Um, sorry, we sort of lied

Remember all that instruction over the last three decades about how women are attracted to sensitive, New Age, Alan Alda-like men who cried and did household chores and sought to understand them? Yeah, not so much:

After 50 years of feminism, women want to fantasise about dominant men.

Are you sick of Fifty Shades of Grey yet? Not completely? Okay, well maybe this can be the last word. I should be qualified to deliver the last word because (there are going to be a lot of lists here): 1) I’m female, so I can start this piece with the all-important ‘As a woman’ clause; and 2) I’ve actually slogged through most of it.

Can we please dispense with all the faux handwringing about what it means for civilisation that a very long (514 pages) piece of crap sold 100million copies? The answer is gorilla-in-the-living-room simple. As a woman, I’m here to tell you that: 1) many women like porn – particularly if it’s jiggered for the female taste (made a little prettier with a little more plot set-up; foreplay, so to speak); 2) women will buy lots of porn if it’s packaged, and sold, correctly; and 3) in particular, what women have always longed for, at least in fantasy, is the alpha male (actually he doesn’t even have to be that alpha, just attractive) who will pursue them and then sweep them off their delicate feet. After nearly 50 years of the systematic bludgeoning of male aggressiveness in every form by feminism, women under the age of 50 have had very little contact in their actual lives with men who pursue, who grasp, who dominate. Still, many women have a vague, inchoate sense that this might be very pleasant.

The lesson, as always, is this: do NOT take female advice about women. They will steer you wrong every time. You don't need to understand why, you just need to know that it's true.

Read More

The Dunham Horror's latest blunder

You know Lena Dunham must be extraordinarily well-connected, because there is no other reason for anyone to pay attention to the narcissistic child molester:

Dunham is being raked over the coals. Some critics are particularly offended by her having "equated" Jews with dogs, as the title of her article suggests. The Anti-Defamation League focused on this comparison, as well, calling it "tasteless." Dog-lovers, too, were irritated by the negative connotations.

Others are disgusted that The New Yorker allowed such stereotyping in its pages. And then there are those who are wondering why anyone should be horrified by Dunham's poking fun at Jews, when her recently published memoir revealed that she sexually molested her little sister.

Most striking about the enraged responses was what they did not include: The impunity with which women are allowed to express contempt for members of the male sex, while cloaking their own neediness and hunger for love in outdated feminist lingo.

Indeed, nobody calls them out on things that men could never get away with saying, certainly not in print.

I have to admit, I find it hard to summon up much sympathy for Jack Antonoff. Unless there is something going on beneath the surface that we don't know about, such as his family being held hostage, he is voluntarily choosing to spend his time with the Dunham Horror. And what are all the other petty humiliations in comparison with that?

How desperately thirsty can a man be to subject himself to that? The mind reels.

Read More

SJW justice

SJW justice, especially that of the feminist variety, is slow, arbitrary, and irrational, as demonstrated by Wiscon. File 770 has the eyebrow-raising details:

WisCon has reached a conclusion about the harassment complaint filed by Rose Lemberg with the WisCon committee in 2013.

The substance of the complaint was that poet F.J. Bergmann harassed Lemberg by reading the poem “Meet and Marry a Gorgeous Russian Queen” at the Moment of Change-sponsored open mike at WisCon in 2012. Lemberg felt the audience was meant to identify traits mocked in the poem (accent, nationality, academic background) with her. Bergmann denied this here in 2013 and again here in 2015.

WisCon’s Statement on Findings & Recommendations, posted March 27, determined the reading could not be characterized as harassment:

The subcommittee considers F.J. Bergmann’s poem “Meet and Marry a Gorgeous Russian Queen” to be both anti-immigrant and potentially sexist. Given the timing of the poem’s genesis and publication, however, the subcommittee was unable to characterize this particular incident – the reading of the poem during the “Moment of Change” open mic at WisCon 36 – as harassment. The subcommittee’s research has documented that the poem was written long before the conflicts between Bergmann and Lemberg began.

Despite that determination, WisCon recommended Bergmann face consequences for what it termed a “pattern of caustic behavior toward anyone she disagrees with,” which include not allowing Bergmann to attend any of Lemberg’s events at WisCon, and limiting Bergmann’s volunteer duties (if any) to “non-public-facing positions.”

It took them three years to determine that reading a poem in public is not harassment, but they punished the poet for being "anti-immigrant and potentially sexist" anyhow.

Read More

Gamma, not Omega

It appears the Chateau was correct. Andreas Lubitz was an embittered and heartbroken Gamma male, not a rage-filled Omega:

Maria told the German newspaper Bild: "We got to know each other last year on a flight and exchanged numbers, then stayed in contact. We met in hotels, but it was difficult because of our jobs."

Speaking of Lubitz's emotional make-up she described him as someone who was"nice and open minded" in public, but who needed constant love and reassurance in private.

"He was a good man who could be very sweet. He brought me flowers," but she added that he suffered from the pressure of his job, stating: "We spoke a lot about work and then he became another person. He became agitated about the circumstances in which he had to work, too little money, anxiety about his contract and too much pressure."

Maria said they eventually split up when she felt unable to deal with his growing problems and his increasingly volatile temper any more.

"During conversations he'd suddenly throw a tantrum and scream at me. I was afraid. He even once locked me in the bathroom for a long time."

German investigators refused to confirm whether the sick note, or the hospital treatment, related to depression, though Lubitz is reported to have taken time out from his pilot training after suffering mental illness before he finally qualified.

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered.

And some men wonder why women are instinctively creeped out and disturbed by grand gestures. It's a much finer line between "buying her a new Audi" and "crashing an airplane" than most people would like to believe.

As much as the feminists find it hard to believe, women are in far more physical danger from the Gammas who supplicate to them and are eager to grant their every wish than they are from the Alphas who objectify and use them.

Heartiste explains the difference:

When I saw a photo of the guy, my gut told me he was a lovelorn beta male candidate who may have flew (heh) into a psychotic episode triggered by a relationship breakup. I decided against my gut, in favor of the more “PC” speculation. I should’ve stuck with my gut. News arrives that Lubitz was seeing a therapist to get over his fiancée dumping him.

(NB: This isn’t omega male rage, a la Elliot Rodger. Omega males are sexless castaways. Beta males can get girlfriends, but are awful at maintaining relationship hand, so they frequently get dumped, what seems to them, out of the blue.)

Read More

Irrational discourse

From a conversation on Twitter:

 Vanir ‏@Vanir85
 @voxday the problem (for misogynists) is women CHOOSING instead of being wifebots or sex-slaves. it's almost like they're *people*

Vox Day ‏@voxday
The real objection is to the way so many women are choosing to stuff their faces and evolve into land whales.

Vanir ‏@Vanir85
because looking thin for men is NOT the most important thing in their life, i imagine. and good for them :)

If you want to know how to make an SJW dance like a puppet, just utilize their contrarian instincts. Once you have been identified as a badthinker, they will say literally anything so long it is in opposition to you. And they almost never think beyond reacting to your immediate statement.

One easy way to recognize an SJW white knight is how he will reflexively defend women under any and all circumstances. Think about how objectively silly his response is, it's not even logically coherent.

WK: The problem is X.
VD: No, the problem is Y.
WK: I imagine Z, and Z is good!

I don't know about you, but I certainly find it convincing! SJWs are so haplessly irrational and limited to the rhetorical level that they don't realize an appeal to their own imagination doesn't even rise to the level of logical fallacy. At this point, you already know that there is absolutely no point in even trying to utilize reason or talking to such an individual. Whether you choose to entertain yourself by kicking your interlocutor around or to simply ignore him is totally irrelevant. The point is that you have been informed that any form of rational discourse is not in the cards.

Read More

Omega Rage?

The above is the portrait of 28 year-old Andreas Lubritch, who appears to have deliberately murdered all of the passengers of the flight he was co-piloting.

"the 28-year-old German co-pilot (who was alive to the end) refused to re-open the door and began an "intentional", "controlled", and "steady" descent as he "seems to have sought to destroy the plane.""

Why he did it, no one knows yet, but it won't surprise me to learn that Lubritch was a deeply angry and embittered Omega male. There is a reason Omegas frighten women merely by existing; they are capable of terrible and merciless acts of self-destruction. You can see Lubritch is a small and prematurely balding young man, possibly somewhat overweight, his occupation indicates that he was more intelligent than the norm, and the uncertain smile he has on his face tends to indicate low socio-sexual rank.

Now, obviously no one else was responsible for Lubritch's actions if it indeed was Omega rage at work. He alone bears the blame. But it is somewhat haunting to think about how many lives might be saved each year if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.

As a 28 year-old airline pilot, Lubritch would likely have been married in a more traditionally structured society. It's not impossible that the Germanwings deaths represent more of the indirect costs of feminism.

Read More

The past has consequences

Rollo astutely juxstaposes Sheryl Sandberg's advice for women to sow their wild oats with Alphas, then settle down with Deltas and Gammas afterwards with one woman's actual experience of having her past unexpectedly disclosed to her husband:

As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.

Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship. Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.

So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.

My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.

So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.

As Rollo points out: "One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years. Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife."

It seems to me this gentleman was absolutely, if belatedly, correct about his wife's complete lack of character and he's doing the right thing by kicking her to the curb as quickly and cleanly as possible. Not only did she conceal her past from him, but now that she's been caught out, she's trying to figure out how to escape an arrangement she agreed to even though he's going beyond his legal obligations by paying off her student loans. (Is anyone even remotely surprised that a woman like this has debt?) Her Female Imperative of the right to historical revisionism and the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed has been violated, and rather than regretting her mistakes, she is enraged by the consequences of them.

Women always want to believe the past is irrelevant, which is remarkably stupid because the past informs who and what we are today. And those pasts can only be fully understood and accepted if they are admitted; lying about them is foolish because most lies are eventually exposed sooner or later over time. Not everyone is short-sighted enough to live only for today; most women don't want to be married to such men anyway since they tend to be unreliable and unable to support women and children.

Expecting any man who is sufficiently far-sighted to successfully launch multiple businesses and insist on a pre-nup to react like some drug-addled musician who can't remember yesterday or think past tomorrow is cognitive dissonance of the sort that gets Epiphany Phase women in trouble. If a woman is a slut in college, she's still a slut even when she cleans up her act, she's a reformed slut. Epiphany equals reform, not erasing history. A reformed slut is not the same thing as a woman who is not a slut. That doesn't mean the reformed slut can't be a lovely individual, or that she is a woman no man will marry, it simply means she can't marry any man who isn't willing to marry a slut. This isn't rocket science.

Once a gambler, always a gambler. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Once a player, always a player. Once a slut, always a slut. It's about the internal wiring, not the external actions. Even when one gets one's behavior under control, the wiring is still there.

And if the reformed slut does marry under false pretenses, she's a con artist, and she should be no more surprised when the man she conned no more wants to continue the marriage than Bernie Madoff's victims wanted to continue their investments with him.

Read More

Graduating Gamma 4

Graduating Gamma
Step Four: Mental

There is no man on the planet more intellectually dishonest than a Gamma, as even an Omega has enough self-awareness to avoid being a buffoon at social event and will instead stay at home and play computer games. Everything from a Gamma is a con or a presented image because behind that shell is a scared, miserable boy who uses whatever tools are at his disposal to build the Gamma Delusion Bubble. The Gamma Delusion Bubble shields the Gamma from somehow and some way ever being wrong about anything, as there is no being wrong about “something”, there is only being a wrong “person”. His identity is so tied up in his opinions about everything, including himself, that any slip-up is a catastrophe which must be avoided at all costs.

I don’t know

The second-most terrifying statement for a Gamma is to admit that he doesn’t know something. A Gamma constantly speaks of having knowledge in areas he most certainly does not. Being ignorant for a Gamma is being discredited as a person, so they will do what is in their power to bluff, obfuscate, and redirect people so others don’t see their ignorance. If you wish to escape the life of a Gamma you must learn the statement, “I don’t know” and use it when it is appropriate.

I must unfortunately take a moment to explain to the binary-thinking Gammas that no, you do not go from being a know-it-all to blurting out “I don’t know” at the start of nearly every conversation, feel the need to explain all of the time now about how you don’t know something, and talk about how proud you are about not to knowing things. You may laugh at this, but I know Gammas well, and there are some out there who will do this exact thing thinking they are improving their situation, until it obviously doesn’t work and they blame this post for their failures.

In simple practice you say this when needed and you honestly don’t know about the topic at hand. While at first glance it seems easy enough if you are a Gamma, it is difficult in reality. It’s challenging because typically you’ve already hung yourself on your own ignorance in a conversation by saying way more than you should have, and by the time you are challenged on a point, having to say you don’t know part of it means your entire argument might collapse. Think about this for a moment. If you are saying so much that if someone challenges a point, and by admitting that you don’t know about something in which you are pontificating about, it destroys what you are saying, where was your first error? It was bull-shitting in the first place. Stop making definitive statements about things if you can’t back them up with logic or evidence, unless it is clearly a subjective opinion of little matter.

Examples of subjective opinions of little matter: favorite color, sports teams, movies you like, the hottest actress. You don’t have to know why you have a favorite sports team or why you like green over blue, it doesn’t matter. On the other hand if you think we should use gold as a currency rather than fiat, you’d better know all about the subject before trying to tell people how the monetary system should be run. Gammas do not want to admit ignorance, they want to appear intelligent, so they overreach their arguments and then feel they can’t backtrack an inch.


I am wrong

The most terrifying statement for a Gamma is admitting he is wrong about something. You must start to take responsibility for your words and actions if you want to stop being a Gamma. Once again, this is exceedingly difficult if you are not used to doing it. Do you realize the power there is in the words: “I am wrong”? These aren’t words of weakness but of power, first, because you speak the truth, and second, because this truth allows you room for correction. In other words, if you never admit you are wrong, you can never correct your thinking. 

Instead of trying to bluff when asked if you know something about what you’ve stated, say this instead: “You make a good point, I don’t know.” They may leave it at that and let it go, which means you just got off easy. If they push the point and destroy your shoddy argument, you now have to take the beating like a man. Don’t whine, don’t ask for mercy, don’t lie, don’t get snarky, and don’t disappear, TAKE IT. Then, when they are finished demolishing your ill-conceived statements, you should reply: “I was wrong. I didn’t think that through very well and it turns out you were right.” Sucks doesn’t it? Think of it this way, you picked a fight with someone tougher than you and you got a bloody nose. Now, are you going to go run home to mommy crying or are you going to train harder for the next fight? If you want to know what separates a Gamma from a Delta in the Mental aspect of life it is this response right here. A Delta knows when he is beaten and will submit, but Gamma knows he is beaten and then lies incessantly to himself and others about the loss because he cannot admit defeat.

This is why Gammas hate and fear Alphas so much, as an Alpha will not relent and will keep beating someone (in a physical fight, rhetoric, or dialectic) until the other submits or it is clear to everyone that he has defeated the opponent. Everyone else in the hierarchy will submit or be destroyed, but the Gamma will never admit defeat and so the Alpha will keep throwing punches until onlookers literally start to beg the Gamma to stop making a fool of himself. The Gamma’s appeals will get more hysterical, more emotional and the Alpha will take the hysteria, form it into a club, and splatter the Gamma's proverbial brains all over the pavement to the eventual horror (or in some cases, snickers), of the crowd.

In an online environment, a Gamma can act like a buffoon forever until he disappears or is banned from a site for his actions; in real life eventually the Gamma is socked in the nose or worse when he plays this sort of game with an Alpha one too many times. I think all boys have witnessed this at least once: some little twerp mouths off to the leader of the group of boys (not a bully, but the de facto leader), and the next thing the twerp knows is he has a black eye and is running to women for protection from the “bully”. Don’t mistake this for defending bullies, I hate bullies, this is a kid being a smart-aleck towards another boy in an attempt to undermine his status, who pays for it, but then won’t accept his status after being put in his place. Since most adults never get into any physical confrontation the most common scenario you’ll see is the Gamma mouth off to a man of higher status, the higher-status man turns around, looks them in the eye, and challenges them. The Gamma will generally turn pale and try to leave the situation, or he will lie about the challenge in the first place.

Let me clarify the challenge in the male hierarchy. It goes on all the time and is a natural part of life as a man. In fact, it’s healthy, as men are much more efficient as a group when the order is more or less defined. If a Delta challenges the Alpha, he gets smacked around a little, then gets back in line. The Gamma challenges the Alpha and doesn’t get back in line, instead he lies about the challenge, insults the Alpha’s character, tries to humor his way out of it, whines when he gets smacked, swears hatred towards the Alpha, and derides anyone who makes him feel bad or sides with the Alpha. He does anything and everything to lie about not being beaten. This is why in Bizarro Gamma World they will sometimes claim to be Alphas, because in their minds they are never beaten when everyone else sees a sorry sack of a man who is thoroughly and completed beaten, but won’t admit defeat. This isn’t a Rocky Balboa-type desire to never quit, which would be admirable, but rather, it would be like Rocky, after being beaten senseless by Clubber Lan,g then running around the ring talking about his gloves not being on right, he didn’t hear the bell, Lang being a hateful and racist fighter, then pretending the fight never happened while cracking lame jokes about boxing being a stupid sport. That Rocky would be loathsome and worthy of no respect.

Make or Break

This is it, this is the pivot point in which you can go from the Gamma mentality to the Delta mentality and perhaps even eventually beyond, which is admitting you are wrong and that you don’t know things. Once again, don’t just breeze through this point, but live it. Accept it. It is much more difficult than the average Gamma can even imagine and it will be terribly painful adjustment. It is shedding the skin of protective dishonesty, without which you will be more vulnerable to start with, but eventually much stronger. Some of you reading this post won't be able to make this journey with us. I can hear the Gamma wheels spinning now:  “I’m not really like that… he’s full of shit and wishes he was an Alpha… I don’t agree with something he wrote so it’s all invalid… this is just out-of-control masculinity… he’s not being Christ like in his attitude…”, and so on. To you I offer no consolation, only this advice: Enjoy your life as a Gamma. I don’t mean this as an insult, but rather don’t obsess over your inability to go beyond what you are, and let it ruin you completely. Don’t let “what could have been” be a cloud over your existence, but rather take what you’ve been given and make the most of it.

I have sympathy here for the Gamma attempting to cross this chasm on what looks like a frayed rope bridge, but it must be done, and it will be painful at times. Be prepared for the other Gammas you meet online and in person to pounce on your admittance to not knowing something, or to being wrong. Some of them will try to shout it like headline news. They will seize upon it, they will remember it, and they will try to use it against you, possibly forever. They are contemptible and you will find, as you leave being a Gamma, that you will have to leave your Gamma friends and acquaintances behind. A very righteous anger will grow in you against men who cannot forgive, cannot forget, and lie all of the time about themselves while always being ready to point out the slightest flaws in others. The fists that ball up in your hands at this behavior are normal, and good. Men should be outraged at this conduct; you should be furious that a liar uses good (admittance of wrong) to do evil in order to make themselves look better.

The good news is that everyone but Gammas understands this and will respect you more for taking this step. Women will admire you much more, and even a low Delta will silently nod his head, be your friend, and have respect for you when you own up to your intellectual shortcomings. This is normal behavior for men who are not Gammas. Don’t expect a parade for this behavior, though, or even a pat on the back very often, just don’t be surprised when someone appreciates your candor and gives you respect for it. What you are doing is moving from a world of darkness and lies into the light of truth. Believe me, it is a much better world. It is so much better that you cannot imagine it while you are still a Gamma. 

If you are ready to make this leap, then don’t just think about it, act upon it. Look for the next legitimate opportunity to admit you don’t know something when asked, admit that you are truly ignorant about the subject, and admit that you are wrong (using those very words!) when shown to be so. It probably won’t take very long to find the opportunity. In the next part, I’m going to give you some tools to help you on your way, and some examples of how to do this in life. 

Read More

Little girls need fathers

A woman who was raised by two mothers explains why girls need dads:

Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, wrote in an essay this week that same-sex "marriage" is not the same as normal marriage between a man and a woman, that the traditional family is best, and that while growing up she "ached every day for a dad."

Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, says "gay marriage" not only redefines marriage but also parenting and that "as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy."

Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that "same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not."

"A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost."

"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary."

Ironically enough, it appears that her two mothers did a pretty good of raising her. She's married with four children by 31; many two-parent Christian homes can't say as much. But it would be foolish not to heed her words, and her warning.

Read More

The Gamma identifier

There were a lot of good guesses, many of which were indeed phrases popular with Gammas, but no one landed precisely on the phrase that I have observed to be most useful in correctly identifying a Gamma early in his argumentative process. Aquila Aquilonis came closest when he said: "I'm pretty sure the phrase is a re-framing phrase that is blatantly dishonest." Slarrow was also in the neighborhood with "I think what you're saying...."

The actual phrase, however, is "You seem to be saying" or its variants "It appears you are saying" or "So you're claiming/telling me"

This is subtly, but significantly, different than what slarrow guessed, as it is NOT a statement about what the Gamma thinks, which would be perfectly legitimate even if incorrect, but rather a dishonest reframe of what the other party has already said. What the Gamma is doing when he uses it is setting up the strawman he intends to attack in lieu of what the other party actually said.

Notice that it appeared in the Gamma example from the other day: "However, you seem to be repeating that claim again, despite having the contrary evidence up front. So, you're pretty close to providing me with adequate support for my earlier claim."

Of course, I did not repeat the claim again, in fact, I pointed out that I had never made the claim in the first place. My response: "You can't repeat that which never existed in the first place."

Then, in another post made after I mentioned how this phrase is a useful early identifier, another Gamma utilized a variant of it twice in precisely the same manner.

1. "So you're claiming that Iraq attacked Iran and started the war?"
2. "So you're telling me a coup d'etat that the British used to establish control of Iran during the days of British colonialism is justification for the medieval regime of the Ayatollah?"

Both of these characterizations were false. My response: "I wrote what I wrote. I said what I said. Stop this "so you're telling me" and "so you're claiming" bullshit. If you can't address exactly what I wrote, not some idiotic revision of your own device, then you're not tall enough for this ride and you don't belong here." This led to the customary Gamma verbal deluge.

"Yeah Ok. So the British overthrew the Iranian Government for stealing the oil wells they drilled in Iran by themselves, and the Iranians had no use for without Western Technology like cars and electric generators. Oh no! Those evil oil companies that steal the resources of backward natives that don't even know its there to make those evil industries that feed the world and provide lifesaving medicine and technology! Are you sure you're not a Liberal Democrat? Evil Oil Companies? Really? What the fuck were these Iranians going to do with this oil without Western Technology? Were they going to build another House of Saud like Saudi Arabia?"

I wasn't the only one to notice the blatantly dishonest reframing. As it happens, I never said anything at all about oil companies, evil or otherwise. All I pointed out was the simple, easily confirmable historical fact that the United States was in part responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled the democratically-elected Iranian government.

And here we have another perfect example of a Straw Man argument. Joshua invents the claim that Vox is saying "Evil Oil Companies" were behind everything, then proceeds to flail at the straw man.

And thereby anecdotally demonstrated that the use of the phrase "You seem to be saying", and its variants, is a reliable Gamma identifier, and therefore the individual resorting to it is probably an individual who merits a purely rhetorical dismissal rather than a honest dialectical response.

Read More

Alpha Mail: salute the rank

BC is struggling to respect a Gamma male:

With the series on Gammas, I was curious if I could get some advice from yourself and the Ilk on how a young man creating his own household deals with courting a woman whose father figure is the most Gamma man I've ever met. While some discussion can be had on regular, modern dating, my own situation involves traditional courtship where the woman has acted submissively towards me at every opportunity, shows every sign of feminine appeal/behavior, and then has such a Gamma father figure I can't help but act in disgust.

I generally just avoid him in every way, but the structure of courtship doesn't completely allow me to do so. He consistently sets himself into conflict with me in evasive, non-direct ways, denies doing so, denies all responsibility, and then tries to claim authority and place of masculine leadership via both credentials and his position as male role in courtship. No signs of results mattering, respect having to be earned (beyond telling me I must be earning his through submission), or any signs of real leadership aside from possibly in intellectual areas. I am baffled. I don't know how, but somehow this is the man that taught a woman to value leadership. I have the feeling he's of the high IQ, low social skills type, and able to theoretically define Catholic head of household, but completely unable to interact with men displaying such.

This is the kind of thing I thought was farce, or overexaggerated by how people operate online. Yet I've now had the trouble of having to actually converse with such men, and being put into a position where courtship puts me to gain the approval of a him sounds like a horrible parody.

There is a great scene in Band of Brothers when Captain Sobel encounters the newly promoted Major Winters. Sobel is bitter because he was ousted as the commanding officer of Easy Company prior to the D-Day jump and was replaced by Winters. Sobel disdains to salute Winters, but Winters reminds him: "We salute the rank, Captain Sobel, not the man."

At which point Sobel obediently salutes Winters, who snaps off a sarcastically-crisp parade-ground salute in return.

That's what BC has to do. Respect the rank of father-in-law, not the man who happens to be the prospective father-in-law. He has to know, and accept, that this man, being a Gamma, cannot handle authority over other men and is going to be inclined to abuse it from time to time. To which, the correct response is the time-honored one of put-upon sergeants dating back to the legions, perfect, literal, and mindless obedience.

Nothing drives those abusing their authority crazier, or makes them doubt it more, than unquestioning, unemotional and flawless obedience. Because they don't actually want obedience, they want approval. By giving them what they merit according to their rank, but denying them what they have to earn, this gradually teaches even the slowest learner that throwing his weight around accomplishes him nothing.

I'd even recommend BC go as far as address the man as sir. If he makes pompous demands, BC should, with a completely straight face and no sarcasm whatsoever, "yessir, absolutely sir" the hell out of them. He should question nothing, agree with everything; this is essentially the male form of agree-and-amplify. And he needn't worry about what his fiance thinks; women recognize this very well as an innocent form of taking the piss out of someone. After all, they are the sex that invented the game of ruling through submission.

Read More

In search of honor

Emmanuel Goldstein has a theory about what motivates white knights:

I had always been baffled by white knights – men who saw it as their purpose in life to save every woman from the consequences of her own ineptitude. Like many others, I thought men want sex, and white knighting is a strategy some men use to get it. The baffling part was that I had never seen this strategy actually work – I never saw a man get to sleep with the woman he so passionately tried to save. Why would masses and masses of men try to get sex with a method that never actually gets them laid? Don’t they realize their sexual strategy is not working?

In truth, the white knight is not after sex.... On a deep level, he feels that it is women and women only who can grant him the honor he desires. When men condemn him, it is invariably the ‘wrong kind’ of men – their attacks don’t lead the white knight to doubt himself. If anything, when men oppose the white knight, the white knight takes this as a sign that he is doing something right, because he has upset an opposing tribe – that of lotharios and misogynists. What he prizes is female endorsement, for it is only women who can say with authority that he is a man of honor, as he has been told all his life.

I find this idea more persuasive than the oft-heard one that the white knight is performing in search of sex. Too many times, I've seen men go into white knight mode on behalf of a woman they don't even know, don't intend to approach, and clearly have no expectation of ever meeting, let alone having sex with.

And one thing I've noticed is that the white knight's behavior is always about him and how he sees himself, not about the woman he is defending. So, the idea that white-knighting is just a warped and misplaced sense of honor does make sense, if one accepts the idea that honor is a man's gift to himself.

Read More

Gamma in action

I got into a discussion yesterday with a gamma over at VP. The author of Graduating Gamma observed it throughout, and even offered a prediction that panned out almost precisely as he said it would. This was his summary:

G: Makes claim about a specific subject.

VD: Points out that G doesn’t know what the specific subject actually is.

G: Admits he probably doesn’t know. (Notice he didn’t concede that he didn’t know, just probably and it didn’t stop him from making shit up about it and sticking to it.) Pontificates, claims VD is avoiding an issue, and then restates the same point again (A) a slightly different way, and makes a new point (B).

Another: Try to refute point (B)

G: Calls Another’s point laughable, sticks to point (B)

VD: Demolishes point with historical example (B)

G: Claims VD is denying historical examples. Adds *yawn* snark. Accuses VD of cherry-picking examples. Asks 7 questions only tangentially related to the specific topic. Says there’s even more questions.

Another: Points out that G is missing the big picture.

G: Says he agrees with Another but asks a question trying to undermine Another’s point. Tries to expand (B) with more problems.

VD: Points out G is playing fast and loose with terms (Gamma trait) and will demolish him. Then asks yes/no question.

G: Brings up a completely and totally unrelated topic from 2011(!) which he thinks Vox was wrong about. Dodges yes/no question with qualifier.

VD: Demands the assertion from 2011 be backed up, points out the dodge, and asks again: yes/no.

G: Brings up more details about unrelated 2011 point and how G proved VD was wrong 4 years ago about something and it was “huge”. (Gammas don’t forgive or forget!) Dodges question again, asks VD what exactly is VD asking him to say.

VD: Points out G is wrong, asks another yes/no question about 2011 topic.

VD: Adds more info with relevant quotes.

VD: Responds that he’s trying to get G to simply answer a yes or no question.

G: Admits he paraphrased badly about 2011 topic. (No admittance about being wrong. Me Gamma. No wrong.) Takes three sentences to answer, finally “yes” on the first question.

VD: [At this point I pointed out that G was now denying things he'd already admitted, announced that I'm not interested in playing Pin the Gamma to His Own Words, and dropped it. - Vox]

G: In damage control now. "It's finished, that's cool. We can put it behind us, and here's why I'm still right."

Graduating Gamma author adds: It's kinda like I imagine drug addiction would be, while you are in the middle of it, you don't think that you are doing anything too wrong, or at the very least you can control it while the people around you are looking in pity and anger at your actions. If you notice [another Gamma] did the same thing, they are so scared of being ousted from the herd after an episode they blather on and try to engage on other subjects. They have the need to still be accepted.

The point I'm trying to make here, other than to try to help Gammas see how annoying their characteristically argumentative behavior is to everyone who witnesses it, is to show how readily recognizable this behavior is to others. Gammas seem to think they're being clever and devious by refusing to answer simple and straightforward answers, by hiding their obvious errors behind their own, newly made custom definitions of words, and inaccurately rephrasing the words of others. They also seem to think they're somehow getting away with it, but the fact is that they're not. Everyone sees it. And no one is fooled.

Seriously, it's now gotten to the point that I can often correctly identify a Gamma male by his use of a single phrase of five words. I'll let you all guess what it is before I let you in on it, but it is ASTONISHINGLY reliable. If someone uses this particular phrase, or some form of it, the chances are about 9 in 10 that he will very soon begin to exhibit characteristic Gamma behavior of the sort Graduating Gamma has described in detail for us.

UPDATE: Further to the point on Gamma behavior, Dr. Torch simply couldn't let it go.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
Gamma in action: a witness writes a summary after observing the characteristic behavior of a Gamma male in discourse. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/03/gamma-in-action.html …

DrTorch ‏@TorchDr
@voxday With VD playing role of Gamma male: picks fight, loses, runs away, claims victory.

Vox Day ‏@voxday now
@TorchDr Still at it, gamma boy? Fine, we can Omega you. You're done at VP.

He can call it a win if he likes. He can call me a coward if he likes. He can do whatever he wants, but regardless, he won't be commenting at VP again. This is an important lesson in submission for the Gammas of the world. If you don't learn to submit, then you're eventually going to be destroyed when you run into the wrong Alpha or Sigma, in whatever the relevant context is. Whether that means a physical beating, a firing, or just being silenced on a blog, it's almost always a consequence that could have easily been avoided.

The observable facts are that he picked the fight. Not me. He retreated from his earlier assertion. Not me. And I did not claim victory either, for that matter. I have neither respect nor time for any commenter who insists on behaving in this manner. If you can't answer straightforward answers or admit when you're wrong, you'd better not challenge me. I don't mind being criticized or challenged, but I have no tolerance for the endless Gamma dancing as they desperately try to preserve their self-image.

Read More

10 signs of passive-aggressiveness

This are behaviors that tend to be indicative of low rank in the socio-sexual hierarchy. If you find that you tend to engage in them, it's important to note that you're not fooling anyone. People do notice these things and accordingly reach conclusions about you:

1. Intentional avoiding responsibilities, or purposefully performing incompetently to display anger
2. Procrastinating
3. Resentfulness towards others
4. Complaining about being feeling under-appreciated or cheated
5. Sulky, pouty, and argumentative behavior towards authority figures
6. Laying the blame on others
7. Contradictory behavior (enthusiastically agreeing on a job but performing poorly on purpose)
8. Displays of unexpressed anger or hostile attitude
9. Intentional forgetfulness
10. Inability to take constructive criticism

Now, obviously anyone can be forgetful or procrastinate. But this is about regular patterns of behavior. If you find yourself prone to behaving in this way, it's important to ask yourself why you are doing so.

Don't run from conflict. If you have an issue with someone, speak your piece directly and without fear. You have a right to your opinion and you have the right to have it taken seriously. That doesn't mean you're going to get your way, but then, passive-aggression isn't going to get it for you either.

Read More

Shameless rhetoric

This is an example of why it is usually pointless to engage in dialectic with a woman. Consider how much dishonesty there is in just these two sentences written in response to the government of Iran taking steps to reverse its declining demographics:

To try and control women is the opposite of fitness. It is a characteristic you only see in weak and powerless men.

It would be hard to state anything that would be more diametrically opposed to the truth. Fitness, in biological terms, is a description of a specimen that has successfully reproduced. To control women, and to ensure that they reproduce, is virtually the definition of fitness, not its opposite.

And here we see revealed the fundamental female tendency towards solipsism. Because the woman doesn't like the idea of being controlled, that is bad. And fitness is good. Therefore, controlling women cannot be fit, because she doesn't like it.

You cannot engage in dialectic with anyone who insists on redefining commonly understood terms. Indeed, that is the first sign of an individual limited to rhetorical communication.

Read More

Romance is harassment

This is probably not the way to go about reducing the number of men who are unwilling or unable to get married:

YouTube blogger and sexual educator Dr. Lindsey Doe, who blogs under the name “Doe Eyes,” recently posted a video titled “Dear Boy Who Likes My Daughter,” speaking directly to the boy (whom she doesn’t name). She said, “Dear boy who likes my daughter. I don’t like how you treat [my daughter.] Are you confused? You probably picked up messages from society about how when you want something, you have to ‘try harder, go at it, do whatever you can to get it. Don’t give up!’ Maybe it’s for this reason that you repeatedly ask my daughter out. In the halls, on the bus, and you write her poems.”

Doe, a former professor at the University of Montana in Missoula, may sound harsh at first, but she clarifies, explaining that if a girl says “I don’t know” in response to a boy’s advances, he should give her space to think about it. If a young woman’s response is “maybe,” the man could ask her to explain her uncertainty. If she wants the boy to ask her again later, he should do so later. Anything else, she dubs “harassment.”

The amusing thing is that when you immediately NEXT a girl because she says "I don't know" or "maybe", women get even angrier. It's impossible to take female advice seriously because so much of it is contradictory. The lesson, as always, is to ignore it.

By all means, give a woman who is not enthusiastic about you space. Give her permanent space and find another one who is. There are plenty of girls on the girl tree, and they make more all the time.

The reality, of course, is that this kid is probably a low delta and he's simply doing as he's been taught by everyone. This mother is an idiot, but she may be his first introduction to Red Pill thinking.

Read More

HR, we have a problem

A reader who shall remain anonymous for obvious reasons has a little situation:

I go to put my office Google account on my phone, but it won't set up right. So, I log in to gmail via chrome to check my work email briefly... and forgot to log out. [We shall omit the gory details, but suffice it to say that logging out would have been desirable.]

My first thought is to ignore this issue. There's a lot of web browsing we have to do. But yeah, I think: don't draw attention to a problem that may merely be overlooked. Then I think, better to go to the girl above me, and without giving details, explain [the situation]. This way I can control the narrative, show a little shame, and maybe they'll say they won't even look at that history.

I have no interest in the various mistakes or moral failings that occurred here, what I find both telling and problematic is the instinctive response. To preemptively try to fix a situation you don't even know is an actual problem yet is a very Gamma response. "This way I can control the narrative" is the key phrase that identifies that dangerously sub-optimal way of thinking.

The truth is that the reader is likely to do precisely the opposite, and not only fail to control the narrative, but create a situation that is beyond his boss's ability to overlook. Moreover, it assures the worst case scenario, which is that relevant people at his place of employment find out.

This goes to the lack of confidence at the heart of the Gamma. Instead of assuming that there will not be a problem, he assumes the worst and then seeks to make it happen. He does this because the insecurity of not knowing what may or may not happen is psychologically more painful to him than the consequences he is seeking to avoid.

I think every Gamma, or Delta with Gamma instincts, should watch the TV show Suits. Louis Litt embodies Gamma, and it is tragicomical how his constant efforts to preemptively fix problems he has created and control both the narrative and the flow of communications invariably makes things worse.

Don't be a Louis Litt. Don't try to fix things unless you are certain they are broken. Don't try to control the narrative, relax and let yourself flow with it. Wu-wei is very, very difficult for the Gamma, but most of the time, potential problems tend to sort themselves out without any action from those who foresee or imagine them.

Read More

The source of Gamma delusion

We all know that Gammas are passive-aggressive and argumentative. But it's not often that they come right out and admit their purpose in being argumentative:

“I am a Liberal Fuck,” Krupp wrote in one post. “A Liberal Fuck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.” Krupp then detailed the only political argument he claimed her ever lost, a drunken encounter he had with a “conservative gay prick.”

This is very valuable insight into the Gamma mentality and demonstrates why women are right to despise them as being fundamentally untrustworthy and deem them to be unvaginaworthy.

In other words, he combines unsettled ideas, opinions, and a rhetorical tone to a) win and b) cause feelbad. I think that actually, (a) and (b) are the same. The Gamma's victory metric is whoever can cause the other individual to feel worse about himself wins. This explains why he is constantly pretending to be above it all and unconcerned even when you can see that he is horribly upset and wounded.

The Gamma believes that if he admits to the truth of his own feelings, he will lose. This is why he is always creating the impression that something is "off" about him, because it is. Even more than with the social hierarchy, the Gamma is at war with himself and with his feelings. This is why they idolize Spock and human reason.

This also points us to the way out of Gamma and into healthy Delta territory. Unsurprisingly, it is a common theme, or at least it once was before Gamma creators began flattering Gammas rather than trying to help them fix themselves. Face your demons. Face your fears. Look into the mirror and admit the truth. Maybe you're fat. Maybe you're afraid. Maybe you're hurt, lonely, and rejected.

But until you stop pretending the situation is different than it is, you can't hope to even begin to start fixing it.

Of course, it also points to the best way to psychologically destroy a Gamma. Ignore his words and ruthlessly press on his insecurities and flaws, no matter how shallow. I finally figured out that this is why Gammas so often shriek AD HOM even when it's not applicable. Ad Hominem is their kryptonite. They themselves believe their oft-disingenuous arguments are worthless because of who they are, so if you dismiss them on the basis of their own worthlessness, you are confirming the truth from which they are seeking to avert their eyes.

So, don't ever answer a Gamma's passive-aggressiveness at face value. Dismiss him, and do so in the contemptuous manner you probably already feel for him. Not only will it unhinge him and help you dismiss his arguments, but it's about the only positive thing you can do for him.

Read More

1000 milleseconds

That's how long you have to make a positive impression on a woman:

Jiang and Pell saw event-related potentials – positive peaks in brain activity – in all the volunteers' EEGs around 200 milliseconds after the start of a clip, no matter its confidence level. However, more confident speech had higher peaks than unconfident speech. A higher peak within such event-related potentials has previously been associated with increased processing of information. Nearly-confident voices seem to be given additional consideration with an extra pattern of brain activity occurring at about 330 milliseconds....

When subsequently asked to score the recordings for confidence, female participants gave more extreme scores for confident and unconfident voices than did their male counterparts. This may mean females have a stronger ability to judge vocal confidence, suggests Jiang.

The EEG readings supported this theory. When played neutral-sounding statements, females showed additional sustained increases in brain activity around 1000 milliseconds after the start of the speech – a pattern that has previously been shown to occur when making judgements incorporating extra information. It suggests women may use additional, pragmatic knowledge to inform their decision on a speaker's confidence, says Jiang.

"There is substantial evidence already that women are better at detecting nonverbal cues that are subtle or that are presented outside the focus of attention," says Schirmer. Sex chromosomes and hormones appear to have a role in this, but the full reason is uncertain.

This suggests that an important element of Game is likely to be voice-coaching. It ties in very closely with the known speed with which women decide if men are filed into the Yes, No, and Maybe categories.

It also explains the supreme importance of irrational confidence as well as why women find arrogance so attractive. When a man is confident enough to openly display arrogance, you can hear that confidence in his voice. And it shows why faking it doesn't tend to work very well; put on whatever act you like, but if there is a tremor in your voice, women will hear it and judge you accordingly.

Read More

#NotYourShoulder

Dalrock reminds men that their wives are not there for emotional support:

Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business.  If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling.  The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.

Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her.  This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative.  A wife also relies on her husband for protection and financial support of the family.  For these reasons there is a limit as to what kinds of things and more importantly how, how much, and how often you talk about these things with your wife.  This isn’t because there is something wrong with women, it is due to the difference between men and women, and more importantly the nature of the roles of husband and wife.

However, this doesn’t mean you should shut her out when something is troubling you, it just means there is a balance.  Especially after you are married for a number of years, your wife will know when something is troubling you.  If you pretend that nothing is bothering you, or refuse to discuss it at all, this could be even more unsettling to her. 

Hiding your concerns is probably not a good idea, since she'll always pick up on your feelings and will likely imagine them to be worse than they are. But don't look to her for emotional support and a shoulder to cry on. She's looking at you to demonstrate that you are worthy of her reliance upon you. So be honest about the situation, but don't look to share your feelings or unburden yourself.

Your wife should be your cheerleader, not your therapist.

Read More

The Year-Long Proposal

JM asked me to address it:

Please-oh-please! write on the year-proposal guy: My wife said "gotta see this, so romantic". I couldn't stand it, it drove me crazy - A YEAR? Are you kidding me? Makes no sense any which way to me. Wife was eventually amused but otherwise flabbergasted by my reaction.

Actually, I'm not inclined to criticize a man for this sort of thing. Is it "so romantic"? I suppose. It tended to strike me as a bit of what the Brits call "taking the piss", especially if he was occasionally doing it right behind her back.

It's a bit narcissistic and passive-aggressive for me, and is both sillier and more time-intensive than anything I could ever imagine myself doing, but if the guy is a cheeseball and she's going to marry him, she's probably got more of an appetite for that sort of posturing cheese than the average woman.

It's a bit delta-gamma in that there is a little martyr complex in it that puts an amount of pressure on the young woman to say yes, but if that's where you are, that's where you are. Not every man can pull off grunting "here" and tossing a ring box at his bride-to-be, and not every woman can handle the sort of man who isn't inclined to dance on romantic command.

And this is the social media generation, after all, and what girl doesn't want something she can post on Facebook and Twitter.

Read More

Rollo's second book

Preventive Medicine is now available:

Preventive Medicine is intended to be a complement to The Rational Male core works – an important supplement, not an extension. I’ve decided that future Rational Male series books will center on that core work for reference to more specific topics. I think you’ll find the organization and direction of Preventive Medicine much more singularly focused than the first book. This is intentional. There was no feasible way to present the first book’s material without familiarizing readers with a lot of varied Red Pill topics. The Rational Male will always be the starting point for any new work.

Once again, my hope is that readers will share this book with the men they feel would need it the most. I hope you’ll “accidentally” leave a copy on a table at Starbucks or a school library. I hope you give it to your teenage nephew and your middle-age best friend going through a rough divorce. If you buy the digital copy, thank you, but do consider getting the physical copy to share with someone who wouldn’t otherwise consider exploring the Red Pill or the manosphere online.

I am often asked if I am going to write a Game-related book. And while I've dashed off the occasional page here and there, the fact is that I am simply too busy with my game development, editing, and writing 850-page epic fantasy novels to do so. And that's why it is good that there are men like Rollo filling in the gap and I would readily recommend his books to anyone who is floundering, or knows someone else who is doing so, in the uncertain seas of intersexual relations.

Read More

Alpha Mail: face to face or forget it

CT feels as if he blew an opportunity:

I just blew an opportunity to meet a potential Christian wife.  Not a carousel rider. Found her online and got an intro(facebook) from a female high school aquaintance.

Anyhow, she started with the big compatibility questions.  I told her I wanted to meet for coffee or talk on the phone rather than use this damnable chat.  She said she never dated much and wanted to take it very slow. Chat only. 

A small voice in my head says, this rocket will never launch.

So I answer the questions and sure enough she's gone.  No attraction over chat.  Big surprise. I'm pretty sick about this a) because there are very few who aren't carousel riders. b) we agree on some of the big compatiblity issues.

So I read the post on breaking frame. How should I have handled this?

No attraction over chat? Over CHAT? That's ridiculous. The truth is that she either didn't like CT's picture or something in his profile, but she didn't want to look shallow in front of her friend. So, she subjected CT to a test, which like a good Delta, he promptly failed.

From the aforementioned post: "the interrogation test is not a qualitative one concerning what answers are provided by the man, but rather, a quantitative one concerning his willingness to submit to questioning. It's binary. If you answered the questions, then you failed."

What he should have done was one of three things:

1. Refused to answer the questions and sent her an email saying something dismissive like "No thanks. Shoot me an email when you're ready to be a big girl and actually leave the house." If she's going to act like a child, then treat her like a child.
2. Agree to answer the questions with one caveat. "I will answer one question for each picture of you in a bikini you send me. Two if they'll get me in trouble at work."
3. Ignore her. When she wiggles the bait and gets in contact later, nuke her with "Yeah, I don't think so. But hey, good luck! Name a cat after me."

Any of these approaches has better odds of going somewhere than meekly submitting to her interrogation. Look, it's not that fucking hard. BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS until attraction is firmly established. Get that through your thick BETA skulls once and for all.

I repeat: BEING NICE SCORES NEGATIVE POINTS WITH WOMEN.

Got it? And being meekly submissive to them is only that much worse. Women are not attracted to nice guys and they despise submissive men. Notice that the woman didn't give a damn about the fact that they agreed on the big compatibility issues. Passing the test had nothing to do with his answers to her questions. He was already toast because he was foolish enough to submit to her frame.

Read More

White knighting a big mouth

It is amazing the lengths that some men will go to prevent a woman from being held accountable for her nonsensical words. First, we have Miss Rousey's characteristically silly assertion of her own martial capabilities:

UFC women’s bantamweight champion and all-around American badass Ronda Rousey said on ESPN’s Sportscenter Thursday that she believes she could beat “100 percent” of the UFC male fighters in her weight class.

“UFC announcer Joe Rogan has stated that he thinks you might be able to beat 50 percent of UFC male bantamweight fighters,” Sportscenter anchor Matt Barrie said. “So now this debate has started. Ronda, what do you think of about Rogan’s comment?”

"I never say that I'm incapable of beating anybody, because I don't believe in putting limits on myself," Rousey replied. "So I mean, I would have to say if you're just talking about what's in the realm of possibility of what's possible of who I could beat, well, I could beat 100 percent of them.

And then we have white knight Kevin Iole riding to her rescue lest anyone take the little woman's words at face value:

At one point before her fight with Zingano, UFC president Dana White joked he might have to make Rousey fight men if she beat Zingano easily. Again, White wasn't suggesting that was his plan. He was simply pointing out how dominant she'd been.

But that didn't stop UFC flyweight contender Ian McCall from speaking out about it. McCall took Rogan's comments completely seriously and said that Rousey wouldn't defeat a good male mixed martial arts fighter. He went on to say he'd throw Rousey, a bronze medalist in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

A good man will not lose to Ronda Rousey. I could put a judo gi on, [she's] an Olympian. You're not throwing me. It's not going to happen. I will throw you on your head. Pretty simple. And you weigh more than me. I can't compartmentalize it. It doesn't make sense to me. I know it's all talk. They compare her to [former heavyweight boxer Mike] Tyson. She's dangerous, she's good. I get it, but it's just silly. 

McCall completely missed the point and made himself look incredibly small in the process. Rousey is enormously popular and is growing the fan base. People like to witness greatness and what Rousey is doing is not only great for herself, but for all of her peers, male and female.

McCall's words are incredibly demeaning to one of the greatest female athletes in the world.

No, McCall's words are straightforward and correct, as Rousey's own mother would agree. The only one whose words are actually "incredibly demeaning" are Sir Iole's, since he made Ronda Rousey look not only small, but infantile. The good white knight is not willing to let the little lady speak for herself, or be spoken back to by others. Miss Rousey's mother, a former world judo champion, is considerably more lucid than either Joe Rogan or her daughter, as she pointed out.

"That's a stupid idea," De Mars said. "Seriously, that's a stupid idea. I'm as much a feminist as anyone but the fact is that biologically, there's a difference between men and women. Hello. Duh. A woman who is 135 pounds and a man who is 135 pounds are not physically equal."

Rousey is a good fighter. No question. She deserves respect for that. But she is a tiny little thing that any normal-sized man could beat as easily as she beats most of her competitors, and she shouldn't be encouraged to shoot her mouth of in this regard. I only go around 195 and I can CURL her weight five times. And there are much bigger and stronger men who do could do single-hand shoulder presses with her.

It's fine to exaggerate and engage in hyperbole, especially in a sport that thrives on that sort of marketing, but then don't turn around and throw hissy fits when someone deigns to take your claims seriously.

Read More

Alpha Mail: the contact-shy son

BD emails concerning his son:

A comment on your post "The Danger of Fantasy" talked of separating the masculine from the feminine. My wife & I have 5 children & we home school. We have just one boy. What I've noticed for awhile is that I believe my son actually takes on some female traits. He's somewhat petty. He's very jealous. He's very overdramatic at times. He very much cares what his sisters think about him and cannot stand when they laugh at him. To me these are feminine traits. He's around girls all the time and the 5 girls in our family (my wife & 4 daughters)​ are exceedingly girly. Is there any advice that you have or things I can to try & steer him away from this feminization? I'm the family provider so there is no way I can spend as much time with him as my wife does and by proxy his sisters. He's a big strong athletic kid but sometimes he's the biggest baby in our family & he has shown LOTS of tendency to avoid confrontation, especially now that he's playing contact sports.

It's hard for Alpha fathers to accept that they have sons of lower socio-sexual rank, even though their own behavior often helps cement those Delta or Gamma traits in their sons as they crush any sign of a normally rebellious spirit out of them.

My suspicion is that the boy's behavior is partly the result of being in a heavily female environment and partly the result of having a big, strong, Alpha father. This indicates that the father has to take a two-prong approach to addressing the problem of creeping Gammatude. The first is to ensure that he is occupied in a number of competitive male activities. Not just the sports teams, but also non-sports activities where he can compete and learn that failure isn't a complete catastrophe.

Second, BD needs to start setting him challenges in which he has a reasonable chance of beating BD. I don't mean throwing games, but intentionally choosing games where he can legitimately beat his father. I suspect one reason that he shrinks from confrontation is that he doesn't feel as if he has any ability to compete, so giving him that ability should help address the problem. Also, BD should refrain from either overpraising when his son wins or gloating when he beats his son.

Third, the one thing that should be crushed is any Gamma attempt to reframe defeat as victory or control the narrative through deceit. It doesn't sound like he's that deeply into Gamma for that to be an issue, but if it appears, it should be forthrightly addressed.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Diagnosis Gammma 3

The third and final part of GW's email:

This loosely relates to the bottom part of list about women

I've made shockingly poor decisions over the years. Going abroad with one woman after only knowing her for a month or so, given my own limitations/problems and that she appeared a little highly strung herself this was never going to work. She needs somebody who's a bit of a rock, perhaps like most women. I think my anxiety, insecurity all those things probably make most women very uncomfortable or even repulsed.

I remember an incident on that holiday that stuck with me. Walking back to room from beach, she was wearing a top but had not put her bikini top back on. A group of "lads" made a comment towards her, cant remember what it was but was to do with lack of bikini underneath. My reaction was really poor I think I slightly moved away from her, not a lot, but body language that I'm guessing is me backing down to bigger males. I also didn't put my arm round her or anything like that. Completely bottled it. She wasn't happy with this at all, and once we moved away from them she said why didn't I say something etc. I think having run this over a thousand times I should have moved round between them and her, put my arm round her, and either said something or gave them a look. Ive no idea what though. My natural reaction there seems to be back down.

We also had a "fight" where I got slapped across the face. I was boiling over at the time but had no idea what to do. I'm glad I didn't hit back I think if I had things would have got a lot worse.

Moral factors aside, I don't see what is wrong with going on a trip with a woman one doesn't know well. If you don't know her well before it, you certainly will after it. Like most Gammas, GW's instincts are bad with regards to women, and the combination of his cowardly reactions with his tendency to narcissistically overanalyze himself tends to create a downward spiral.

It's fine not to say anything back to a group of men when you're outnumbered and they are looking for an excuse to impress a girl by beating you up. But actually ceding her to them on the basis of the threat they are offering, which is what he metaphorically did with his moving away from her, was pretty bad. In that sort of situation, she's not necessarily looking for you to go and get yourself killed, but she is looking for reassurance that you will defend her if necessary. As GW surmises, the right thing to do would have been to make a protective gesture, such as putting your arm around her. The Alpha response of angrily shouting back at the group and challenging them would have been the wrong one; this is why Alphas get their asses kicked nearly as often as the lowest ranks do.

Backing down is not always bad. And there are better and worse ways to back down. I probably would have just raised an eyebrow and snorted at them myself. However, what compounded the error was when he let her slap him across the face; she already viewed him as a coward of sorts, and she confirmed it later when he let her physically dominate him too. You don't have to hit a woman back (although I would, and have), but you do need to physically dominate her and make her submit and apologize if she strikes you. The "I'm a stoic man and I don't care" routine is correctly perceived as psychological weakness, especially in response to something as openly challenging and dismissive as a slap. If you spin her around, put her in an arm bar, and shove her down on the bed or over a couch as if you're about to take her from behind, then tell her to apologize, she will not have any cause for complaint about you hitting her back nor will she view you as weak and submissive.

Another way to respond to being slapped by a woman is to spit in her face. The slap is not meant to seriously harm, it is primarily a gesture of contempt. But spitting is even more contemptuous, leaves no marks, and is probably more psychologically damaging to a woman than being slapped or hit. I could be wrong, but I suspect most women would rather be shoved or slapped than have a man spit in her face.

I also went to Northern Spain with another woman in more trying circumstances as we went in a van, on ferry, and through France. I found this very hard. Given I was completely out of my comfort zone I just ended up doing whatever she told me to do. This seemed to quite suit her and she was happy driving the van and leading the way, inside I was unravelling gradually, didn't help that French people seemed to stare at us a lot. Not sure whether her driving the van and me looking completely lost showed, may just be paranoid about that. Given she wasn't approving of me drinking on the way my normal crutch wasn't available. By the time I got to destination I was ready to burst. She appeared to have no idea whatsoever that I wasn't happy about it all. To what extent it shows her lack of perception or my ability to hide myself I'm not sure. I have been told before that I can hide my feelings well, or at least people don't realize what I'm thinking. I don't really agree with them, I think the signals are there just some people don't seem to see them. I feel like my internal insecure self is completely transparent to people.

I'll add one more thing. I went on holiday for a week with parents, my sister, her two sons and the father of the youngest boy. Again a poor decision for me to go given I know what I'm like I will struggle to handle it and end up being hard work for other people. There wasn't anything that particularly stood out but I felt to some degree like a sullen adolescent, given I was 38 this just encourages me to hate myself. My father hired a van and did the driving, my sister and boyfriend did a lot of the cooking, he's a chef. I did very little and wasn't really expected too. The only time i was enjoying myself was in the pool with the oldest brother messing about jumping on lilos etc, and playing with the little one pushing him around in his inflatable boat.

I was drinking every day bar one where I stayed in bed most of the day. I don't think I said a lot the whole trip, but my mind would be racing over and over thinking what I should be saying, or asking myself why I'm not saying anything. There was one evening where I got a bit ranty but generally speaking nothing particularly bad happened. Too me though in my head the trip was disastrous, there was no animosity but I didn't talk to my parents for a few weeks after and also stopped going out on fridays because one of the guys knew I was going and I didn't want to have to talk about it. I'm not sure why it seems disastrous to me though. Am I just expecting too much of myself? I think I should have helped out with the food more but other than that I didn't really have any responsibilities. I just feel like I should be more enthusiastic about things, take the lead in some way, I just felt like a dead weight floating along. I'd love for those boys to look up to me etc but I just feel completely pathetic. I don't know perhaps its all to do with alcohol and "depression" and I'm just over thinking everything.

The biggest problem that I see here is GW is hyper self-conscious. He seldom simply acts, but he is constantly attempting to manage the narrative. How did I come off to X there? If I say A, will that make her say B or C? He is, without question, overthinking everything. A normal Delta would love to go on a vacation with his family and have no responsibilities for a change. But since GW has so few responsibilities, it's not a vacation for him, it's a reminder that he isn't a normal boy, which then makes him feel insecure, which then makes him obsess more about it, and so on into the downward spiral.

GW is, quite simply, jumping at shadows. He is so obsessed with himself that he cannot even realize that NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT WHAT HE DOES. I would remind him to recall how much he thought about what the guy who knew he was going on the trip was doing. That's exactly how much thought the guy gave to his trip.

Of course, lets face it, as afraid as he was that the guy might ask about the trip, GW would probably find a way to be offended if the guy didn't ask, then demand to know why the guy hadn't asked about it. This is how Gammas construct their own prisons.

So, here is my advice:

• Stop getting drunk. Three drinks max per day, no more.
• Get over yourself. Your self-obsession is destroying you. Try focusing on others instead of yourself. Don't tell them what to do, don't advise them, but ask them what they think, what they want, and ask if you can help them.
• Push yourself into your discomfort zone. Compete at a higher level. Ask out a prettier girl than you normally would. Realize that failing is nothing to fear.
• Always remember that other people care no more about your feelings and actions than you do about theirs. You are not the center of the universe. You are barely the pimple on the butt of the flea on the dog that is owned by someone who leaves very far out on the periphery of the universe, just like everyone else.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Diagnosis Gamma 2

Continued from Part 1:

Are You Gamma: Part 2

"You constantly throw out flippant remarks with the expectations they are always amusing, appropriate, and funny."

I do this a lot, it seems to be my main form of communication. Is it all about having a front, I don't really want people knowing who I am perhaps?

Ive also developed a tendency to stay "mad stuff". When I say mad I mean stuff your either not meant to say, its shocking or perceived to be shocking. The only purpose in saying it is to be shocking. Not sure whats happening there but I sometimes cringe the next day when I think about it. I did that last week about something. It tends to be with people who will laugh along whether its funny or not. If I suspect people will blank me or expose me I tend to just go quiet. I find people who I regard as "real men" intimidating, they are much less likely to find those things funny and I'm going to tend to feel cut out of conversations with them. They are what I'd think as "normal". I'm not sure exactly what "real men" and "normal" is but I know it when I see it. I think its to do with adulthood and maturity perhaps.

This, of course, confirms what we already knew. The Gamma's breezy, cheesy confidence is a massive false front. He is trying to impress people and establish a false impression, which often leads to attempting to control the narrative in order to prevent the falsity of that impression from being exposed.

The solution? Stop lying. First stop lying to yourself. Then stop lying to others. And quit being flippant. It's not clever, it's seldom funny, and it tends to be passive-aggressive:

This relates to the part of the list about competition, dealing with winning and losing. I've always played quite a lot of sport or competition although nothing athletic any more. One thing I've found playing pool is Ive found a level I'm winning at and rarely go any higher if it means my win rate will suffer. If I sense I haven't got an edge then I'll tend to move away from that or play that level the minimum amount of times.

I played in division 1 of regional league, till last year, and can compete reasonably well with lower level/B internationals if I'm playing well. I've had one particularly good run in a tournament at that sort of level but played very few. Given my ability I should probably be or have qualified for B international a few times over the years. The problem is competing at that level means I will definitely not feel in control, I'm up against players my own level or often better. The anxiety levels are much higher. In the tournament I did well in I struggled to eat or drink the whole day. When I did get beat I felt utter relief when I lost, all that anxiety gone, I joked to my friend at the time that you'll never see a guy with a bigger smile on his face after losing (more witty remarks?). This along with other experiences put me off playing at that level. Just didn't want to have to deal with those feelings/emotions.

The other thing is winning at pool makes me feel good but more importantly it can give me status in certain settings. Given I don't have it pretty much anywhere else in my life being "the guy who's good at pool" gives me some level of feeling of higher status. I can only get that at a lower level where those players look up to my game. Saying that I'd never play at a level where everybody is very bad I'm not sure why though but don't think it would feel like I'm "good". Need to beat people who at least think they are pretty good players to feel the sense of status I'm looking for. Objectively I am a "good" player, but being good and ending up with a 40% win/loss record feels worse to me than going a bit lower so it will be 60%+.

Had a bustup last year which is why Ive gone to another team in Div 2. It involved a guy who's about my level. A lot of people talk about frame and his seems to be very strong. I feel like guys like him can see straight through me. He was new to the team and perhaps over estimated how brittle I am given how I try to cultivate myself as the "drinker" "banter" "doesn't care" guy. He was just joking/ribbing with me, as well as going on a run of wins while we were practicing. I bottled this up a bit but it stung a lot, and I kept it in, getting ratty over that is pathetic so feeling that way must be kept in in my head. I got drunk later on and got ranty over who knows what. Think I stopped playing week after and wormed my way into another side at the club where I can play bad, scrape some wins, and still get legend status off the guys.

I'd rather play for Div 1 side and play in the tournaments but to do it I have to know how to manage those feelings/emotions so I don't end up blowing up and over reacting (over reacting doesn't have to be outward, can just be dropping out/bottoming out of things given little obvious signals to other people). I tend to avoid any situation where anxiety will increase to certain level, but in doing that I miss out on a lot. Its likely alcohol makes all this worse, however its become a huge social crutch to me, and my whole social life revolves around bar/pool/darts.

Being a big fish in a small pond is just another way of stating "fear of failure". What GW needs to do is STOP AVOIDING FAILURE. He needs to stop protecting his precious feelings at all times. My advice is for him to go into Division 1 and take his lumps. You have to learn how to lose before you can learn how to be a winner, which is different than merely winning.

When I was in high school, my private academy was in a strange situation athletically. Minnesota had a two-class sports classifications based on school size. We were single A in terms of our class size, competed in single A in most of our sports, but for some reason, we competed at the AA level against much bigger schools in a number of sports in which we were historically strong, which were soccer, tennis, skiing, and track. That was only with regards to the state tournaments in those sports, however, our conference competition all consisted of single A schools.

My senior year, I won the conference championship in the 100m and 200m. However, in the AA regional championship, we competed in the inner city region against schools like Minneapolis North, Minneapolis South, Minneapolis Roosevelt, and Minneapolis Henry, AA schools that featured mostly black teams. In the finals of both events, I was the only non-black sprinter and I finished 5th in the 100m and 3rd in the 200m, thereby missing out on state, as only the top two sprinters from each region went on to the tournament. (Guess which region usually won those two events?)

However, the single A "state champion" was a sprinter from my conference, a guy I'd beaten in every single race we'd run that year. I even ran him down from about five meters behind after a bad pass in the 4x100 relay, which was probably the best race I ever ran. So, a fair number of people subsequently asked me if I was upset about that, if I felt I should have been the "state champion" instead of him. But I never felt that way, because I always wanted to run against the best, and in fact, I ran my fastest high school times in both events in the regional races I did not win.

To be the best you can be, you have to go up against those who are better. And if you don't, the knowledge that you didn't will always eat away at your confidence and destroy any lasting pleasure you take in your lesser triumphs.

Read More

Alpha Mail: Diagnosis Gamma 1

Inspired by the Graduating Gamma series, one gamma we will call GW for the sake of privacy contacted me and asked me to share my thoughts on his situation in return for supporting our sponsors at Castalia House. I agreed to his suggestion and I have his permission to post this on the blog; this the first part of what he sent me:

I won't bother with too many personal details, maybe another time. I'm [early 40s], single, never married, no children, live on own, self-employed.

Not a complete train wreck, anyhow. He's leaving it a little late, but the raw material for self-improvement is there.

Are You Gamma: Part 1

This relates to the first 7 points. Having a tendency to need to be right about something, also being forceful with needing to be right about it by getting louder or more threatening in body language.

Example 1 - In public house getting drunk, was with father at time. Something came up to do with war and pacifism, that sort of area. The guy I spoke to was ex-army although I don't think front line sort of stuff. I'm not sure exactly how it went but I think I ended up berating him over something to do with pacifism and how it didn't make sense what he was saying. There was no reason for me to get wound up I think I just wanted to impose myself on him, being right maybe is just getting someone to back down or submit to me? My father was trying to get me to calm down with body language. The guy just walked off eventually. 

This ties in with something about my relationship with my father. Through adolescence he never came down hard on me, mother tended to have most of the control in that regard. Played darts with him from 16-18 and started drinking then. Would get very drunk, have blackouts and embarrass myself. While he would talk to me about it there wasn't anything that firm. Part of the problem maybe was I was quite polite and quiet when sober, and also slight in build. I think other people in the team/pub didn't say much out of respect for my father, I think I would have got hit a few times otherwise.

Two things I remember vividly about me and my father. One was probably a darts night, after drinking, where I must have been mouthing off to him. I think I was effectively belittling him, I remember he charged up the stairs and I was on bed and he had my arms down and was in my face, "is this what you want??!!" Thats the only time I ever remember him getting really angry with me. Maybe I needed him to stand up to me, was begging for it?

Was about 12/13. Boys down road (slightly younger than me) had knocked on door and run away so I went after them. As it turned out they had kicked ball over wall but it wasn't ours. I don't remember shouting but asking them why they ran away etc. Appears they told some porkies to their parents and made out I "pummeled" them . Given I was never within ten yards of them this seems unlikely! A hour or so later their father came up, my mother answered door. I'm not exactly sure what happened from there and whether the guy was getting aggressive or not but when my father came out as well my mother told him to go upstairs in the attic!! So he did. I think the guy just went and there was no trouble, presumably my mother was fearful of it escalating into fighting. Feel terrible thinking about that because it seems such a weak think to do. To go along with what my mother said and climb up the ladder into attic and leave her there.

His gammatude is hardly difficult to understand. His paternal role model was weak and his maternal influence was strong. He has a normal male inclination for conflict-resolution through violence, but it has been inhibited by his upbringing. So, it leaks out in bizarre and inappropriate emotional outbursts. He's basically looking for a beating, not because he is some sort of masochist, but because he's never been forcibly established in the social hierarchy, and he's now locked into a pattern of turning to drink to free himself from the social inhibitions that have been instilled in him.

And, like all struggles against inhibitions, when he temporarily breaks through them, he overdoes it.

Example 2 - Playing poker at end of night in pub with pool team mates, reasonably drunk. I'd been playing poker a bit online and was starting to play well enough to win regularly. Again I'm not sure exactly what occurred but it related to a particular hand where, to me, what they did was a sub-optimal play and they shouldn't be doing it. I may have been ribbed a bit for this which maybe stoked me up more. I then started a gradual rant which involved me challenging him to 20,000 hands as over that amount of hands I know I'd win (I'm not that good heads up so may have backfired). This quickly escalated. I said something else more personal not sure what, which got him wound up and it nearly came to blows although broke up swiftly.

This was caught on pub CCTV and I saw it the week after. People joked about it and so did the guy involved who didn't seem bothered and was more concerned whether I would move on from it. I'm guessing grudge holding is classic gamma behaviour. One thing that stuck with me was that I was more bothered that the CCTV showed me backing away. It would have wrecked me if they called me a bottler or something similar. My behaviour up to that point was less embarrassing than the thought of being exposed as a weakling or cowardly.

I think I used to rant a lot when at home. Lived there till about 32. I don't remember ever being challenged particularly.

This is textbook Gamma behavior.

1. Pick an unnecessary fight by inserting your opinion where it is neither requested nor wanted.
2. Try to resolve the conflict in your favor by flooding the situation with verbal diarrhea. Gammas are like salesmen who think as long as they are talking, the customer isn't walking. But this is a short-sighted tactic, as eventually, the talking is going to end, and the longer it goes on, the less it convinces the other party.
3. Back down when the conflict turns physical.
4. Hold a grudge.
5. Deny reality.

The fifth point can be seen in this line: "My behaviour up to that point was less embarrassing than the thought of being exposed as a weakling or cowardly." He WAS exposed as being a coward. He unnecessarily picked a fight, challenged another man, and when that challenge was met, backed down.

Here is my advice regarding the first part of his email.

1. Limit himself to three drinks per evening. If he finds himself overly tempted to order a fourth, call it an early night and go home.
2. Limit himself to no more than five sentences in a row without stopping and listening to the other person. The rants have to stop. They are immature and womanish.
3. Go and apologize to the other guy. Tell him: "I'm sorry I picked a fight with you the other day. At the very least, I should have given you the chance to kick my ass after I did it. Can I buy you a drink?" That's it. No excuses, no rationalizations, nothing else. Learn how Deltas handle conflict. Learn to submit. Because then, when it's over, it's bloody well over.

Read More