Friday, June 2, 2017

This is what Gamma looks like

And why it is not a socio-sexual rank with which a man should not content himself. The banned and spammed Casher O'Neill was sufficiently triggered by the dc.sunsets Alpha post that he left no less than 13 comments in response. But the first one was the most telling.
Vox does not understand because he has developed intellectual vices that prevent him from understanding and he lacks the inclination to healthy introspection which would allow him to see and correct it. He is, after all, a formal Christian heretic. You might as well ask Arius, Simon Magus, or the Taylor King their opinions.

Glamour Shot's theories have no basis in science (or whatever crap terms he wants to make up). What they are is the product of a deeply insecure man who has constructed a system to vindicate himself. This is why he inconsistently describes himself as Alpha/Sigma and why he ignores the implications (for himself) of what he once wrote about the relationship between Gamma and Sigma. (One thought he definitely hasn't followed to its conclusion.)

Ever since he had that psychotic episode in high school where he thrashed around desperately trying to avoid being shoved into a locker (again) by bigger and better-liked boys and broke one of their noses (which he brags about like he's Al Bundy remembering his great play) he has had to face the question of whether he is "Gamma" ("But no, he spent a couple of years in a techno band you can convince yourself you remember".) Like many smart and insecure men, he discovered that defining the terms of the debate gives him power over it vis-a-vis those who don't see the need to debate. (He's like the SJWs in that.)

This is why he posts 20 yo pictures of himself that look less like a paunchy dweeb. This is why he allows his followers to attack a marine who calls him out for his unwillingness to put his money where his mouth is. This is why he attacks his readers when they grow too tall.
Of course, many of the readers here are familiar with gammas like Casher, as Stg noted:
I can see you're bitter and jealous because Vox has many successful enterprises, books, blogs, etc. I can feel the butthurt oozing from every word you type. It calls to me. It demands I give you a wedgie and shove your head in the toilet. 
Bitterness is the chief hallmark of the Gamma. They are bitter about many things, but above all, about men who are more successful with women than they are. Someone once characterized Gammas as "Alpha ambition without the ability", but it would be more accurate to say "Alpha entitlement without the attributes".

That being said, Casher isn't bitter due to my various endeavors, some of which are successful. He is bitter because I have rejected his Secret Kingship and refused to admire him for his imaginary superiority. The common gamma pattern is to fawn on someone he admires and attempt to establish some sort of "special relationship" with the admired figure. What he's attempting to do is raise himself to a Beta position with an Alpha. Sometimes, this works; look at how John Scalzi has built a very successful publishing career due entirely to his relationship with Patrick Nielsen Hayden.

Much more often, it doesn't, as the admired figure does not see anything special or useful in the Gamma and treats him just like everyone else. That's the case with Casher; you can see it in the ludicrous assertion that I attack my readers when they grow too tall. That's an illustrative combination of Gamma Delusion Bubble with Gamma Rejection Rage. But it could be worse. The worst situation is when the Gamma gets what he wants, is given the opportunity to work with the admired figure, screws it up because that's what Gammas do, and then is cast out for his incompetence. Whereas a Delta would feel bad, knowing that his failure is his own fault, the Gamma reacts with rage to disguise his own shame and self-loathing.

This is why you should NEVER allow a Gamma into an inner circle or a startup, because the chances are better than 50/50 that he will eventually devote himself to the failure of the very enterprise he was expected to help build.

Anyhow, this is neither the first nor the 20th time that a Gamma whose Secret Kingship went unappreciated has reacted this way either here or at VP. There is a surprisingly long list of them, and all of their weird little rants follow the same pattern; many of them even contain very similar insults and insinuations. Far from casting any doubts on the socio-sexual hierarchy, they serve to further confirm it.

And finally, the idea that I was ever a Gamma is amusing. I didn't have that much socio-sexual success in junior high and early high school, nor was I ever given to self-delusion or bitterness. I was definitely an Omega. But it's entirely typical of Gamma navel-gazing and projection that they can't even think of anything worse to call someone than what they are themselves.


My Dead Gramps said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
My Dead Gramps said...

Ever since he had that psychotic episode in high school where he thrashed around desperately trying to avoid being shoved into a locker (again) by bigger and better-liked boys and broke one of their noses

I generally have trouble telling the difference between gamma/omega rants online, until their attitude towards violence tends to give it away. Gammas denigrate something they never had the balls to do themselves. Omegas when pushed, will eventually 'snap' and fight back in a physical confrontation (if they don't shoot the place up first), and tend to be more sympathetic to scrappy underdogs.

Aeoli Pera said...

I generally have trouble telling the difference between gamma/omega rants online, until their attitude towards violence tends to give it away.

If you ever need to tell the difference, ask your subject "What is a good king like?"

Gamma: A good king is kind, but firm, and studies both philosophy and the arts (not like these illiterate, chest-beating Alphas today!), and reads at least one new book every week...

Omega: The only good king is a dead king.

Aeoli Pera said...

Being more realistic, the Omega will probably just seem confused.

Doug Cranmer said...

You're paunchy?

Wanderer said...

Right or wrong, gamma or not, anyone who writes multi-paragraph rants online in comments sections are fags.

rumpole5 said...

Many people would be a lot happier if they accepted the fact that other people are leading lives that are alternate and inaccessable to them. Each person is a unique combination of traits, abilities, and deficits. Concentrate on what God has given you and improve yourself. Attention spent on people with whom you have no connection (such as movie stars and like public personalities) diverts and obstructs one from improving himself, the one person he can change.

As to T. Beale, While I find his and others occasional insights into his past interesting, I mainly thank God that all worked together to produce a man who has entertained and provoked the thinking processes of so many readers, including myself.

Long live Vox Day and his dread ilk!

Ransom Smith said...

Omega: The only good king is a dead king

At least Omegas are honest.

dc.sunsets said...

I concur with Rumpole on self-improvement. One either tries to force the world to accommodate you, or concentrates on self-improvement. Today's world is "peak" the former, and as the pendulum reverses, self-improvement will rise to prominence.

Rather than take offense to what is said to or about you, reframe the experience to learn something from it. Insisting on accommodation, apology, tolerance, etc. is not constructive even if it's today's widespread reflex. There's a parallel to AG here, no?

dc.sunsets said...

So Omegas don't accept or recognize hierarchies?

Mountain Man said...

"Each person is a unique combination of traits, abilities, and deficits. Concentrate on what God has given you and improve yourself.”

Well said !

Revelation Means Hope said...

I'm adding calling someone "Glamour Shot" to my list of Gamma tells.

Can anyone think of any non-Gamma author who doesn't use a good shot of himself or herself as their public face?

only a pure Gamma like Scalzi would proudly post ridiculous pictures of themselves in women's clothing.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...


Yes, long live us! Contrary to popular belief,there aren't many Alphas in The Dread Ilk. So you don't have to be Alpha (or Sigma) to be awesome.

Ron said...

Reading Vox's blogs can help overcome gamma/omega tendencies.

Casher has apparently never watched one of Vox's Darkstreams. No glamor shots there.

Hauen Holzwanderer said...

Encopretic rageposting = gamma.

Got it.

VFM #7634 said...

I think not accepting or recognizing hierarchies is more of a Gamma thing. Omegas are able to see hierarchy, but also see the human race as a club they're shut out from. Frankenstein's Monster is the archetype Omega.

Resident Moron™ said...

"encopretic" - had to look that one up.

Always good to learn a new word.

Danke, Herr HH.

Jew613 said...

A consistent gamma tell I've noticed is long posts full of big words that say very little.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

How would Jew know???

DeploraBard said...

Well, I'm only 5'7" so I am safe

Wolfman at Large said...

This is why I limit myself to one snark per post.

Dedd Sirius said...

To put a "Game" spin on this...

What is the metaphorical "hottie bang" in the situation that Casher interjected himself?

For me, the "hottie bang" on this blog is to be enlightened or entertained (or now that I have figured out how to comment, to potentially enlighten or entertain somebody else).

Casher's rant was neither enlightening nor entertaining. It was like he walked into a cocktail party, took a wild swing at the host, missed, and then got in a scuffle with one of the guests, and then was smacked around and ejected back out onto the street.

No hottie bang for Casher.

Dalrock said...

I struggled to understand your definition of Gamma until I started noticing the tell tale delusions of grandeur in a very small subset of commenters. Now it all makes sense, including the bizarre out of nowhere accusations that stem from projection. As an example, late last week a first time commenter submitted a long rant that centered on the argument that "the ONLY solution that is currently viable is the philosophy of Islam". It was not only weird (he claimed to be a born again Christian), but off topic, so I held it in moderation so it wouldn't derail a still new(ish) discussion. I was busy over the weekend and didn't think about it any further until two days later he came back with a five paragraph gamma meltdown, hilariously ending with:

Have fun wanking over porn the rest of your lives you fucktard, as no real woman would tolerate such spineless cowards as yourselves

You got 1 chance and 1 chance only with me Dalrock, and you blew it, you are a coward for deleting my comment, I UNSUBSCRIBED from your worthless and useless blog, goodbye and good riddance

Stg58/Animal Mother said...


Textbook gamma flameout.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RM said...

Some questions for Vox and the commenters:

This describes my current mindset, perfectly:
"Whereas a Delta would feel bad, knowing that his failure is his own fault,"

As opposed to this, which was recently true:

And, thankfully I no longer fantsize about vengence, which is where I started. For context, I used to write here as an Omega, and I signed my posts with RM. They are utterly cringe-worthy.

I know I am a Delta. I am aware that improvement just means that I am a better Delta.
Because I am an introvert, I believe an increase in masculinity mean I will start to look like Sigma.

I have a growing desire, or mindset: I am drawn to challenging situations that would result in failure. For example, rejection has become motivating, and the idea of being punched makes me want to join an MMA gym.
I WANT to get knocked down, I want to fail and fail quickly.

So, is this a Sigma-like desire? And what mindsets should I expect to appear as I improve and approach a higher rank?

Megamerc said...


I wouldn't classify the desire to get knocked down as a Sigma-like desire. What I think you might be describing is just a desire to improve yourself. The idea is to try to be successful, but if you fail just move on right away. You may be trying to fail rather than succeed, which could hamstring you.

Just recognize that you're a beginner, and you'll make mistakes. When that happens, move on, but always work towards doing the punching rather than taking a punch.

Dedd Sirius said...

Three things:

Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor of California, and a seemingly rising star/chosen scion of the leftist regime, seems to bang lots of Hotties. His policy priorities are aligned with the SJW style concerns. That is, he preaches to, and derives his power from the spazzmo gamma-like hordes of SJWs. Is he an alpha male, because of his prolific trailerload of shagged-out Hotties?

Unrelated, but intriguing.... A dog can and does lick its own anus. Horses and llamas, which would seem to have the ability (i.e., elongated body and snout), do not. I prefer dogs over horses and llamas, and will happily let them lick my face, without feeling "grody" or contaminated.

Responding to RM, I think the objective should be stated differently. Rather than wanting to fail, I would recast that as want to learn. The motivating factor should be pleasurable.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Newsom and Trudeau have a lot in common.

Artisanal Toad said...


If you want to know what your SSH ranking is, take a copy of the hierarchy to ten people who know you well. If you have 8 out of 10 of them emphatically stating that you're an alpha or a sigma, that's what you are. If 8 out of 10 are wishy-washy on whether you're either an alpha or a sigma, you're probably a sigma. For people unaccustomed to the SSH, the differentiations between delta, gamma and omega are difficult to perceive.

If people who are unfamiliar with the SSH consistently identify you as a Beta, you're probably on the low end of being a Beta or a strong Delta. Many people think of Betas as Alphas because they have no experience with real Alphas.

As Vox has said repeatedly, it is the tendency of the Gamma to claim they are a Sigma. Why? Because while the Gamma is a secret king in his own mind... he isn't fit to rule. Both the Alpha and the Sigma will have their own kingdom because to one extent or another, they are fit to rule and they both do so. One within the hierarchy, the other ignoring the hierarchy, both winning. One wins playing the game, the other wins without playing the game. Both win.

I had the benefit of working as a troop handler at the School of Infantry some years ago. Every two months we'd get a new class straight out of boot camp and for 6 weeks we'd spend 12-18 hours a day with them, 6-7 days a week. After 3-4 classes it was apparent that the names changed, the faces changed, but the people remained the same. It got to the point that I could walk down the line on day one and assign squad leader billets with better than 90% success. I could also call out the idiots, the criminals and the jokers. What I found was that only about 4%-5% were actually unique enough to be interesting. In hindsight, they were the Sigmas.

The vast majority of the men were Deltas, mixed with a few Betas and a bunch of Gammas. Occasionally you'd get some Natural Alpha material. Gamma's were known universally as pricks and we hammered them. They tended to be officers rather than enlisted, but they love rules and the structure of a bureaucracy. Many of the Betas developed into Alphas, that's what the system was designed to do. Most of the Deltas became Betas. Pricks were always pricks and never changed, but we did change a lot of Gammas.

Back then, in general there were pricks, snuffies and assholes because nobody had ever heard of this SSH stuff. Pricks are pricks, what are known as Gammas today. Snuffies are the Deltas (the Marine Corps doesn't attract Omegas, I'm not sure I ever met one in the infantry). The Assholes were Alphas, Betas and Sigmas. Keep in mind that the line between Delta and Beta was fluid depending on rank and there was a system in place to support the difference. Most of this was based on attitude and strength of will. Pricks loved rank, but it was nothing but a tool (and sometimes a pain in the ass) to an asshole. The pricks avoided making decisions like the plague, assholes were the ones who made decisions on the fly and went all in.

Note- I'm not talking about Grossman's work or utilizing the leader, grunt, killer model. That exists, no doubt. That's a different model and it follows, but it's a different metric. Some of the pricks are killers, some assholes have issues with killing.

Don't worry about your SSH rank. Dominate. Win. Rule. All the rest is commentary.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

I agree with you, AT. The military is a hseful place for learning this stuff and seeing it in real life.

Artisanal Toad said...


I've reached the point that I think the infantry (as opposed to "the military") is one of the only male spaces left in which a man can learn the lessons of leadership that will allow him to deal with women. He's the NCO, they're the troopies. In most cases, they're shitbirds.

AustralianIrishman said...

How do you account for context in your model? For example, one trait shared by your alpha and gamma archetype is narcissism. When someone gets disrespected in real life they change their response depending on who disrespected them, which tells you something about their relative rank - e.g. Check out Bas Rutten's run in with Brian Urlacher (assuming Rutten is telling it like it happened, old mate seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't let the truth get in the way of a good yarn).

On the internet there's none of that so won't an alpha and a gamma look similar - they'll both lose their shit when they think they've been disrespected?

SirHamster said...

Because I am an introvert, I believe an increase in masculinity mean I will start to look like Sigma.

I don't think it works that way.

One develops masculine virtues to be the best man one can be, but that does not mean halfway masculine development is Delta and full masculine development is Sigma.

Previously, Vox pointed out that being Alpha requires Alpha goods.

"Because, remember, if you can't be as irrationally confident and unashamedly self-promoting as dc, if you're not willing to actually do what Alphas do, you're not going to be able to reach Alpha rank."

In the same way, Sigma requires Sigma goods. That includes the ability to tell Alphas to piss off and back it with mentality and strength (mental, physical, skill, etc).

Sigma goods draws men and women to follow. Vox's rankings use the number of women bedded as the measure, which is a decent proxy for your leadership ability. Your change in mindset is you developing as a man; your change in rank is measured in how others change their view of you.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...


I agree there. My first tour was with Combat Arms, my second with Comm battalions. Radically different.

SirHamster said...

Is he an alpha male, because of his prolific trailerload of shagged-out Hotties?

Vox's ranking uses relative number of women sexed to measure.

"Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+."

So yes. Alpha is not measured in ideology - just the willingness of women to sex you (which indicates social rank).

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Obama is a situational Alpha

Dedd Sirius said...

SH and Stg,

I think this illustrates an aspect of SMV that is important, and that is, that it is "amoral".

Stated another way, merely being "alpha" (a best in class category) is not equivalent to being "good" from a morally judgmental perspective.

I would assert that "Obama", "Newsom", or "Trudeau" are "bad" because of their socio-political direction. (Even though I adhere to a "for all have sinned" fundamental human equality standard.)

But they may be classified as "alpha" because of their hot bangs or whatever other successes.

In this sense, "alpha" is similar to muscular strength, or height, or other quantitative traits.

paworldandtimes said...

-- situational Alpha

My thought is that the CH scale is to some extent relative and situational, while VD's is absolute, similar to how one's neurwiring makes him an introvert or an extrovert.

I also contended, with allowance for being wrong as this is "a new science" to me if you will, that the healthy-man ranks (Delta and above) are immutable; one can't graduate from one to another any more than one can change his MBTI profile.

I compared the two scales as well as offered my own thoughts/questions on this HERE


Russ said...

Is there a guide anywhere on overcoming being a Gamma?

Wanderer said...

Is there a guide anywhere on overcoming being a Gamma?

Stg58/Animal Mother said...


Every Alpha is situational. If 20 Alphas got in a room together, the hierarchy would get reshuffled in that closed system. If Trump invited 20 of the most notorious Alphas to have dinner with him, none of them would dare try AMOG him. I've read the same thing about Reagan, that he took control of a room full of ZFG Alphas with relative ease.

paworldandtimes said...

-- If 20 Alphas got in a room together, the hierarchy would get reshuffled in that closed system.

Of course. But I imagine none of the VD-scale Alphas would start acting like Gammas, or otherwise assume Beta/Delta etc qualities due to any relative differences. They'd simply be Alphas -- a rank that recognized hierarchy -- who subordinate themselves to the superior Alpha in the room.

Similarly, a Gamma in a room of lesser-Gammas wouldn't start showing trustworthy leadership skills. A Delta in a room of lesser Deltas... would still not exhibit the Alpha's confidence toward an external challenge.


Stg58/Animal Mother said...

All true. Grades of Alpha.

JA Novac said...

Thing with Vox's scale is the #'s are soo low, it's stunning to me

IIRC, 3 lifetime partners for the average guy?

Also feel the Sigma/Lesser Alpha could use more hashing out especially with a view towards Gamma's. Meaning a Sigma COULD be situational as well, with the willingness to engage when it suits and to not engage when it does not make sense. Which would wobble the Sigma into Gamma for that time.

Interesting to me anyway

As for the commentator, eh, whatever. The market place of ideas just smiles

Russ said...

Thanks, Wanderer.

VFM #7634 said...


I'm an ex-Omega like you. I suspect ex-Omegas have a need to feel their oats in a way Deltas don't. And having been Omegas, if we get over our fears of women, conflict, etc., we REALLY get over them. Deltas never actually do, they just had those fears to a lesser degree than Omegas. Plus, they're socialized that way -- to put women on pedestals, to be nice to people, and so forth. We're not.

One indicator that you might be turning Sigma is if your life starts to resemble the hypnotized Shallow Hal's. That movie is stupid Gamma slop, but watching it as an ex-Omega is quite funny.

evilwhitemalempire said...

"but it would be more accurate to say "Alpha entitlement without the attributes""
Then wouldn't you agree that a feminist is hot girl entitlement without the attributes?

Matt said...

An attacked marine?

What sort of shenanigans have I missed our on, by ignoring the comment section?

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Marine is capitalized.
There is no such thing as an ex Marine.

Matthew said...

> I also contended, with allowance for being wrong as this is "a new science" to me if you will, that the healthy-man ranks (Delta and above) are immutable; one can't graduate from one to another any more than one can change his MBTI profile.

I've done the latter, and arguably the former. But then, I'm special.

Matthew said...

More seriously, I think both the SSH and MBTI classifications do reflect inborn traits, but that one's effective behavior/classification can be the result of suppression of inborn traits. In my case, Extraversion was suppressed by high intelligence and too many moves as a young boy. Similarly with Feeling; that seems to be my default, but high intelligence means I act effectively as a Thinking.

Post a Comment