Forget the lobster king


For example, one of the most relevant brain structures for dominant social behaviour is the amygdala, located in the temporal lobe of primates including humans. Arthropods don’t have an amygdala (lobsters don’t even have a brain, just an aglomerate of nerve endings called ganglia).

Peterson’s followers are amygdala triggered by their failures as men.
He tells them to do nothing about this. This keeps them dependent on him. Mindless.
I might post studies to this effect….

They’re like SJWs, like the male equivalent of black power activists, desperately clinging to delusions of grandeur. Most men weren’t great, most of their ancestors were shit-covered serfs. They’re trying to take credit for what other races, culture and genetic families have done. This won’t work. The material doesn’t reside in them. They have nothing to call on.
Reality is triggering them.
The delusion is all they have. Currently.

You can’t blame the world, or your parents, or women for your personal faults forever. They’re waking up and their brain will mature, it’s a question of whether they go easy or not.

If all women reject them (and men socially, but they ignore this canary), maybe the women are right? Maybe they’re unfit? Won’t change? (Crazy people never learn). With the common pajama boy bitchiness, they need to turn gay or die alone.

I’m kind in the grand scheme of things.

This is what you need. Really listen.

Technically, if you want to be tin foil, anhedonia is protecting you from more sin. It’s your brain telling you the input is wrong, morally.

There are status replacements e.g bullying, that also ought to be discouraged. This used to happen with good father figures.

Most men cannot have status, like most women cannot be great beauties. You must accept this as a sex or waste your life.
You don’t see us shooting up schools, we get over it. Men need to drop the entitlement to have any hope of living, accept yourself as flawed humans, otherwise they’ll suffer in avarice always wanting what they can’t have.

Tantalus springs to mind. Sisyphus was useful at some point.

The Deadly Sins are aptly named.

Then again

He was punished for chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, repeating this action forever.

Cheats never prosper is true.

King Sisyphus promoted navigation and commerce

but was avaricious and deceitful. 

Ah, the twins!

Most famously, Tantalus offered up his son, Pelops, as a sacrifice. He cut Pelops up, boiled him, and served him up in a banquet for the gods. The gods became aware of the gruesome nature of the menu, so they did not touch the offering

The first Boomer.

Pagans have their limits, despite having no sexual virtues.

There is no such thing as a chaste pagan.

Tantalus was also the founder of the cursed House of Atreus in which variations on these atrocities continued. Misfortunes also occurred as a result of these acts, making the house the subject of many Greek tragedies.

You can screw who you want but don’t steal things, harm your kin or kill your kids.

Lessons for bad Boomers.

The heuristic link between respect, status and income

Spoiler: It’s a proxy for class.

…Such an intuitive emotional response to wages operates with a background economic theory, which we may never describe to ourselves directly but which could in fact be stated as follows: a person’s wages are determined by the scale of their social contribution….

Video: Hipsters and cultural capital

It isn’t fashion. It’s ideological signalling with a fashion branch. Ever met a conservative hipster?
Some of my friends and I have been confused for hipsters and these were the given reasons;

  • against feminism/SJW bullying
  • no smartphone
  • no opinions on music, no favourite bands
  • skinny jeans, however well-made
  • avoid clubs
  • old-fashioned hobbies, even if raised with them
  • reading books, seriously, I’ll never understand that one
  • no tattoos or piercings apparently because they’re mainstream
  • classical art over abstract crap

Ironically, the people who called hipster were hipsters themselves. Hipsters cannot stand originality or discriminatory talent. Whatever they produce is low-quality. They’re like that one kid at school who only copied everybody cool and wondered why it never made them cool.

Geek – fictional. Nerd – factual. These have nothing to do with hipsters although some of their symbology is stolen. A hipster who “fucking loves science” couldn’t explain basic physics or hell, The Scientific Method, offhand. A hipster who “loves Pokémon” probably means cosplay, another outlet for attention-seeking and has no cogent reasoning e.g. the points system in the game. If they know the game exists.

It is ideological. The pastiche of cultures is a fashion signal of universalism/neoliberal multiculturalism “all cultures are equal”. They want to be mocked by the establishment, it makes them feel rebellious. However, they are unreal underachievers, their status seeking cannot take the established form, and they pretend to reject the whole system. There is nothing permanent or genuine about a hipster, their principles change with unending political correctness, hence their quest for authenticity is the ultimate irony. The study of thedes is useful to understand how they stand out by blending in to a little bit of everything.

Hipsters are bland, sociocultural parasites. They are narcissists who feel nothing, turncoats who derive their power from weakening everyone else. r-type in extremis

21st century Status Games

I recc. Affluenza for coverage of this sort of thing, although the book has a heavy universalist bias. It’s like Hunger Games if they hungered for attention.

Ironically, the hipsters who appeal to authenticity stole it (cultural, symbolic) from their lower class white kin (The South in America). The hipster has two weaknesses: the objective truth, which they object to for selfish reasons, and formality, which they are incapable of embracing. Nothing scares them as much as a man in a three-piece suit telling the unvarnished truth.

But by the turn of the millennium cool had ceased to be credible as a political stance, and we have since seen yet another shift, from conspicuous non-conformity to what we can call “conspicuous authenticity.” The trick now is to subtly demonstrate that while you may have a job, a family, and a house full of stuff, you are not spiritually connected to any of it. What matters now is not just buying things, it is taking time for you, to create a life focused on your unique needs and that reflects your particular taste and sensibility. (more)
A fashion of consumerist hypocrisy. All the benefits of capitalism and none of the, like, old evil white patriarchy.

What’s next?

Maybe no one you know will read the above, and you can safely ignore it. But if you start to learn that many people you know are starting to see conspicuous authenticity as just another way that posers vie for status, then of course your community will come to not accept that as giving real status. No, you’ll start to see some new kinds of behavior as the sort of thing that people do who don’t care about status, but are just being “real”.

The Millennial spoilt middle class age group trying the hipster lifestyle couldn’t be genuinely creative if their lives depended on it. They sound, walk, think alike. #### I blame Nathan Barley.

Then you’ll start to become aware that other people that you know agree with this new attitude of yours. You’ll get more comfortable with saying that you approve of these sorts of behavior in others, with hearing others say the same thing, and you’ll notice that you feel good when other people credit you with such behavior. You and your associates will all feel good about themselves, knowing they are all good people who deserve respect because they do these things, things that they all know are not about status seeking.

At which point these new behaviors will have become your new status game. You see, status-seeking behavior must be a respected behavior that isn’t seen as overtly status seeking. Because we all agree that we don’t respect behavior that is done mainly to gain status. Even though we do, we do, we very much do.

It’s like a hedeonic treadmill for class, you can see it in naming trends. The middle class are desperate to distinguish themselves by what they do, because they are not the upper class, who are still upper no matter what they do, they don’t care because they don’t have to. Inevitably, the middle class steals inspiration from the working class, who worked hard to obtain that identity, and when a habit becomes common [mainstream], it falls into disuse, a castoff for the lowly to adopt for a few years.