The creation of the concept of the “sigma male” is a reflection of the fact that men who lean into “men’s hierarchy” de la Peterson / Tate / etc. often lack social capital.
This presents a problem for men who sincerely believe in these sorts of theories but are still losers even by their own made-up fantasies. You obviously cannot be a highly social and sought-after alpha when you are observably unsocial and not sought-after. The solution to this tension is the sigma male, where now even anti-social and unaccomplished men can consider themselves alpha by claiming that those are in fact desirable traits among men; or wider – humans, and this discrepancy between achieving what you perceive as a virtuous life or changing your point of view and perversing virtuosity to reflect your current position is practically cognitive dissonance.
Personal love or hatred of elite individuals is understandable, and perhaps even a byproduct of understanding the actual history of the way the system functions, but an obsession with specific individuals “on the scene” is often a waste of time. Those with a platform are most often a reflection of the platform they hold. Their transgressions against mankind have less to do with personal moral failures and far more to do with what the system requires from them. The Tates, the Petersons, the Musks, the whatevers were it not them preaching in the name of the status quo (under the guise of progress), it would simply be someone else. Such is the reality of an inherently harmful system: it will manufacture the actions it needs for its functioning.
And the same goes for my online presence. It’s excess. It’s satire. It’s perverted virtue signaling, bearing very little resemblance to my actual perception of myself. That’s why I Iike friendships based on memes. It’s a proxy friendship, which makes it significantly more sincere and incorruptible than the traditional form.
Emperor’s new clothes, but everyone is the emperor. Viva!