathers and male guidance.

  9. I think the guys in Led Zep would qualify as Alpha in their hey-day. Also Roger Daltrey.

    Fun story about Daltrey. In 1965, Keith Moon (where the heck do you fit him?) provided illegal drugs to Pete and John. Daltrey was angry about it and beat the crap out of Moon. No pansy, he, despite the golden locks.

    Can’t decide if Townsend is sigma or beta. Really don’t know enough about his personality.

  10. Another likely solid Alpha: Kris Kristofferson. Wild biography. Landed a helicopter on Johnny Cash’s lawn (he was a former Army helicopter pilot) when working as studio janitor to get Cash’s attention and help with getting his songs recorded.

  11. @PA,…. re. Manzarek…..a meal with him & a local promoter preceding a club date at a local Denny’s, of all places.. The only noteworthy memory us he making a quick joking reference to the fact that he’s soon qualify for the menu’s senior discount. Not sure if date but this was way before I was on staff anywhere & was likely tagging along with the promoter & the editor of the local weekly.

  12. Another Sigma: Bill Wyman, bassist of the Rolling Stones. If you read his books or any stories about him, he was the older one, always in the background, solid. All his interviews come across as very serious, intense,likeable. He was the first Stone to do a solo album. He was banging babes like a Shaolin monk bangs a gong. At one point he was either married to or banging the mother of his son’s girlfriend (or vice versa?) Now quietly runs a restaurant and has his own band. The band’s accurate historian. Has repeatedly and been unfraid to say Keith is full of shit in his claims of remembering the blitz saying he’s 8 years older than Keith and barely remembers it.

    Sigma, lonely…I think this could be true but it’s a mindset. I’m not “lonely” as I am feeling like I’m ahead of my time in my approach, thinking and lifestyle and that feels lonely. I’m quite outgoing in the right situation and very gregarious but also more cautious with new people…less trusting of people. Prefer learning and doing things on my own first before expanding them.

    The Sigma can be a creator of things like the ones in your list….super influential but their approach is at first reserved. Stories about Jim Morrison paint him as quite reserved and polite at first meetings. Only when he got drunk did he become a madman. Even in interviews he’s very confident…like a Brad Pitt type.

  13. Hi PA!

    I think most men vastly overestimate their rank. If I am frank with myself, I would say I graduated from omega in my childhood/late teens to gamma while I was in the military and shortly after I left to delta now because I get compliments on my work and having a woman gives me social proof. Of course I would love to be sigma or even beta but I dont think I have the temperment for it…I wouldnt even have a clue how to begin lol. Of course there’s game blogs but I would feel like such a fake. I think a big part of reaching adulthood is being comfortable in your own skin. I no longer feel like pleasing everybody and I am quite happy to be on my own which my work allows me to do.

    I dont know about rock stars but an interesting thing about bands-the beatles were the clean band and the stones were the dirty band. Which is better?

  14. One thing to keep in mind re. this game of assessing alpha-rank on these rock and pop stars; (but first a caveat: i know the spirit here is fun-n-games; we’re sorta willfully believing in full the persona they project), but what amazed me is just how often that rocker’s public persona is a WILLING departure from that person’s ‘real life’ personality. And that’s not to say it’s pure fakery; rather, there’s a certain irony and distance that comes wiht aging —- but in a performer’s case, naturally revealing that maturation of spirit could cause commericial and financial havoc, etc..
    the more veteran a pop musician becomes, the more his reality is more like an actor’s to his craft.
    I also say anyone who’s been the subject of such hysterical adulation is off-the-charts in terms of their alpha-ness, if I really understand those labels, which i’m not sure i do.

  15. I think most men vastly overestimate their rank.

    I never disclose my rank, IQ, notch count, income, bench max because if I do so honestly, there will always be “rule of three” presumption that I am inflating the figure and people will scale things down accordingly. In any case, disclosure and honesty about these things is best done with oneself. Here is my off the cuff rank self-assessment, based entirely on behavior of other people, not your own subjective qualities:

    Alpha: strong, masculine men look to you for guidance and leadership in all things. First-tier women (HB 9-10) always explode with uncontrollable indicators of interest (IOIs) in your presence, with minimal effort on your part. If yes, you are among the 1% of all men who are Alphas.

    Sigma: first-tier, powerful, impressive men are on guard around you, until they start showing you grudging respect, even deference. All women eyeball you with fascination without you having to do anything. If yes, you are among the 1% of men who are Sigmas.

    Beta: everybody at the party gravitates to you. First tier women flirt with you but it would take effort for you to get one. Second tier (HB 7-8) women show strong IOIs. If yes, you are among the 10% of men who are Betas.

    Deltas: all kinds of men enjoy a conversation with you. When you talk, they look like they take you seriously. Cute women are friendly with you. With some effort, you can get a nice looking regular girl. First tier women are out of your reach. If yes, you are among the 75% of men who are Deltas.

    There is wide variance among Deltas, since they represent such a large number of men. High Deltas do very well with average women, being almost Betas. Low Deltas struggle even with unattractive women.

    Gamma: all kinds of men show impatience, irritation or disrespect when talking with you when you think they should be impressed with you. Women don’t appreciate you. If so, you are around the 10% (and sadly, growing) number of men who are gammas.

    Omega: Men avoid you. Women are nervous around you if they happen to notice that you exist. Bottom 5% dregs of manhood.

    Lambda: you like cock.

  16. “first-tier, powerful, impressive men are on guard around you, until they start showing you grudging respect, even deference.”

    above is a description of my professional life. for those that don’t know, there is a serious down-side to this: if your authority is not independent, then powerful men will shun you if they can – unless you save them from themselves, at which point you become a trusted advisor.

    “All women eyeball you with fascination without you having to do anything.”

    i solved this by marrying a pretty, fit, gregarious, mate-guarding spouse, and avoiding mixed social events w/ single women.

    i’ve led men in the past, and lead men now. it’s a nuisance, and my subordinates perceive my discomfort with making decisions for others.

    being sigma is not something any social man who wants any approval from anybody should seek. if you’re not already inclined this way, it’s the first step to suicide. if, on the other hand, you’re like most sigma men, your best days are spent in solitary contemplation, and the approval of other men is cause for worry and self-doubt

  17. “I read Densmore’s autobiography twenty years ago. Recalling it, he came across as depressive about things like groupies using him as a stepping stone to Morrison.”

    No reason for him to feel singled out, because once they got to Morrison, he of course became merely a bigger steppin’ stone, to a host of neurotic ‘ho dreams and nightmares, past and present.

    Sometimes I think the Monkees’ “I’m Not Your Steppin’ Stone’ is the most apt song about Los Angeles ever written….lolzz.

  18. btw, the breakdown in your post is interesting; from the way i’ve heard the term used in the last few years on these blogs, i had thought that ‘beta’ was a much, much more common fate for men….. but you put it top-ten percent.

  19. There are two scales. Elk alluded to them in his first comment here. The Vox Day scale I’m using here is an absolute measure of a man in his standing among other men. The Heartiste scale measures men differently: strictly by their attractiveness to women, which can be a more fluid and situational measure.

    What Heartiste calls alpha is vox’s alpha, sigma and beta. What he calls beta, is Vox’s delta and gamma.

    Both scales are valid, they just measure different (but related) things.

  20. For example, on the Vox scale that I am working with, Lennon is a gamma and Cobain is an omega because those are their innate psychosexual profiles. They’d be gammas and omegas, respectively, regardless of their station in life. Their inner life, as well as relations with their peers, would bear it out.

    However, by Heartiste’s scale everybody on my list is (was) a super-alpha by virtue of his fame and its power over women.

  21. It’s cliche but true: alpha-by-fame power is absolutely devalued as a personal power, though may be used in practical ways …. But personally? Look at Elvis as prime example. Good lord; a depressive recluse who resorted to mama-to-infant talk, via his hot model and ‘Hee-Haw’ star girlfriend…. America is a weird place.

  22. Couple few points, which for now i can only address in passing but would like to raise.

    First, regarding the two scales. The first is the simple and incomplete model which measures a man’s sexual market value to woman. It goes alpha / beta / omega. This scale is the more familiar one. The second scale is more complex and more complete, and it measures a man’s – or a male’s – place in society, his value to men and to women (and to men and women together), and it includes his attractiveness to women. This is the scale of the original post.

    Now in regard to questions that we kick about on the theme of manhood and becoming, and all that goes with it – it is absolutely critical that we use ONLY the second scale. Because we are men, and our value is to other men, it is to women, and it is to “society” (quotes because, you know). Our value is not just to women. If it were, then the simpler scale might do.

    The half-assed scale can only be used as a point of comparison, or a point of departure.

    This different application of the scales, goes a long ways in getting at some of the larger problems and questions. After all, we’re not just dicks and penises.

    That point is fairly obvious. And yet.

    The second point i want to raise, is in regard to the abstract nature of this scale of categorization. The categorization of men, of personality types, of life style strategies … that old philosophical caution: do not mistake the map for the territory. This scale is a description, it is not reality. But on the other hand, when people model themselves after what is described, then it does begin to reflect itself into reality.

    A good model is one that allows for growth. Does the model above allow for that? Does it encourage growth, or does it set limits in the wrong places?

    Third point, and this is more of a fun one. In regards to a comment above, that men usually or almost always overestimate their ranking. Well, for starters, that may or may NOT be true. Males from a particular background might be more inclined to overestimate their rank, whereas males from another might the other. Those over and underestimations are often considered along the lines of race, and that is its own question, but there are much more subtle and interesting issues in that vein.

    A man – or a male – finding his place in the hierarchy. This theme is at the very center of social organization and the role of culture in its development. But more than that, it is at the center of every man’s life. Well actually it is NOT at the center of a man’s life – only a nutcase fuckhead psychopath would say that (hey, know any of those?) – it is only the first step on another journey. It is only when a man knows where he stands, that he begin to appreciate other things.

  23. Where was i … yeah, in the spirit of fun, wherein we compare our dick sizes and bench presses and iqs – and above all those things is our Rank. Well dick size bench press and iq are more or less objective measures. If i say my dick is six inches? well a man can measure his dick. With a tape measure. If a man says that he can bench 450 pounds? well he either can or he cannot, and unless he is schizo he knows whether or not he is lying. And if a man says his iq is 110? we are likely to believe him.

    But when a man, even a poster of long-standing and credibility, offers up his rank, well this is a bird of a different color. And this is the original point i wanted to make, but sadly fatigue sets in.

    I would like to give it another go, to dwell on the difficulties of evaluating the sensitive interpersonal matter that is estimating one’s rank. Though certainly it is a topic best left alone, and certainly a fool’s errand. Rather than dwell on it, get to work, and all that.

  24. Though certainly it is a topic best left alone, and certainly a fool’s errand. Rather than dwell on it, get to work.

  25. I met a classic Gamma yesterday. Was at a brew pub with two friends. The bartender (good guy, solid Beta with razor sharp wit), who knows one of the guys I’m with, is joshing around and busts my friend’s balls about the beer he ordered, all in good fun, and my friend rolls with the punches.

    So this patron nearby, maybe mid-30s, overhears the banter and chimes in with some lame rejoinder at my friend’s expense. I give him this “who the fuck asked you” look and he drops out of the picture. But later, the guy (who is still nearby) is talking with the bartender and reveals something unusual about his background that I relate to. So I strike up a conversation with him (we were both reasonably sober), which he enthusiastically pursues. However, he says something passive aggressive that I let slide but it irked me nonetheless, and he was averse to eye contact. His vibe… wasn’t exactly irritating, but I quickly lost interest in talking with him. He was at turn too enthusiastic about the convo, and too try-hard cynical. I ended the chat and turned back to my companions.

  26. I think much of that ‘type’ labeling is predicated on one living a more-or-less straight or ‘yuppie’ lifestyle; I mean, i can imagine heirs, scions, pop stars, industry big wigs, even dope dealers, sending such indicators askew, ‘cuz their particular angle or fortune re-arranges the chart rankings absolutely.
    Conversely, I’ve seen charismatic but dirt-poor types pull primo puss as well —— these are usually the calculatedly ‘oblivious artist’ types, which to me is a more impressive feat than some form of fronting your money as a lure. (I mean, what about valley sunken-living-room parties in which you might find suburban girls-gone-wild fishing knotted dime bags out of dealer’s ass-cheeks? Are those guys ‘Alpha’??/ lollzz.)

  27. Don’t heirs, scions, pop stars, industry big wigs, even dope dealers have psychosexual profiles?

    Kurt Cobain was fucking Courtney Love; I did better at my lowest. Jeb Bush’s family life and political forays on the big boy stage telegraph loooooser. For fictional dope dealers (but useful as lifelike illustration), Walter White, the Emperor of Meth but Gamma to his core, has a mousy Latina school principal recoil in disgust when he leans in for a kiss.

  28. Are those guys ‘Alpha’??/ lollzz

    So are you now fucking with me? I am reading it that way. One, you have been made aware in this thread and in response to your direct questions that “Alpha” means two different things, depending on whose scale you are using, and yet here you are mocking me with your ass cheeks fantasy. Two, what purpose does “lolzzlz” serve other than to inform me that you are not taking the conversation here seriously? Why are you here?

  29. Lollzz! Okay, my gracious host I’m sure you see i’m being none-too-serious, and so, yes, I’ll agree, as i said i’d chill a bit after that blowout with thor the other day;……MGE, nice to hear from you; hope all’s well.

  30. No! (just saw now your last comment). Not at all!!!. (mocking the follies of MY youth; the world of junkets by day, after-hour soirees by night)…..and i was sorta asking sarcastically: are such rather ignoble characters ‘alpha’? ….. it was not at all intended as smirk toward anyone but myself.

  31. I think much of that ‘type’ labeling is predicated on one living a more-or-less straight or ‘yuppie’ lifestyle

    Has this guy paid attention to Anything written in this part of the web, over the last five or ten years, because comments like the above would indicate not.

    How many times has it been remarked that the top alphas are often criminals and otherwise bad men. 50 million or only 500 thousand times, has it been so noted?

    I don’t know what to say, besides what i said the other day. Here is some friendly advice, nikcrit. If you don’t want to be a spinning monkey, you will have to do better. Start by matching the tone. Your “lullz” are out of place. Who else is doing that, who else is commenting so much. Who else has so many errors in their spelling and grammar.

    In this format, someone’s status is determined by his performance.

    In my previous post I brought up the topic of how it is difficult to estimate one’s own real life Rank. But as a contrast – it is EASY to estimate the Rank of another poster on a blog. So here is a fun game but it comes at the cost of hyping a monkey’s manic self-regard. But hey, let’s play.

    What is nikcrit’s rank on the web?

    Gamma but with this oh so important gradation: THIS CLOSE to Omega.

    Here is some advice. Match the style of a conversation. It shows respect for the participants. If that convention is not followed, it indicates a marked status difference between he who is not in line, and the group. Either a) he who is not in line is much above the group (in status), and knows that they will be grateful just to have him around; or b) he is much below the group and is belly up and wants to be accepted.

    In the case of nikcrit’s performance, it is both a and b, with that wearisome Gamma passive-aggression in the form of “lullz” and too much self-regard, and when which called upon, trying to pass off as playfulness cannot conceal their arrogance and contempt.

  32. and when which called upon, trying to pass off as playfulness cannot conceal their its arrogance and contempt.

    That possessive pronoun properly refers to a single character, the very one in controversy, and so has to be correct.

  33. it was not at all intended as smirk toward anyone but myself.

    This line again. When called upon, then it is “not … intended toward anyone but myself” – textbook passive-aggression.

    We heard this same from him the other day, in response to a comment of mine about John Denver and Kenny Rogers, where nikcrit went into a hysterical laughing fit, and i called him on his arrogance, and then he insisted that he was only laughing at his inability to appreciate such music because of his background.

    Same pattern – arrogant condescension and when called upon, insisting that he was joking at himself.

    If he were joking at himself, then why does it not seem that way.

    Passive-aggressive. Shut the fuck up, nikcrit. You are an Omega here, a nobody.

    you explained your dual ‘alpha’ definitions; i noted your logic and didn’t think twice about it.

    How much arrogance can be contained in a single sentence.

    Too much. Too much.

    Is there a lower rank than Omega?

  34. Without wanting to get worked up into a soap opera drama, i think his game is pretty clear now.

    He is here to insult us. Somehow he is tolerated, but now that his true motives are revealed, that is about it.

    I suspect that he himself is confused on his own motives. And in that capacity is not unusual. And for that reason alone there might be allowances. But any allowances made would have to require some soul-searching.


    Directed at no-one in particular: Dipshits and Losers are the worst. No one wants to be around them. But they serve a purpose of learning how to deal with them.

    I still am learning, how to deal with those people. In reality, they cannot be ignored. They have to be shut up beat down, or otherwise contained. I don’t actually think that retards and ugly spergs should actually be beat up – but their behavior has to be constrained – or they have to be corralled.

  35. All that seems pretty vicious. I don’t know.

    I think that nikcrit has contributed, all in all, for sure. My intent is not to drive him out.

    But as for an impression of how his posts are coming across, see above.

  36. @PA

    It’s often said thart ‘chicks dig bad boys,’ but that doesn’t necessarily translate into “bad boys are alpha’; alphas are often described as having vocational success….

    Either way, that was weird yesterday; i was really enjoying the flow, nursing a mild cold, sipping my cabarnet, writing some memos and switching back-n-forth to this site…also was nice reconnecting with MGE —–and then: BAM!!

    There was no insult whatsoever in that alpha reference; but given that perception often equals reality on blogs, I regret the exchange nonetheless.

    elk: your hyper-detailed and two-faced ‘yes-manning’ is annoying, to say the least. Back at SOBL, you used to stand up in my defense under your regular avatar —– and the call for me to be banned under thinly-veiled pseudonyms (e,g, people for sunset blogs); and your petty bitching and feud-mongering and drunken rants get tired. If i were the blog host, you’d be banned after 8 p.m. every night. all-in-all, you can dish it out but you can’t take it……

    I’m not here to insult anyone; elk’s interpretation is par for the course: incorrect, lame and self-serving.

  37. Back at SOBL, you used to stand up in my defense under your regular avatar —– and the call for me to be banned under thinly-veiled pseudonyms (e,g, people for sunset blogs)

    That is a lie.

    Either retract it, or we are done.

  38. Good riddance.

    For the record: nikcrit will not link to anything that backs up his assertion. Hahahaha

    Character speaks for itself.

  39. To the host, PA –

    Please consider the following sequence of events.

    nikcrit slandered my internet character, with the following statement:

    Back at SOBL, you used to stand up in my defense under your regular avatar —– and the call for me to be banned under thinly-veiled pseudonyms (e,g, people for sunset blogs)

    That is a clear enough statement, it is untrue, and it is a lie. I asked nikcrit to retract it as such. His response was:

    Google it yourself; you wrote it.

    The untrue statement (the first italicized selection, above) was made by nikcrit, and he will not link to, nor will he otherwise provide evidence for, anything that backs up what it contends.

    And so I request that nikcrit be branded a liar.

    What say you?

  40. [NB: Omega ‘enter’ key fail, I guess . . . ] During the Altamont concert, as the “bad vibes” escalate and the Hell’s Angels get out of control, Jagger repeatedly attempts to gain control of the situation, cajoling the audience, attempting to assert control over the Hell’s Angels, etc. The band keeps starting up and stopping as Jagger sees mayhem, begins addressing them again . . .

    Obviously it was an intensely trying situation which might challenge the authority of, say, a military professional; but all the same it’s frightening to watch along as one realizes the charismatic rock demigod really has no control over the situation. Jagger is reduced to thinly-disguised pleading, like a substitute teacher with an unruly class, saying something like “Chill down!” or “We’re not going to finish this song for you unless you all behave . . .”

    Supposedly the British establishment was half-seriously concerned for a few years that Mick might lead some sort of Revolution and bear all London away. But apparently that wasn’t the case.

    Mind you, as Camille Paglia has noted several times, Jagger has real business acumen, and when the band was in crisis found his innter “Apollonian” leadership style, managing to pull Keith and the other “at-risk” members out of their drug-induced free falls enough to keep the Stones together as a functional, profitable, and sometimes interesting band.

  41. –John Lennon, iirc, in the last years of The Beatles was fond of the passive-aggressive move of reminding his bandmates that he’d rather be a Rolling Stone.

    That’s an odd hankering, considering there’d be no real place for him there, that The Beatles were by no means exclusively making the sort of “pop” records he disdained (and resented Paul McCartney for); and of course, that Paul himself was the primary driver behind some of the Beatles most aggressively rock tunes.

  42. @elk: shut up, you insufferable whiney bitch. I’ll provide the link when I get home to my laptop, even though you already know the link that’s coming…. Go workout or do something else productive between trips to the beer depot, you lager lout…

  43. Yeah i know the thread.

    nikcrit was REVILED on it.

    If he doesn’t link to it, i will. He was REVILED on it. And wait until you see by whom. And he wants to link to it. Spin, monkey, spin spin spin monkey spin.

    Please nikky, link away.

    And i ask anyone interested (and that will be a dwindling number – i know these feuds get tedious) – Please do have a read.

    And on the technical charge of calling you to account, as a liar – it stands, kid. If you had half a brain, you would know – but can’t evaluate things requiring reason, at least not at a level.

    nikcrit calls himself an ex-professional writer. Ha, Exhibit A on standards in contemporary journalism. This was their guy.

  44. The problem Elk is that “radical autonomy” is still YOUR operating paradigm (BECAUSE wS is not) and therefore your fundamental complaint is merely a more radically autonomous Nikcrit than yourself.

  45. This is from the to-be-linked thread,

    Now selfishness and narcissism are in deed thought and every which way, problems of the age, which might be argued in defense of the character in question. As a defense though that will not be effective because however common deadly defects might be, they are not sought after or desired; at least not by other people.

    But still some degree of these flaws has to be allowed for; and in themselves they are not fatal. They become fatal when they are combined with malevolence. Now on the question of whether the character in question in guilty of such a transgression as that?

    Interesting style, and style it be – obviously NOT from nikcrit! hahahaha

    Imagine nikcrit writing a post about narcissism. The mind boggles. He comes here (and was there) for a validation.

    nikky, there is no one to validate you. You have no people. Go back to your middle school and the emerging half-race that you proclaim.

  46. @elk: here’s the thread; i was up and about and it’s hard for me to cut-n-paste via smart phone:

    I contend you authored the second and third comments in that string; there’s only one possible person who could verify it, and if sobl himself tells me someone else authored that second comment in the string, i will rescind my accusation (tho he once told me he could not verify e-mail addresses of commenters, when the infamous ‘alces’ was hounding us re. brazilian mulattos. But it’s my understanding that blog moderators can verify addresses, etc.

    Overall, no need for your juvenile insults (calling me a monkey! what’s next? Jungle Bunny?) Or questioning my past as a newspaper critic and magazine writer (I’ve revealed enough in which anyone who really was determined could probably reveal my identity; i’ve written in your daily newspaper, elk).

    Here’s the real issue at hand: I made a comment. PA interpreted a certain way. I countered by saying he was mistaken and then stated what i contended was my real personal intention to the remark.

    The discussion was between ME and HIM, not YOU. But, like a eager little bitch looking for adult approval, PA’s angry rejoinder to me was your prompt to pile on and tear into a three-comment bitchfest toward Nikcrit, as if you don’t have the balls to stand up to anyone on your own merits.

    He STILL hasn’t spoken a word in response to this little hissy fit, but you’ve decided to review, interpret and defend his contention and my initial intention behind MY remarks.

    Overall, i like what i like of what you say and have said as much; but in general i’m unimpressed by your type, which i subjectively would say is the self-glorifying ‘beautiful loser’ archetype, in which we’re all supposed to marvel over your drunken Irish bard-like talent, and forgive the excesses. You remind me of Shane McGowan but sans the fame.

    No biggie. that’s cool. Just not my type. Now I humbly request we simply disengage.

  47. Thor,
    what other blogs might you comment on; i wouldn’t mind resuming some of our rather idiosyncratic racial archetype debates and discussions? But i feel it’s a bit rude and out of place here, while there’s also been some recent obstructions by other commenters.

    You and I got a bit excessive a few threads back; i’m interested in what peterike aptly called our sorta grad-school type discourse, but i can see others not being so enchanted with it. i felt our stretching it out got a bit intrusive here.

  48. I can see commenters’ email addresses and IP numbers (which allow me to i.d. the commenter’s cable or mobile data provider and provider’s city/state if I feel like looking that information up to confirm a multi-device, multi-identity troll, for example), but I’m on WordPress. I don’t know what SOBL can see on Blogspot.

  49. I consider my exchange with Nikcrit from last night resolved. I give more latitude to some kinds of excesses, less to other kinds.

  50. Very few people care about another internet feud, except those involved. And i would rather not (care), either.

    I would ask PA if he wants this to be the nikcrit show. In this corner of the web, two of the best participants gave him the axe: hardscrabble at GLP, and SoBL at his blog. And nikcrit might like to think it is because he is black, but it is not, it is for the reasons i listed above. A condescending and passive-aggressive attitude, megalomania and narcissism – and to top it off, a very low signal to noise ratio. And then to top that off, difficulties with the basic mechanics of putting up a post. What’s not to love?

    But all that aside, he still serves a purpose. He can motivate people to make a point.

    nikcrit and this character here do not get along.

    Why does nikcrit dominate this blog? Forget about me, PA – might not there be others, young guns, who would carve out some space on this generous platform, had they some room?

  51. I am compelled to address this.

    I contend you authored the second and third comments in that string; there’s only one possible person who could verify it, and if sobl himself tells me someone else authored that second comment in the string, i will rescind my accusation (tho he once told me he could not verify e-mail addresses of commenters, when the infamous ‘alces’ was hounding us re. brazilian mulattos. But it’s my understanding that blog moderators can verify addresses, etc.

    So basically nikcrit is making unfounded accusations, otherwise known as throwing shit.

    Obviously SoBL is not going to get involved on that level. Get real.

    nikcrit does typical shitlib tactics – throw around accusations, and maybe some stick.

    Anyone interested, please have a look at that thread – which is epic in its own way, and necessary reading for the two or three people who might care about this here little soap opera battle – have a look and make your own decision.

    I made the third comment in that thread. It is under this handle. The second comment is by a poster called “people for sunset blogs”, which poster decries that nikcrit is ruining the place.

    Imagine that, another poster tired of nikcrit and his comments! what are the odds.

    PA also participated in that thread, and had some things to say. nikcrit wanted to remind of that too, for some reason. It doesn’t do anything for his case.

  52. Hi Elk, I’m somewhat hands-off in the comments section because I conceive a blog as a dialogue between the original poster (me) and readers/commenters, who add to the original post, correct its occasional blind spots, or take my thoughts in new and interesting directions. I value you especially for that last element, “taking it in new and interesting directions.” That’s what you do at your thoughtful and inspired moments.

    This blog has one to two hundred unique readers per day — with big spikes when a major blogger links to me or tweets one of my posts — all over the planet, and they are reading my material, as well as yours. What we write here is interesting to a small but growing number of people all over the world. You (Elk) reach more people with your comments here than you’d have if you published something in an obscure magazine or a non-bestseller book. In other words, what you write matters.

    Where I step in, is where I see sand being poured into the gears of the discussion. Nikcrit has been polite here and at his best, he moves the discussion along or provides contrary or devil’s advocate input. Given the matters of identity, he lives in a different reality than you and I do, and there is an entire existential conflict of interest we’ve locked horns on in the past. I recently asked him to stop talking about off-topic race mixing, and he complied. Last night I perceived disrespect for the discussion and rebuked him, and that matter is now settled.

    I will continue to step in where things in the comments either annoy me or where I think the readers of your comments will start yawning because your better comments are drowned out by passive-aggressive excess, or monomaniacal-sounding obscurantism, for example.

  53. @PA some Gammas I know: I invited a gamma to a party I was holding with a major performer. I never really trusted the guy but he’d asked me to dj once. He comes to my party as my guest, hangs out with all the girls, drinks my wine, leaves without thanking me then writes a passive aggressive post slagging off my artist. I write him privately calling him out asking; What did we ever do to you? He lamely tries to defend but eventually pulls down the post. Ignores me since. I wish him a happy new year just because…he can’t make eye contact or muster the balls to say thanks.

    Another Gamma: tries to undermine my event, the publicly pretends to support it.

    Gammas have very BPD Waif-like characteristics: angry, passive-aggressive, but when you call them out they pretend they are on your side. Duplicitousness is a hallmark of Gamma behavior.

  54. Walawala, learning about Gammas was a breakthrough for me. They are toxic, but as you note, they are paper-thin.

    Looking back early in my career, I worked with a highly intelligent colleague, older than me and much more experienced in our line of work. I genuinely respected his intelligence. One late afternoon, I said something small-talky and he zinged a thinly veiled insult at me. I let it slide off but he followed up with a stronger insult. Bewildered, I walked around to his desk and stood over him — not menacingly (I was bigger than him) but seeking an honest clarification on what the hell is going on and I asked him “what exactly are you trying to tell me?” — and to my surprise, he shrunk back in his chair dropped his eyes, and started stammering some backpedaling words. Looking back, the guy was gamma as hell.

  55. Nikcrit…

    Eradica is a good spot for the “white” lone wolves who fashion themselves rival radical autonomists to the zeitgeist and BELEIVE eradication of the “preachers” of AwS is a wholly necessary first step.

    WinstonScrooge is a “self-annihilation for salvation” liberal “Christian” that provides a fine example of what the alt-rite will tell you about deracinated “Christianity.” We did an extensive back and forth illuminating the necessity of conversion from liberal “Christianity” to wS in order for both the white race and Christianity, as the white race has revealed it, to perpetuate.


    You’re wrong about Nikcrit in the same way César Tort and Tanstaafl were wrong about Lawrence Auster. .. Purposely so. Nikcrit, like Auster, is seeking genuine wS… And you good old “white boys” ARE NOT. It stings, but absolutely fixable. It’s that pride thing though.

  56. Thordaddy, interesting way of tying Nikcrit in with Lawrence Auster. Ten days before his death, Auster wrote a short post titled “My Highest Beliefs.” It said:

    I have had this thought going back decades.
    I believe in two things: God, and white Western civilization.

    I consider Auster a mentor. He and I exchanged a large number of emails circa 2004 when I was new to right wing politics. At my request, he gave me a very valuable pointer on how to write effectively about controversial things.

  57. “I made the third comment in that thread. It is under this handle. The second comment is by a poster called “people for sunset blogs”, which poster decries that nikcrit is ruining the place…..Imagine that, another poster tired of nikcrit and his comments! what are the odds.”

    Not to prolong this tangent, but i do have one final question in this matter before (i promise) to gracefully bow out: elk, I can’t tell by your rather carefully painstaking wording: did you or did you not author the comment in question by the avatar “People for Sunset Blogs?” …… Just asking.

  58. PA….

    It was that very same quote that prompted my email to Mr. Auster asking him that if he were to not call himself a wS (which he was in the absolute sense as substantiated by that quote) then he at least not publicly speak ill of the purposely maligned label. He understood very clearly the crux of my argument, but nonetheless held to an ethnic Jewish bias. He knew and I knew and we settled it there. Because after all, his acolytes turned most venomous critics HBDed his “ethnic bias” right into his very person and then used it against him instead of accepting what they claimed was inherently insurmountable. In short, Lawrence Auster, ethnic Jew, converted to wS in all but name while the Torts and Tanstaafls have yet to convert even at this darkest hour.

Comments are closed.