Game is the antidote

Here's an addendum to a basic Game maxim:  If a man is writing as the token male at a female-oriented publication, his advice regarding male behavior should be considered even less legitimate than female advice:

It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history. And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group..... the pain so many men feel from broken relationships, social isolation, and the gnawing sense of personal powerlessness is not women’s fault.

It’s the fault of a rigid code that was set up eons ago, a code that many of us continue to perpetuate. Extricating ourselves from the emotional straitjacket the code forces us to wear requires taking responsibility for our own lives and choices. It requires letting go of blame. And it requires seeing that feminism—with its remarkable claim that biological sex has nothing to with our human potential—is the best avenue for our personal and collective liberation.

This is arrant nonsense of the most ignorant and pernicious sort.  It is entirely dependent upon the idea that the dominant group - who admittedly are men - are making their decisions based upon what is to the benefit of their entire sex.  There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, Schwyzer simply states this as a postulate despite the fact that human history is absolutely littered with male elites making decisions that are to the direct detriment of the vast majority of their sex.

Schwyzer's argument is not only groundless and historically incorrect, but biologically false.  Biological sex is absolutely and directly connected to our human potential.  Feminism isn't about liberation, much less equality or maximizing human potential, it is about using the force of government to legally cripple men and subordinate their services to the feminist-perceived interests of women.  And finally, it is logically absurd.  Women are absolutely to blame for the majority of divorces, for denying fathers custody to their children and imposing an ex-relationship tax on their former partners.  It is easy to demonstrate that women are completely responsible for the pain they have caused without the need to argue over which sex is responsible for sex-biased family courts because not one single woman has ever been forced to file for divorce, custody, or alimony in the entire recorded history of Man.

Women are not passive, helpless creatures who cannot be held responsible for their own actions, they have have chosen to act, and in acting, they are 100 percent responsible for all of the pain that they have inflicted.  It's not the fault of some rigid, unarticulated male code that magically prevents a man from staying married when his wife decides she isn't happy anymore or removes his children from him. The demonstrable fact is that feminism is pure and unadulterated evil and is one of the primary causes, if not the primary cause, of the decline of Western civilization.  Feminism is the single most poisonous ideology of the 19th and 20th centuries and has amassed a body count that dwarfs that of Communism and Socialism combined.  As I have previously written, calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to the German National Socialist Workers Party.

And Game is the antidote to the ideological poison that is feminism.  That is why it terrifies feminists.  That is why intelligent women who value civilization instinctively support it.  Feminism requires reducing men to gammas and omegas who fear to question the chains of the Mother State. In most cases, gammatude and omegadom are not natural states, they are behavioral evidence of crimes that have been committed against young boys with the intention of psycho-sexually crippling them in adulthood.

On teaching Game

Are you asking yourself: "Is my son to young to learn Game?"

Depends on your definition of Game, using the definition of Game that this website is devoted to, then no. If you are not a natural alpha and honest enough with yourself to realize this, then now is the perfect time to teach your son Game. Learning Game together is like changing your first alternator or building a porch with Jr. It becomes a life-changing memory that will be remembered by both father and son for many years to come.

Game is about confidence and interacting with others, to position yourself in a better social slot which gains you the benefits of respectful interaction with mankind. Their respect not necessarily yours, as it doesn't need to go both ways. I believe it is never to early too teach boys how to be men, as many of us learning Game were never taught to be men. If you are interested in learning Game as a self-confessed non-alpha, chances are high that you did not have a father like Winston Churchill or if you did he wasn't around enough for you to learn to emulate him. If you didn't win the genetic lottery and have a natural alpha for a father, what medium was going to teach you to be a leader? Every week news comes out that bloodies the hands of our elected leaders. Hollywood train wrecks are a dime a dozen. TV is filled with eunuchs and homosexuals, school is filled with a double portion of feminist nonsense. Church? Maybe, but it is rare to find a parish without emasculated doctrine.

So, dads, it is time to break the cycle.  Your father wasn't a natural alpha and consequently you are not one either. I challenge you to teach your sons Game as you learn the same. Am I recommending working Roissy routines with your son in tow. Maybe, but I don't think this will work well with the judge at the next custody hearing: "I like it when daddy picks up hot chicks at the grocery store"

In order to become a leader, one must overcome fear. Much of the debilitating inner voice that prevents the non-alpha from acting in social situations comes from fear. I am aware of two ways to get past fear: nuke it, or overcome it. Few choose to overcome fear with the nuclear option as it is usually a result of a traumatic experience, which no father would wish on his son. That leaves the other option of helping your son overcome his fears with support. Do not confuse coddling with support.

Since I began playing with Game and its applications, I have continued to look for opportunities to teach my son behaviors which avoid the mistakes that I made. Here is a recent example that proved useful, hopefully it will inspire your own creative juices and enable you to pounce on similar opportunities.

My son and I were at one of our favorite restaurants and my son asked me a question that would impact the way he ordered his tacos next time we ate there. I knew the answer but my teaching moment light bulb turned on. I told him I wasn't sure and sent him over to ask the gal wiping down tables. He tried to back down and no longer desired the answer, (a delta just like his Dad, I will fix that).  I helped him fix his specific question in his mind then nudged him and sent him over. He received a typical Trixie response, she gave him the brush off and went on to do something else. He shrugged and shuffled back to our table, dejected, a delta chip off the old block.  I spent the next five minutes coaching him on how to project an attitude of importance.  (Preaching at myself with twice the intensity.) The time to leave arrives, I remind him of his unanswered question and announce he is going to get an answer. We walk up to the same girl and I planted myself physically in her presence with my body language projecting "Serve me now!" She responds with a "Can I help you?", I smile and open for my son "My son has a question." He steps up and asks. No more dejected son. No more delta future for my son.

The benefits of teaching your son game are multiple:

1. Break the cycle, all your sons grow up to be alpha or beta.
2. Witness your younger self and how many of your own action-killing fears were generated in youth.
3. No loving father consistently fails with his son's future on the line.
4. Provides an additional powerful and motivating force to learn Game.

Teaching your son game is one of the greatest gifts you could ever give him. I do not intend to denigrate anyone by closing in this way: if our fathers would have possessed the capability to teach us these skills, they would have taught them to us.
 - DJ

Developing Sigma

Although it would not be unreasonable to suspect me of snowflaking in developing the concept of the sigma, this was not the case. Its development came about as a result of the observation that there was a significant distinction between the attributes and behavior of Roissy's sexual alpha and the socially dominant alpha male, and it was the contemplation of the various distinctions and similarities involved that inspired me to come up with the concept of a socio-sexual hierarchy in the first place.

The reason for the development of the sigma was fairly simple. It was readily apparent that Roissy's alpha description applied to both my brother and me, but the two of us are nearly as different in attitude, attributes, and behavior as Narcissus and Goldmund. His appeal to women was based on extraordinarily good looks and an open, charming demeanor. Mine was largely derived from the reaction to my arrogance and vicious comportment. He was popular and at the center of all the social activity from junior high onward. I was unpopular until tenth grade and couldn't be bothered to show up for homecoming, prom, or an invitation to rush the most desirable fraternity on campus. He was affable and friendly. I was cold and cruel. About the only thing we had in common was an unusually high level of self-regard.

But there was an important difference even there. His self-regard was externally derived, whereas mine was internal. He blossomed like a flower in the sunshine of feminine and masculine approval alike, whereas I tended to hold both in contempt. He had many friends, I had all of one until eighth grade and didn't see any need for more. But neither of us ever lacked for attention from highly attractive women once we hit sixteen.

So, it was perfectly obvious to me that one category was not enough to contain two such vastly different social animals if anything beyond a crude sexual scorecard was to be taken into account. It was also clear that while my brother's behavior was very much in keeping with the conventional description of the alpha, mine was not. Moreover, there happened to be a very small number of men of my acquaintance who tended to not fit the conventional alpha pattern in very much the same way that I did not. Thus was developed the concept of the sigma.

Many people interested in the expanded socio-sexual hierarchy have asked me if I think sigma status is more akin to the natural alpha or the synthetic alpha of the Game master. I think it is more like the former, as there appear to be some developmental elements that cause the sigma to be more comfortable outside the social world than inside it. Having grown up in the company of an alpha from his earliest childhood, it is fairly easy to note some of the ways in which our development processes differed.

The two biggest childhood differences between us, as I recall, were that my personality was much less intrinsically likeable than his and my accomplishments were more impressive. I was the larval form of an omega, (remember, the sexual hierarchy can't apply directly to pre-pubescent children), while simultaneously being openly recognized as intellectually and athletically superior to all of my age peers at school and other organizations. It's a rather unusual combination, given that athletic accomplishment usually translates to at least some level of social success.  Usually, but not always.

Note that by recognized, I don't mean people saying "yah, that kid is real smart" or whatever. I am talking about objective metrics that no one could help noticing, whether it was winning all of the spelling, math, and reading competitions at school or finishing first in the events for the annual Presidential Physical Fitness programs that everyone had to do in elementary school. It doesn't matter how modestly you comport yourself, if you're kicking everyone's ass on a regular and comprehensive basis, other children will eventually come to resent it. Particularly if you happen to be the smallest, youngest kid in the class with a relatively disagreeable personality.

Gabriel noted in a previous post that the difference between the omega's oversized ego and the alpha's is that the alpha's ego is based in reality. So, I think that we can reasonably infer that a sigma is what results when an omega develops an oversized ego that happens to be reality-based. In support of this explanation is the observation that the few men that I consider to be sigmas on the basis of their a) genuine indifference to the social hierarchy, and b) uniform involvement with highly attractive women also happen to be exceptional in one or more regards.

This may explain why sigmas are relatively rare. They can more reasonably be considered a strange, socially successful form of omega than a non-conformist alpha variant. Gammas, deltas, and betas who learn Game can become synthetic alphas, but I don't know if they could as easily become synthetic sigmas.  Whereas faking confidence often leads to real confidence over time, I have not seen that faking indifference leads to genuine indifference in the same way. Still, since we have defined Game as the intentional and articulated emulation of the naturally successful by the previously unsuccessful, synthetic sigmahood should at least theoretically be possible.

Unlike omegas, sigmas always learn the rules of the social hierarchy from observation, but their understanding of them is more of an intellectualized practical grasp than a true intuitive understanding. They don't struggle with the hierarchy, they only struggle to take it seriously. Whereas the beta and delta automatically abide by the rules and the gamma resists them, the sigma's usual reaction is one of vague surprise. "You cannot be serious" is the sigma's mantra, and is applied instinctively to everything from an alpha's dominance display to a woman's test. Because whether he abides by the rules of the social hierarchy or fails to abide by them, the sigma doesn't have much of an opinion because he doesn't regard them as applying to him.

Is the sigma classification really necessary? I don't know. Perhaps "high omega" would be as meaningful and inspire less confusion among gammas who are reluctant to acknowledge their place on the totem pole. But it sounds cool, and if there is one thing that sigmas have going for them, it is that they are usually viewed as being rather cool in comparison with the average alpha or omega.

NAWALT and You

From Urban Dictionary:

NAWALT: acronym for 'not all women are like that.'
Repeated endlessly by women to men in hopes that if men hear NAWALT frequently enough, they'll believe it.

The reality is that all women ARE like that (manipulative, abusive, sociopathic, destructive, drama-oriented, liars).


The acronym NAWALT has its origin in the belief that women as a collective are complicit in the implementation of injustices against men during the last 40 years. As you can see from the more commonly used meaning above, it's come to signify the degenerate nature of all women, on all fronts.
If you are interested in learning Game strictly to get beautiful women into bed, you may find that subscribing to this broader meaning does not interfere with your objectives. Indeed, it may inure you to the "collateral damage" that may occur if a woman catches feelings for you.
As a blogger who writes about relationships, and appreciates the potential of Game for its ability to increase the pool of eligible men, I would point out that swallowing this particularly bitter pill will disqualify all women as unworthy of your love and trust. If your goal is to find a partner worthy of you, then you must be disciplined about evaluating women for character.
There are some ways in which all women are the same, i.e. "like that":
1. All women share a biological imperative to reproduce, with complementary strategies for short- and long-term mating. Social dominance is a key attraction trigger for women, as it implies a man's ability to garner power, and therefore resources.
2. All women under 40 have been raised in the feminist era, and have benefited from its changes with respect to opportunities in education, the workplace, and state assistance.
3. All women under 40 have been raised in a highly materialistic and consumerist culture.
4. All women under 40 have witnessed a weakening of the American family, due to a reshuffling of gender roles, the "divorce as emancipation" meme that came out of the Women's Movement, and declining rates of marriage and childbirth.
5. All women born after 1955 grew up with a media that found the feminist goal of fully unleashed female sexuality extremely profitable. Hypergamy swept the population as women started gunning for the most desirable men, having learned that shedding clothes invited male attention and validation, even if temporarily.
6. All women educated since 1990 or so were subjected to specific curricula designed to enhance their self-esteem, and close the perceived academic gap with boys. (The boys, meanwhile, were subjected to a realigning of standards in schools to reward strictly female ways of learning and behaving.)


Obviously, men have been exposed to precisely the same trends, but have responded very differently. They were not coddled as women were, into believing in the precious gift of their unique "specialness." The corresponding effect to the "men are delaying maturity" theme, recently written about by Kay Hymowitz and others, is the explosion of female narcissism. Once believed to be a personality disorder primarily displayed by males, it's now 50/50 (and rising).
It's no wonder that many men believe that there are no good women left, at least not in the U.S. If, despite everything, you hope to find a woman partner, then you must:
1. Abandon blaming the female collective in your personal life.
2. Learn how to discriminate between worthy women and narcissist head cases.
While it's tempting to bemoan the state of the American female, in truth we reside on a spectrum of beliefs, attitudes and characteristics. Once a woman has crossed your threshold of physical attraction, it's your responsibility to evaluate her full character. I suggest the following approach:

Personality Traits

Personality is thought to be about half inherited, half acquired. The acquired traits depend on a host of factors that you needn't worry about. If her family life was terrible, it will show up in her personality. If she's been highly promiscuous, it will show up here. Her behavior will tell you everything you need to know. The frequent advice to ignore what a woman says in favor of what she does is excellent. Take people at face value - that applies to both sexes.
The dominant psychological model for evaluating personality consists of the Big 5 primary traits:
I. Openness - desire for new experiences; curious vs. cautious
II. Conscientiousness - self-discipline; preference for plans vs. spontaneity
III. Extraversion - tendency to seek out stimulation, and the company of others
IV. Agreeableness - compassionate and cooperative vs. self-interest
V. Neuroticism - emotional instability
A woman with a high degree of openness, low conscientiousness, high extraversion, low agreeableness and high neuroticism?
Every man's nightmare. (Note: it is precisely this male profile that succeeds so well with women.)


The last 40 years have seen a dramatic increase in the acquisition of undesirable traits. In addition, recent research indicates that about 25% of the population has a mutation on the D4 dopamine receptor, leading to high impulsivity, high risk-seeking, and a high desire for novelty.
Look for women who:

1. Are interested in and open to new experiences, but not reckless. They pursue a variety of independent interests. They don't throw caution to the winds. They are moderate drinkers. They weigh novelty vs. consequences.
2. Demonstrate self-discipline. They have a strong future time orientation. Fitness and spending habits are two good clues.
3. Enjoy interacting with others but have no need to be the center of attention. Beware a woman who always wants to go out, who can't get enough of the party scene. Rule out women who dress extremely provocatively or flirt shamelessly.
4. Actively display kindness and compassion. They take turns paying or reciprocate generosity with effort. They demonstrate appreciation for good treatment. They like men.
5. Are not psycho bitches. Any woman who loses control, yelling, crying, having a tantrum, is not a suitable relationship prospect. Yes, we get upset, but men tolerate far too many female histrionics in the belief that we're all like that. Don't feed that beast.

The women who meet these criteria will not be the ones who are grinding in a bar. They will not have the showiest online dating profiles. You will most likely need to employ day Game, which is challenging.
The SMP is in a state of extreme dysfunction. Those looking for more than a casual hookup will have to navigate the treacherous landscape in a systematic and deliberate way. There are good women out there - Spacebunny and myself are just two examples. :)

• Don't give women a free pass. Make them prove their worth before you invest any emotional resources.
• Display a low tolerance for unattractive behaviors. Reward only desirable behaviors.

It's not romantic, but after 40 years of social re-engineering, some pragmatism is called for.

Facing the truth

The interesting thing about an alpha's ego is not its size nor its resilience. It is the fact that the alpha ego is grounded in reality. A man who has banged a large number of hot women, or has significant athletic or military achievements has little reason to question himself. He has proven that he has what it takes. However he also knows that there are others who are better than him and can recognize excellence when he sees it. This means that even the largest alpha egos have a natural check on their size. An omega's ego, on the other hand, has very little grounding in reality. As such the size of his ego often rivals that of an alpha.

Because it does not have any checks on its size an omega's fragile ego will grow without bounds. In an effort to avoid the pain of his life an omega will lie to himself. He will find elaborate justifications and excuses to avoid reality. This often takes the form of criticizing others for their shallowness or stupidity. It is not the omegas fault that he cannot find someone that understands him. He cannot help it if other people are too stupid. Rarely can he compete in reality so instead an omega will build himself up in his head and disparage others. He will do anything to avoid facing the fact that he has very little value in the real world, as it is just too painful.

In some areas though omegas do well. When they do have an advantage they will maximize that advantage to the hilt. It is no mistake that many omegas are computer nerds. Video games allow them to live out a reality where they are the hero and tech support skills give them real value. In an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" every guy (except Sheldon) is more than willing to provide free tech support to the hot manipulative babe that moves in above the apartment. They do not care that they are being manipulated. For a brief period of time they can do something that gets them the attention they crave. For an omega a small amount of worth and real human connection will grow completely unfettered in his mind. Even though all he did was set up a phone for a girl, it is enough of a connection that the next day an omega will be fantasizing about marrying her. In my early teens I would fantasize about marrying a girl if all she did was smile at me. In the end an omega will be unable to change because of the elaborate fantasy world he has created. Often it will reach the point that the fantasy world is far preferable to the real.
For this reason the first thing an omega must do to change is face the truth. Without an anchor in reality it is far too easy to go back to lying to yourself. Often the web of lies is so thick that it takes years to gain a clear view. In my efforts to change I had to face many truths about myself and others. This is a list of some of the more important things I have learned:

- If your father is has not been there for you in the past he will not be there for you in the future. Find someone else to fill that role and move on.

-Talking to your mother about your problems will get you nowhere. Women are rarely objective and have difficulty making tough decisions. Talking to your mother or any woman will have you running around in circles. Move out of her basement and try to minimize contact until you no longer need to lean on her.

-What has happened and what will happen to you is your responsibility. It may or may not be your fault but it will always be your responsibility. Bad things happen and all you can do is choose how you will respond. Avoiding the problem is a choice like any other.

-Suicide is the cowards way out. And in ten years all you will be is a sad memory. In twenty years no one will notice that you are gone.

-God (if he exists) may provide a way, but you have to take it.

-No one can save you from your misery except yourself. You may have help but the work is all yours.

-Nothing about this is easy. As such do not beat yourself up over your failures. Just get up and keep moving forward.

-People who are less intelligent are often kinder. Seek them out and do not look down on them.

-The people you love and trust the most will let you down and hurt you. When that happens remember all the times they were there for you and try to forgive.

-The world is very cruel. All you can do is improve your ability to withstand the bad things that happen.

-Firefly will never be renewed.

-If you are ready to start talking to women do not expect them to jump your bones the first night out. It will take time before you see significant gains.

-You cannot change alone. Because of this my recommendation to any omega looking to change would be to find help. I found help in the form of an eighty year-old hypnotherapist. It really does not matter what form the help takes, but successful help will have certain things in common:
1. It should be from a man, preferably one who is much older than you. Avoid female help. While some women may give good advice it is too easy for them to become emotionally involved and lose their objectivity.
2. It should NOT be from a peer. Peers have the same problems you do. Most likely they will tell you the lies they tell themselves in the form of advice. This does not mean that having friends cannot help you, just that they should not be your primary source of change.
3. He should expect you to change and have a specific way for you to do it. If he tries to make you feel like you do not need to change or accept your position in life, leave. The point is to change and achieve real happiness not sit around and complain. In this vein, avoid talk-therapists. You will end up talking in circles and leave $100 poorer.
4. Whatever he tells you it should involve facing difficult truths. You don't need someone helping you lie to yourself.
5. He should hold you accountable for your actions. This does not mean that he beats you over the head with them only that he makes you acknowledge your problems or self deception and continue to move forward.
6. He should be objective but committed to helping you change.
7. Pastors, bishops, some therapists, sensei's, grandfathers, uncles, are all potential sources of help. But most importantly whoever you choose you should see real change after some time.

-No one is going to do it for you. Stop waiting.

On terminology

There appears to be an amount of confusion relating to the difference between Roissy's binary hierarchy and my more graduated hierarchy.  However, it's not difficult to distinguish between the two hierarchies, nor is there any contradiction between them.  Roissy's hierarchy is solely sexual in nature, whereas mine is socio-sexual.  Therefore, his two categories are supersets of my seven categories.

ALPHA: natural alpha, synthetic alpha, sigma, high beta, high lambda
BETA: low beta, delta, gamma, omega, low lambda

In order to distinguish the sexual supersets from the socio-sexual sets, I suggest that when referring to a Roissyan superset, all caps should be used.  When referring to a socio-sexual set, use lowercase letters.  So, there should be no more trouble confusing an ALPHA with an alpha.  Now, there is room to discuss whether low betas should be distinguished from deltas or not, (I tend to feel that delta is such a broad category that it merits the distinction), and if lambdas even belong in the supersets considering that the supersets are defined with regards to sexual success with women rather than sexual success per se.

Regardless, the point remains that there is no intrinsic contradiction between the sexual and socio-sexual hierarchies.  Roissy's hierarchy remains perfectly valid and it is all that is necessary for PUA-centric discussions of Game.  After all, scoring is inherently binary in nature, as one either scores or does not score.  However, the logical, and I would argue, necessary, expansion of Game into areas beyond the crimson arts requires a more articulated hierarchy that is eminently justified by the observation of human social dynamics.

Signaling Theory

This is a guest post contributed by Le Cygne Gris.

Why routines?

Perhaps one of the nastier criticisms hurled at the practitioners and purveyors of Game is that the routines suggested and then put into practice demonstrate its artificiality. Essentially, the argument is that Game can’t be true because it is a conscious, overt application.

While it is true that application of Game is often intentional and overt, it does not follow that the fundamental insights of Game are incorrect. Ultimately, though, Game is nothing more than a specific application of signaling theory.

Signaling theory is a branch of economics that arose in order to explain why people didn’t behave with perfect rationality. What economists quickly discovered, however, is that people were, in fact, behaving quite rationally, but the signals that economists observed were quite removed from their eventual consequences.

The classic example of this phenomenon is that of education: the reason why some students went to college wasn’t simply because they wanted to learn more about the world surrounding them, but rather because they wanted to demonstrate to employers that they were well qualified to be hired for specific jobs.

Now, one could take the principles of signaling theory and apply them to one’s educational choices in an overt and conscious manner. For example, if one wanted to be an astronaut, he would do well to major in astrophysics and participate in sports, since astronauts must be in shape and be quite intelligent. This would signal to potential employers that he was quite serious about becoming an astronaut. It is, then, quite ludicrous to claim that making an obvious and overt application of signaling theory invalidates its existence, principles, or conclusions. In fact, just the opposite is true: deliberate application of signaling theory, when successful, validates its claims.

The same is true for Game. Routines and sets give men a way to field test the validity of the core principles and tenets of Game. If men successfully apply the tenets of Game, then they know that it is correct. (Note that testing Game by attempting a routine requires that one not botch the routine in order for the results to be considered valid. This is a general principle of the scientific method, and certainly applies here.)

But routines offer men more than just a way to validate the claims made by proponents of Game. It also offers men keen insight into the mind of an Alpha, for routines are more than just lines, they also encompass delivery and choreography. In order for a routine to work, a man must, much like an method actor, adopt the mind of that which he wishes to embody.

Routines are therefore useful in enabling a man to become a better man. As a man adopts the mindset of an Alpha, he becomes aware of how an Alpha moves, how he talks, how he interacts with others, what he thinks of others. And as a man does this, he becomes more and more in tune with the workings of the Alpha mind, until one day he is no longer able to distinguish between his Alpha persona and his “normal” persona. In essence, he fakes it until he makes it.

And thus, contra to the claims of haters and heretics, routines do not invalidate Game. On the contrary, they offer men a chance to test the truth for themselves. And in doing so, they allow men to become the men they are destined to be.