UK Met Police Chief incites violence

Vox made an interesting post on Chris Langan.

It’s definitely worth a read.

I find it interesting primarily for reasons of philosophical intellectual differences I note between people of high IQ.

It’s the one place where the uniqueness of a human mind can become really quite interesting; if you’re into noticing such things anyway, which I am. A little explanation of what I assume is Vox’s general perspective, as well as how mine differs follows, all of which is merely a preamble to explaining what I think are the differences in how Vox and myself rate Chris Langan; allegedly the smartest man on Earth.

Vox’s SSH is the result of his observations of men within various social settings. Whether he was influenced by the PUA nomenclature or even their theory or not is unknown to me and somewhat irrelevant. The process of evaluating other men en masse is a relatively natural one, at least for men who are essentially unconcerned with other humans for the most part, aside how to mostly be left alone by the vast majority of them. I.e. what Vox has labelled the Sigma.

His version is far more detailed and specific about the sexual aspect. My own version of the SSH is something I came up with long before Vox’s version or knowing anything about him or PUAs. I talked about it before, along with a version of the female SSH I came up with much later.

The point I find interesting is that Vox’s version of the SSH is indeed more detailed and more clear in defining large swathes of the male population, but I think his generic motivation for noticing is probably quite different from my own.

I can’t speak to his motives but I would assume they are rather rarefied and somewhat detached from any specific issue. It’s more the approach if a butterfly collector I would assume.

My own version was far more akin to the intent of a hunter, identifying potentially dangerous animals, generic ones that may be useful or irrelevant and other hunters, which likewise could be dangerous, useful or irrelevant.

As a result, my version of the SSH only had three types of men:

Alphas: The natural leaders in a group. Generally my perspective is taken mostly from a very primitive and physical aspect. My Alphas differ somewhat from Vox’s in that I was primarily concerned with the physical alphas. Some captains of industry that are Alphas in every other respect, become practically irrelevant when the SHTF in a physical confrontation. This was probably a combination of growing up mostly in rather primitive societies, doing martial arts pretty much from the time I could walk, and working in close protection in South Africa for some years. The Alphas in this world can literally lead gangs, have other men do violence on their behalf and so on.

Betas: pretty much everyone that wasn’t an alpha. A very few may be technically proficient in physical confrontations, but this generally limits itself to the individual level, and I became relatively proficient at not worrying too much about any confrontation one on one quite early in my life. I was, of course, aware of there being a large variety of sub-categories in this one, but my approach was to deal with each type as they came up. Some were useful, (bravos) some annoying, (gammas) some irrelevant (omegas) and most a mix of the above (deltas) that could be useful, annoying or irrelevant depending on the specific situation, but overall, as a class they were not dangerous in general terms.

Scouts: my own class. These could be unpredictable and dangerous if you got on their wrong side, for whatever reason, and if dangerous could be a far more formidable enemy than an alpha even if generally they would not have anything like the social resources of an Alpha. They also tend to be chamaleontic and able to infiltrate other cultures or societies more successfully than any other type.

The Chris Langan’s evaluation

Vox’s is in keeping with his way of seeing the world. He gives Langan his due stating it is clear that the man is smarter than he is, yet notes rhat Langan’s lack of success with women is also a fundamental aspect of his mostly Delta status. And I think this is entirely correct. Langan’s biggest chip on his shoulder is that no one is smart enough to evaluate his grand theory of everything, (CTMU) and paradoxically, that no one is giving him the accolades he deserves. Which is fully in keeping with a Delta’s concern for being respected for their work as well as having someone tell them what to do.

As for having the thought that most people are too dumb to follow my ideas, that’s nothing new to me either. I published my concepts on The Face on Mars, Systema, the Catholic Church and Catholicism, and relationships between men and women, and then, once done, I can’t even be bothered to self-promote enough to make even a modest living from it. Which is the difference between Langan and myself, regardless of IQ.

More importantly, from my perspective, I don’t rate Langan at all on any scale that I care about.

Whether he is more or less intelligent than I am is irrelevant from my perspective. What I look at is his effectiveness. And in this respect I believe he is essentially a non-entity. I don’t mean fame-wise or even society-wise. I mean on a personal level. And while I am not in Langan’s head, I think it’s fair to say that it is fairly obvious he is far from pleased with his achievements in life, by his own metrics, whatever those are.

And he certainly is less successful than I am by my own metrics.

* He does not seem to have fathered any children (at least not that I could find any evidence of it)

* He seems to have been unable to let go of the resentment built up over his hard childhood (something I managed though I think his situation was far harder than anything I had to endure)

* I believe he is not wealthy enough to have at least a comfortable life, I may be wrong on this, but given it’s just him and his wife it seems to me he is still chasing fame and fortune in his 70s.

He also had a very hard childhood, so I am not denigrating the man, I am merely stating what are objective facts as I see them.

I also read his CTMU and frankly, it is nothing revolutionary. First of all he uses a lot of unnecessarily convoluted self-defined language in a dense format. This is both unnecessary and a sign of some degree of showmanship.

While creating neologisms for efficiency can be useful, packing a half-dozen of then in every sentence or two is not the way to be efficient. Nor the way to be understood by people you deem to be a lot dumber than you are. My IQ was measured at 152 and 157, but none of my books are anything that is too complicated for a person of normal intelligence to follow.

Could I make the books shorter? Sure. Probably by 80%, but then the number of people that could appreciate them would be minimal. In fact, one of my better achievements is Believe! Which at only 98 pages has nevertheless resulted in over 100 people getting baptised into Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka actual Catholicism).

Vox also rated Jordan Peterson as smart (which he is technically, with an IQ in the 120-130 range) so he is entirely correct, but I have largely ignored the guy because he is clearly an only partly sane occultist, pathological liar and grifting conman.

Vox’s more highbrow perspective is certainly more in keeping with what society gauges as being success, intelligence, and achievement, but none of those social metrics are anything that I ever thought of as being particularly important in general, and certainly not for me specifically.

I find it interesting that given the difference in childhoods, Vox, Langan and myself also seem to have rather different ways of measuring success and effectiveness, even if broadly speaking we see the same things (covid scam, 9/11 inside job, chemtrails, etc).

It is sobering to see that emotional events that we go through in childhood may be significant for the rest of our lives, regardless of IQ. This is not news to me, as I have been intimately aware of this aspect of humanity for a long time and confirmed it many, many times thanks to the hypnosis work I do. But it is good to remind ourselves of the weaknesses we all carry around, even, or especially, the ones most hidden to ourselves.