The unsalvageable

Nicholas Peake describes the casualties in the War on Men at Return of Kings:

Over the years I’ve known a few friends (and, sadly, family) who at some point I began to see in a different light—these were men very close to me who eventually revealed themselves to always make bad decisions, avoid personal change and self improvement, fail with women (or get with terribly low-tier ones), and periodically need my help to get themselves out of a hole they had dug for themselves.

At the very least it was slightly annoying, but after bailing them out numerous times I become angry and frustrated with the lack of personal responsibility. I came to understand that these are broken men.

What I now call the “loser mentality” is not reserved for extreme cases like drug addicts, felons, and so forth.  Sometimes otherwise nice, decent people are actually living a “loser” life; not everyone is necessarily “bad” but sadly are still a net negative and will drain us of money, motivation, time, and more if we don’t make the hard choice to walk away from them.

There appear to be common traits among these types which serve as telling indicators of those who your good intentions are wasted on.

It's a perspicacious article and he makes some very good observations. But the key one is this: Never expect help when you really need it from those who have the loser mentality.... Losers cannot be counted on.  Ever. 

That's why I am very wary of placing any trust in gammas or omegas. They are like wounded dogs and won't even hesitate to bite the hand that is feeding them. And the moment I sense that I'm dealing with a gamma, I do my best to extricate myself from their web of drama and delusion.

Often, the fact that they have been mistreated and they do merit pity leads both men and women into misguided sympathy. But it is best offered in the abstract and from afar.

You can't cure any man with a broken mindset. About the most you can do for a man like that is give him a copy of MAGA Mindset, by Mike Cernovich, and hope for the best.

The dead end of MGTOW

Corey Savage addresses the unproductive nature of MGTOW at Return of Kings:

MGTOW may have started with the right intent of defying the gynocentric system that exploits men, but it has quickly turned into a congregation of young men who come together to validate each other’s bitterness and frustration. Instead of doing anything to improve their lives, the majority of MGTOW feel the need to attack anyone who suggests self-improvement because it reminds them of their own lack of effort (just note how often they come to this site to spew their hatred instead of staying in their own sphere).

And for all the cries about society “shaming” them, the members of the MGTOW are the most vitriolic group today (along with the feminists) that constantly shames men for sharing tips on improving their lives. I can somewhat accept bitchy behavior from feminists as they’re women, but to watch these “men” throw a hissy fit over articles on attracting women or becoming a better man (none of which they were forced to read) is both hilarious and cringeworthy at the same time.

Ask yourself: what compels a man who has supposedly “gone his own way” to come to a site they claim to hate, read an article on attracting women which they clearly don’t care for, then leave a comment to “shame” and attack other men? Simple: jealously and insecurity.

MGTOW also claim that their group isn’t about rejecting sex altogether, but as soon as another man makes even the slightest effort to have a relationship with a woman, they go apeshit about how he is a “slave to pussy” or a “PUA loser” (for some reason, they think anyone who has sex with a woman is automatically a “PUA.” I’m sure only a very small number of writers and readers of ROK are actual PUA’s).

Many of these men have a twisted worldview where all relationship between men and women are either slavery through marriage or a charade by men dressed like clowns who are desperate for sex. Some even develop more bizarre conspiracy theories where every word or action of another male group is an effort to force marriage or sell books on pick-up. Their mind is so warped that simply having a different perspective on man and society gets interpreted as advocating hatred or violence against the entire male population “just to get laid.”

To escape this men-rejecting-women-not-being-rejected-by-them club, you must recognize that the MGTOW inseminates damaging ideas about life and the world and poisons the soul with negativity. Just as feminism grew beyond from a movement equality, MGTOW has grown beyond its original purpose.

Translation: what started with Omegas has grown to include Gammas, and was then warped by the latter in their attempt to turn it into a movement that can rival the social hierarchy.

There is nothing wrong, indeed, there is much to be admired about the Benedict Option. But if you're going to transform yourself into a secular variant of a monk for reasons of principle, you shouldn't behave like a nasty-minded nun sent to a convent for bedding the stableboy.

And Savage makes a good point. If you're simply going your own way, then you should stop trying to interfere with everyone else's.

Alpha Mail: the Omega perspective

This was submitted by an Omega reader.

There are very few shows that depict an omega, if for no other reason than that omegas are too small a group to be worthwhile targeting and even if you did target them they would resent it. The few accurate depictions of omegas on screen and in print are usually as antagonists. On the screen Ralph Fiennes in Red Dragon as the abused Francis Dolarhyde. In comic book characters, Eddie Brock as Venom. Please note I am excluding Jack’s Medulla oblongata from Fight Club (movie and book) as that is a gamma / alpha juxtaposition. This particular perspective will only focus on those omegas consumed by a sense of rage. For those who enjoy or just consent to being ignored, congratulations, you are being ignored again.

The first step to understanding the “angry omega” as Delta man puts it is to understand why he is angry. Unlike the gamma who was bullied some, or got by on being a class clown, the omega was bullied constantly. And not just bullied but more than likely abused, perhaps even sexually. Abuse of some sort more than likely came from peers, but even worse it came from authority figures, parents, teachers, etc, people they should have been able to trust. To reiterate, this bullying or abuse is not punching and stealing lunch money, it is locking the kid the basement for 12 hours, squirting them with a hose and making run naked in front of their friends, forcing them to smell flatulence embedded in a couch, cleaning the toilet with their toothbrush, any other sort of humiliation with no redeeming lessons.

This is not basic training, tearing the gamma down to form him anew as a delta, this is as Ann Barnhart puts it “diabolical narcissism” reaping pleasure from the pain and humiliation of others. This sense of betrayal from authority is paramount to understanding the omega. Being bullied by peers is second nature to them by now and nothing to be surprised at. Some of the peer bullying can be circumvented by remaining quiet, the aforementioned “Quiet Omega”, but authority cannot be avoided. Being told that you must endure humiliation and that even questioning it is wrong, forges a distrust of all authority, and will usually metastasize into abject hate. Here is the birth of the “angry omega.”

Out of that hate comes another binary division of omegas, those that snap and those that use the hate as fuel. Among those people in news reports that have snapped, many are omegas, however we cannot call all of them such. The choice of targets are paramount and angry omegas generally focus their aggression on the source. That is beyond the purview of this article. Instead the rest will be focused on the “successful” omega. The successful omega is rare and will generally come off as a delta or perhaps even beta. The key differences are easy to note however. An omega in authority will usually care about his subordinates more than is absolutely necessary and perhaps too much. He will explain his actions in an attempt to write the wrongs that were visited upon him. He will have an abundant dislike and distrust of higher authority and it will be painfully clear to his peers and subordinates.

Generally the work will be top notch, because the omega views every assignment as a chance to be bullied and humiliated. Success is a matter of spite on those that hand out the assignments. Turning in a report or finishing a project is throwing down a gauntlet, a challenge to authority to find a fault. His boss will have no idea why he is combative about such good work because he doesn’t understand the underlying dynamic. If there is a genuine error in the product, the omega will become shamed, visibly as this reminds him of his childhood. This shame will turn into perhaps violent self-loathing, a rage that needs to be funneled into correcting the problem.

This can be contrasted to a gamma in that the gamma would obfuscate and make excuses after the problems were found. This is primarily to people who might encounter a successful omega.

As a peer, he isn’t hanging out after work or going out to lunch because he dislikes you, he genuinely prefers to be alone. When he looks like he is obsessed with some miniscule detail he is. As a subordinate, if you find him over explaining things or giving you’re the rationale behind choices that you are not concerned with tell him in private that you trust him and you don’t need that much detail.

 As a manager, put the omega in difficult situations where you need absolute honesty. He will hate you for always getting the worst job but the only way to drive his is through his anger. Understand that if possible you will need to move him around frequently as you’re continuing to give him difficult and thankless tasks will make you the object of his derision.

Most people will never encounter a successful omega. But if you do these hint may help you understand and better interact with them.

The cost of coalburning

I am not even remotely surprised to hear what is reported to have triggered the Charleston shooter:

Dylann Roof's cousin claims the suspected killer became racist after a girl he liked started dating a black man. According to Scott Roof, his cousin, these feeling were vitalized when Dylann's love interest became involved with a black man.

'He kind of went over the edge when a girl he liked starting dating a black guy two years back,' Scott told The Intercept, adding that he also 'started listening to that white power music stuff.'

'Dylann liked her. The black guy got her,' Scott said. 'He changed. I don’t know if we would be here if not...' he finished, before hanging up the phone on the reporter.

From the dawn of time, men have attempted to protect their tribe's women from mating with outsiders. And women have socially ostracized men who pursued women outside the community. Black women hate it when black men date white women. Asian men hate it when Asian women date white men. And obviously, many white men are less than entirely enthusiastic about white women engaging in what they describe as "mudsharking" and "coalburning". I tend to doubt my Native American ancestors were particularly pleased when my grandmother quite literally married "off the reservation".

I'm not surprised that there has been such a vicious and violent reaction to the constant barrage of "ebony and ivory" in the media. The more the media pushes, and the more white girls respond to the propaganda by choosing black men over white men, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be. There is no inevitable "progress". Sooner or later, the pendulum always swings back.

The New York Times asked "who radicalized Dylann Roof?":

Who radicalized Roof? Who passed along the poison? We must never be lulled into a false belief that racism is dying off with older people. As I’ve written in this space before, Spencer Piston, an assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University, has found that “younger (under-30) whites are just as likely as older ones to view whites as more intelligent and harder-working than African-Americans.”

The pro-diversity crowd radicalized Dylann Roof. Sexual competition is pretty close to a zero-sum game, so every time a white girl decides to have sex with a black man, the seeds for another spurned Dylann Roof are planted. And those potentially violent seeds are watered every time BM-WF couples are advertised on television shows, on advertisements, and in the movies. Few of them will sprout, since the average man will simply write the girl off and find someone else, but the more that are planted, the more rage-filled killer omegas there will be.

Always fight back

In most cases, whatever harm you take from punches and kicks will heal. But the shame of being bullied and not fighting back is something from which some boys and men can never recover:

'Police are investigating all the circumstances of the sad death of 15-year-old Adam Tharia, from Cheltenham, who was found hanging on May 21.

'It would be inappropriate to discuss the specifics of the investigation while it is ongoing. We can however confirm that police are in possession of a piece of footage that appears to show Adam being punched by another boy around a week before.' 

The footage shows Adam - described by his family as 'a wonderful son and brother' - standing in a field, surrounded by other boys.

He appears to be bracing himself for the physical attack but, as another boy throws his fist towards him, Adam does not raise his hands in self-defence. The young boy then falls to the floor, as the group laughs around him. He is then seen lying motionless on the floor.

I don't know if the poor kid was simply in despair over the bullying or what, but one thing I've learned is that there is truth in the saying that the coward dies a thousand deaths, the hero dies but once. I truly hate this sort of shit. Why wasn't there one boy in the baying mass who was willing to stand up for the poor kid?

Even when you get your ass kicked by a physical superior, at least you know that you stood up for yourself. Don't ever be afraid of fighting and losing. Be afraid of failing to fight. I know middle-aged men who are still ashamed of not fighting back in middle school.

I may have gotten my ribs cracked in junior high, but at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that the boys who ganged up on me that day didn't manage to stuff grass in my mouth as they were trying to do. And better yet, the recollection of the ringleader backing down in public a few years later rather than risk having me bash his face in.

The temptation of MGTOW

Somehow, a discussion of SJW paranoia turned into a debate concerning MGTOW. I don't support the concept, although I do understand the temptation it holds for men in an environment of readily available sex, high-quality pornography, and viciously anti-male legal regimes.

There was one useful attempt to define a distinction between the two primary types of MGTOW from a critic of the movement:

Maybe we can say there's the strong MGTOW position and the weak MGTOW position. The strong position are those people, as Cail said, "accusing every man less stridently anti-marriage than himself to be a fool or a feminist." They're like some coward running through camp before a battle screaming "we're all gonna die! The enemy is invincible!"

Just shoot them as a traitor before they cause any more damage.

Then there's the weak position, the guys who have just given up on marriage or civilization. If they've given up after making a fair try at it, if they've been knocked down and gotten back up, but they just finally got knocked down one too many times and they're just going to quietly sit the rest out, I've got no problem with them.

If they haven't even tried though...

And then there was this clarification from a man who does not even qualify for the weak MGTOW camp.

Now, I'm single, childless, and no immediate prospects for marriage. Guess how much shit I get for it? None. (Except rarely from Vox.) Because I'm not flying my loser flag. THAT is what causes all the contempt in fathers with intact families who have invested their lives in raising the next generation as pro-civilization. Taking actual pride in doing nothing.

Let's put it like this: As a soldier, do you run into a battle you know you will lose, just because it is a battle? No. That would be the single mom / alpha widow option.

But, do you then lie in your bunk in the base, bragging about how you're not in any danger? No, you don't do that either. That will not go over well with the men who are actually in battles.

Rather, you wait for the battle you can win, and do preparations for it as best you can. If it never happens, fine. But you DO NOT BRAG about doing nothing.

MGTOW is an understandable temptation that needs to be manfully resisted. Because it is, ultimately, as barren, dyscivic, and parasitical as feminism itself. Yes, we are in a civilizational war. Yes, you might be one of the casualties. But that is not sufficient justification for hiding in the barracks refusing to take risks.

You don't win by fighting stupid. But you don't win by not fighting either.

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.

Target Omega

Notice that open and slavish submission to feminism by men produces the exact opposite of the results assumed:

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years—basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s—feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

My recurring fantasy, through this period, was to have been born a woman, or a gay man, or best of all, completely asexual, so that I could simply devote my life to math, like my hero Paul Erdös did. Anything, really, other than the curse of having been born a heterosexual male, which for me, meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.

Of course, I was smart enough to realize that maybe this was silly, maybe I was overanalyzing things. So I scoured the feminist literature for any statement to the effect that my fears were as silly as I hoped they were. But I didn’t find any. On the contrary: I found reams of text about how even the most ordinary male/female interactions are filled with “microaggressions,” and how even the most “enlightened” males—especially the most “enlightened” males, in fact—are filled with hidden entitlement and privilege and a propensity to sexual violence that could burst forth at any moment.

Because of my fears—my fears of being “outed” as a nerdy heterosexual male, and therefore as a potential creep or sex criminal—I had constant suicidal thoughts. As Bertrand Russell wrote of his own adolescence: “I was put off from suicide only by the desire to learn more mathematics.”

At one point, I actually begged a psychiatrist to prescribe drugs that would chemically castrate me (I had researched which ones), because a life of mathematical asceticism was the only future that I could imagine for myself. The psychiatrist refused to prescribe them, but he also couldn’t suggest any alternative: my case genuinely stumped him.

Now observe the female response to this abject omega male self-flagellation:

Despite all this he remains a feminist, but that’s not the point here.  What Scott Aaronson said got discovered by feminists, and they tarred and feathered him for it.  Despite his clear language to the contrary, he’s accused of everything from being a MRA to being a misogynist just because of his Jewish faith.  Despite his attempts to explain himself over and over again, people on Twitter are saying that female MIT students should be afraid to take his classes.

Never give feminists an inch. Don't agree with them, don't tolerate them, show them no mercy whatsoever. Feminism is a Satanic, anti-Christian, anti-reason, anti-science ideology that destroys literally everything it touches and everyone who embraces it. Reject it and its adherents the way you would reject someone offering you plutonium on their bare hands; to accept it is to begin to die a slow and painful death.

The problem isn't merely that feminists are ugly and hateful, or that their ideology is incoherent and deluded, but that by mere toleration of them, through mere intellectual contact with it, you are permitting your life to be infected and degraded. We've seen this in the Christian churches, which in their attempts to tame the feminist cancer and turn it into a pet, have been mortally stricken.

Reject all of it. Reject their appeals to equality. Reject their pretense to intellectual standing. And most of all, personally reject all of those who subscribe to it in any way, shape, or form. Any man who calls himself a feminist is ideologically transgender and mentally unstable.

Online dating is tough

And it just got tougher:

A man indicted on arson and burglary charges allegedly set fire to a woman’s home after she rejected his advances on Facebook. Frankfort police say the “disturbing” reason that James Graham, 37, broke into a 22-year-old single mother’s Franklin County home and set it on fire on Nov. 28 is because she “rebuffed” several uncomfortable comments he posted to her Facebook wall, WLEX-TV reports.

Suddenly, the retreat to porn and video games by low rank men doesn't look so bad after all. The problem is, the more women refuse to sexually associate with any men except those in the upper 20 percent, the more desperate the lower 80 percent are likely to become.

Anyhow, it sounds like Omega rage to me.

Post-relationship omegas

A commenter at Instapundit's explains his lack of interest in the opposite sex:

Originally, the geeks of the world (or at least the Western world) were not so much on strike as they were being willfully excluded from polite society. A reciprocating circle of cause and effect meant that slightly-weird people were socially alienated, which resulted in an even deeper retreat into the things that made them slightly-weird to begin with. Yet, with any given one of them, they would have jumped at the chance to be "normal", to not be alienated, to have a girlfriend or wife, and so on. Alienation was a punishment that they all hoped in their secret heart would one day end.

More often, now, I see the socially alienated begin to shift toward the idea that even if they were to be invited back to "normal" society, and have their stigma erased or diminished, they see the cost of that to be too great to consider. They no longer want to be unalienated. They are increasingly resentful of their treatment and increasingly critical of the flaws of the society from which they were forced to retreat in the first place.

Used to be that any pretty girl could bat her eyelashes and any given nerd would jump to her will. There are still plenty of people like that, but more and more geeks are starting to laugh in their faces instead.

The longer that women delay marriage and ride the ALPHA carousel, the harder it is for BETA males to deny what their prospective mates have been doing and the longer they have to become accustomed to their alienation. So, it should be no surprise that they are becoming less and less interested in acting as a safe landing zone for the carousel jumpers.

Dr. Helen saw #GamerGate coming

It's related to a section of Men on Strike that was influenced by this blog. She writes:

Perhaps what the reader is observing in Gamergate and Shirtgate is that the geeks involved not only don’t have the social conditioning to “make nice” but that they have less to lose than conformists such as the media or feminists who need other women and men to join their worldview.

Women give them more trouble than they give to typical alpha guys and with fewer women available to them, it makes it less appealing to conform in order to get more women. What’s the point? In addition, as Vox points out, they have their games and other things that matter more to occupy their time and don’t need the reinforcement of the society (and women) to function in their world.

Games have long been an escape from women and social pressure for many young men, so it should surprise no one that they aren't particularly keen on seeing their retreat invaded by the very things from which they are escaping.

When people ask a gamma or an omega if he wouldn't rather be out and about "with a real girl" instead of playing games, they should first keep in mind what sort of "real girl" is probably on offer for him. And considering the alternatives, who can truly blame him if he looks at his choices and decides that games and porn are genuinely the better option.

Criminalizing omega

Women feel they should be able to go out in public spaces without sacrificing the feeling that they are still in private, which would appear to be a nonsensical position until you take Game into acccount. A woman complains about creepshots.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a creep shot is a photograph taken of an unsuspecting woman, or girl, which is then posted onto social media, blogs and websites with the hashtag #creepshot. They focus on her body – particularly her boobs, bum, legs and any visible underwear. Most of these unsolicited pictures are taken in public – whether at the gym, yoga classes (there’s a whole website dedicated to ‘girls in yoga pants’), or just walking down the street.

It’s vile. But not as vile as the feed of photographs next to it, which I can’t reproduce here. Not because they’re too graphic – most zoom in on a woman’s clothed body, although some are quite explicit and others appear to show young teenage girls – or even because they’re illegal, because they’re not. It's just that they're incredibly unethical....

It is, without question, revolting. These photographs sexually objectify women and turn them into pornography without their consent, or even their knowledge. 'Creepy' doesn't even begin to cover what these people - predominantly men - are doing.

If I ever chanced across a photograph of one of my body parts with a #creepshot hashtag on it, I'd feel completely sick. Not only would it mean that someone had sneakily photographed me in public, but it would show that an online community of creeps were, well, perving on me. It's a horrific thought. But the worst thing is there's not much I could do about it. They aren't committing a crime and unless they photograph someone underage, do an upskirt shot or take it in a private place, this is totally legal.

The hilarious thing about this is the blithe solipsism. These are the same women that devour magazines devoted to nothing but creepshots of celebrities. These are the same women who enthusiastically support the Panopticon in the name of public safety. These are the same women who take hundreds of photographs of themselves in their underwear - or less - and voluntarily upload them to the Internet.

So, it's obvious that they don't mind at all being photographed in public. It's obvious that they don't have a philosophical objection to photos of people in public spaces. What really bothers them? The idea that some bottom-feeding male they deems unworthy of their attention might be deriving a modicum of sexual pleasure from their image nevertheless.

That's how much girls hate omegas.

A false indictment

Blaming the Androsphere for PUAHater Elliot Rodger's actions is akin to blaming the NAACP for the lynching of black men:

In Elliot Rodger's YouTube "manifesto", recorded before he killed six in Isla Vista, California, he said his actions were provoked by women who spurned his romantic advances in favour of men he considered less appealing.

This led to the creation of the #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, with women sharing stories of sexual harassment and assault as a push back against those who dismissed Rodger's views as the rantings of a mentally ill individual.

Another debate over gender and sex has arisen from Rodger's use of language often associated with the "pick-up artist" (PUA) community, and news reports indicate that he took interest in the techniques and views espoused by a subculture that seeks to offer advice on how men can be more successful at attracting members of the opposite sex.

This advice, critics say, objectifies women and may have fuelled Rodger's anger. Bustle's Sarah Hedgecock offers her take on the PUA world:

Dedicated to having sex with women determined to score at least 7 out of 10 on the PUA scale of attractiveness, these men trade tips for scoring "targets" (yes, that's code for "women") and becoming the dominant dudes they believe all women truly want to sleep with. These are the guys who try to pick women up by insulting - or "negging" - them. The beliefs that women control the sexual market, that one is owed sex for doing favours for women, that girls only sleep with jerks and that there is one true key to getting all the (straight, hetero, unattached) sex a man could want form the basic creed of the PUA community. Women, in PUA culture, are not humans deserving of respect; they are a necessary evil to conquer in the name of sex.

It would be very difficult to get the basic concepts of Game more wrong than Ms Hedgecock has managed to do. Let's consider her statements:

1. Dedicated to having sex with 7+ women? Wrong. Game is all about setting reasonable targets; a gamma is never going to score an HB7+. It's about improvement no matter where a man begins.
2. Trading tips? Fair enough. Check.
3. Becoming dominant dudes that women want sexually? It's an exaggeration, but close enough. Check.
4. Guys who try to pick up women by insulting them. Wrong. Some players neg. Others don't. Negging is just one tool in a very large toolbox.
5. Believe that women control the sexual market. Check. They do.
6. One is owed sex for doing favors for women? Wrong. That's literal delta anti-Game.
7. Girls only sleep with jerks? Wrong. They PREFER jerks, but they'll reliably exchange sex for support once the Wall begins to loom.
8. There is one true key? Wrong. Hence the size of the toolbox.
9. Women are not humans deserving of respect. Wrong. Because women are human, they do not intrinsically deserve respect on the basis of possessing a vagina.
10. Women are a necessary evil to conquer. Absolutely wrong. Who said anything about necessary? Now, they are societally necessary when taken in the collective, but the core of the player's abundance mentality is the understanding that no individual woman is necessary or irreplaceable.

Elliot Rodgers had two chances. God and Game. Either could have saved him. He rejected both. And so to blame either is absurd on its face.

The scars of puppy love

It's remarkable when people so completely forget their own youthful social hierarchy as to find Elliot Rodger's angry despair inexplicable:

A model who the California gunman Elliot Rodger named as his "first crush" and vilified in his twisted manifesto as an "evil b----" is said to be distraught. According to her relations Monette Moio met Rodger at school when she was just 10 and doesn't even remember him.

In his manifesto titled "My Twisted World" the deranged young man, who killed six people in Isla Vista, Santa Barbara, last week, claimed that Miss Moio had teased him when they were children and "wounded me deeply"....

"The whole thing is so creepy. It's scary even though he's gone. She doesn't even remember this guy. She's always been the most delicate kid you'd ever want to meet. For him to call her a bully, this kid was really disillusioned. She was 10 years old. It was just an illusion this kid built in his own mind. She hadn't seen him since seventh grade." 

In other words, she met him at a young and formative age, went to school with him for four years, and she still doesn't even remember him. The kid was certainly disillusioned, but it wasn't an illusion he built in his own mind, it was an illusion he was fed by the people around him. The fact that his first crush doesn't remember him doesn't minimize the consequences of her actions, rather, it proves the relevance of Game and the need for it in order to understand the socio-sexual dynamics that contributed to the recent tragedy.

Rodger was, quite literally, beneath Moio's notice in junior high school. Like many pretty, popular girls do, she probably expressed her amusement and disdain when Rodger, a gamma at best, attempted to interact with her in some clumsy manner. There would be no reason for her to remember doing so, she probably treated every boy of insufficient socio-sexual rank at school the same way. Nor can she be reasonably criticized for behaving in that manner, as it is as much a natural aspect of establishing and policing the socio-sexual hierarchy as the alpha boys pushing around the deltas and the low deltas tormenting the omegas.

I daresay everyone remembers the individual with whom they were first enthralled at a young age. I can still remember each of the four girls I liked in elementary school and junior high. I was more fortunate, I think, in that the girl on whom I had a particular crush was friendly and kind, although she did not return my interest at the time.

Blue Pill Bodycount

In which we see how the lack of Game can prove deadly to young men and women alike in an environment of unrestricted female sexuality:

'I'm 22 years old and I'm still a virgin. I've never even kissed a girl,' he says in the video'. College is the time when everyone experiences those things such as sex and fun and pleasure. But in those years I've had to rot in loneliness. It's not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it,' he says in the video, which runs to almost seven minutes.

He repeatedly promises to 'punish' women and lays out his plan for 'retribution.'

'I'm going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde s**t that I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would've all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them,' he says.

'I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male,' he laughs like a maniacal movie villain. 'Yes... After I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I will take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there. All those popular kids who live such lives of hedonistic pleasure...'

Rodger's Twitter account has only two tweets, posted on April 19 and 20.

'Why are girls sexually attracted to obnoxious, brutish men instead of sophisticated gentlemen such as myself?

The rage of the Omega is boundless. The young man wasn't bad-looking. He was obviously well-off. He drove a nice black BMW. And yet, his anti-Game was so bad that he made it to 22 without ever so much as kissing a girl. No wonder he was murderously furious with women.

There are two clues to his problem. The first is that he considered himself a "sophisticated gentleman" at 22. Girls in their teens and early 20's aren't attracted to sophisticated gentlemen who treat them well. They are attracted to jerks who treat them indifferently, and the more arrogant the jerk, the better. The second is the fact that he was a literal "PUAhater" who was opposed to the androsphere and everything it stands for.

Taken together, this indicates that Rodgers was an omega male who simply couldn't accept female nature for what it is. He refused to take the red pill, and the blue pill bodycount wound up at seven.

Even old women hate gammas

What we have here is a failure of observation:

The single women I know often seem better equipped than their male peers to lead a fulfilling solo life.... single middle-aged men often seem to lack the va-va-voom of female peers. I told Saturday’s audience that, as far as I could see, the main reason so many middle-aged women remained solo was that they’d rather be on their own than bed down with males so unkempt their jumpers had their own ecosystems. I also recounted how a beautiful, talented friend of mine – then in her late fifties – once had a date with a man who bought a sandwich from Boots for lunch and offered her half.

I thought (and rather hoped) that the men in the audience would stage a rebellion and protest. Instead, they all nodded. A chap in his late forties said that at his lonely hearts dining society the women were sexy and savvy, while the men lacked social graces and were inclined to be “a bit odd”. Bridget Jones’s famous fear of dying alone and being found three weeks later, “half-eaten by an Alsatian”, has begun to seem more applicable to male singletons.

Note that "the men in the audience" refers to the 7 men in an audience of over 200 at a discussion panel entitled "How to be a Single Woman in 2013". And we know exactly what sort of scalzied manboobs attend that kind of event.

The reason that all the aging single men who socialize with her aging single friends are so unkempt and undesirable is because older single men who keep up with their appearances don't date women their own age. They date and marry women who are younger, usually between 5 to 15 years younger. This is the result of the sexual difference in declining SMV and MMV.

And it's fascinating to observe that whether they are young women in college or old women approaching retirement age, most women would rather be alone than settle for a gamma or low delta. What this means in practical terms is that playing a long game, being yourself, and expecting post-Wall women to settle for you once they descend from the carousel or end their marriages and belatedly discover their lack of options will not necessarily work for those who are omegas and lower gammas.

Alpha Mail: Omega Update

SW drops a short note informing us that his experiment with the new rules for intersexual communications are going well:

Sorry about the delayed response, but it took a while to be able to say more than "I'm trying." Almost all negativity has been eliminated, and while rule #2 is still giving me problems (I'm a little slow-witted, so I often draw a blank, then give a straight answer), it's starting to get slightly easier to stick to. Conversations with women now seem to be interesting and fun for both of us instead of awkward and disturbing. I'm definitely neither as creepy nor invisible now.

Game works.  It is that simple.

Alpha Mail: Omega dialogue

SW writes in reply to my request for some examples of his problematic dialogue and the possibility that he was either Aspie or somewhat psychopathic:

Wow, I didn’t realize that I come off as such a pathetic creep. In my defense, I was asking not because I want to have the nicest human lampshades possible (which is extremely disturbing, to say the least, so thanks for providing ample encouragement to work on not being creepy) but because this is going to be a slow, uncomfortable process. I wanted to make sure that the end result won’t be that I’ll simply go from creepy to invisible (I think I can already be invisible enough to get by). 

Anyway, my Asperger’s Quotient is 31, I’d give myself an 18 on Hare’s checklist, and I’ve been told that my writing doesn’t seem quite right by most people who have come across it (I always thought it was just lack of skill though). Usually women will ask questions that they obviously know the answer to, I answer them, and then after a few (rarely more than about 3—I don’t time interactions or anything, I just frequently glance at a clock when I’m not doing anything) minutes of small talk we go about our business. For example, the longest conversation I’ve had (less than 15 minutes) was something along these lines (These aren't the exact words, but I'm pretty sure they're close enough, and as is typical, she seemed to become more and more agitated as time went on):

“Excuse me, there’s supposed to be a comedian performing in room XYZ. Can you show me how to get there?”

Me: “Um…(directions)…you’d better hurry though, the show started a while ago.” (I refrained from telling her that it’s impossible to enter the building without going right past not only the room but the large sign that marks it)

Her: “Thanks…I’m Emily.” (I’m not giving you her real name)

Me: “Sam.”

Her: “I haven’t seen you here before, did you transfer?”

Me: “No…we’re probably just in different programs, what’s your major?”

(I don’t think that precisely what either of us are studying really matters, so I’m skipping that part of the conversation, but neither of us are pursuing useless degrees and we talked about what we wanted to do with them for a little while)

Her: “Did you buy football tickets?”

Me: “No, uh, the team was terrible when I was little and I don’t think they’ve improved much since I moved away.”

Her: “Yeah but the student section is so much fun!”

Me: “True, but since I’m on the bowling team I’ll probably be busy.”

Her: “I didn’t know we had a bowling team.”

Me: “Well, we don’t have a very good one. That’s probably why you didn’t know about it.”

Her: “Ok. Are you living on campus?”

Me: “Actually, my grandparents live in town, so I’m staying with them. They’re getting old, so it’s probably good that I’m there. It’s cheaper too.”

Her: “Oh, how far away are they?”

Me: “It doesn’t matter too much since there’s a bus stop in the front yard.”

Her: “That’s nice. Is that why you decided to come here?”

Me: “Well, that and I wanted to get out of hickville.”

Her: “Where’s hickville?”

Most conversations are shorter (normally one of us will break it off before she becomes as visibly uncomfortable as “Emily” did) but my questions are more or less the same (what are you majoring in, what do you want to do/where do you want to work, where are you from—this one I’m careful to phrase in a way that makes “Florida” specific enough—why did you pick this school, etc.).

The most obvious problem I see in this dialogue is something I see with many gammas and low deltas.  They can be RELENTLESSLY disagreeable and are often looking to put a negative spin on the interaction, correct the other individual, or otherwise dispute with their interlocutor.  Look at how SW is shooting down literally everything Emily says, but not in a fun way or in a manner that indicates he is uninterested in her, more as if he is a clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Monotone voice: Would you like to spend a lifeless, depressing evening with me during which time I will repeatedly contradict you and explain to you why everything you do, say, and think is wrong?
Cheerful girl: I'd rather kill myself!
Monotone voice: She doesn't like me. No women like me.  I wonder why?

So, my suggestion for SW is that he experiment with not expressing any negativity in his next 10 interactions with women.  Let's give some examples of things he could have said that would likely have sparked a higher level interest rather than killing the initial interest.

Her: “I haven’t seen you here before, did you transfer?”

Me: “That's good, that means you're not a criminal. See, I spend most of my time fighting crime. For the people."

Her: “Did you buy football tickets?”

Me:  "I would have liked to, but, you know, the crime-fighting thing."

Her: “I didn’t know we had a bowling team.”

Me: “I think you'd be very attracted to them. They're some of the finest athletes on campus."

SW needs to learn that women don't ask questions of strange men in order to receive information. They do it to make contact and open the communications channel. He would do much better to evade answering their questions than to provide one monotonous factual answer after another.  This may be his high AQ sabotaging him: a question was asked, therefore it must be answered.  So, let's see if we can reprogram his Aspie tendencies with two new rules that supersede the old ones:

1. The word "no" is not permitted in casual conversation with women.  You must avoid all negative and disagreeable responses to them.
2. You may not directly answer any question a woman asks you.  Answers must be upbeat, evasive, and preferably misleading.

Remember, the core Game concept is Agree and Amplify, not Answer and Explain.  I encourage SW to give this modified approach a whirl and report back when he has some real world results.

Alpha Mail: the limits of Omega

SW asks about his prospects:

Hi, I think I'm a fairly physically attractive Omega college student (that last part I'm sure of)--that is, one or two good, but not great, looking girls will come up with some lame excuse or other to talk to me when I go out (although I don't do that very often and I'm usually by myself) and none of the ones I talk to seem disgusted or annoyed, but I quickly drop the conversational ball.

Until learning about game I never once even considered striking up a conversation with such (relatively) attractive girls (so...thank you!). I'm certain that my difficulties are due to poorly developed social skills, not psychological issues. I don't hate women and I'm not indifferent to them (any more--I didn't hit puberty until 18. Before then I basically saw them as weak, irrational boys), but I have as much difficulty carrying on a conversation with one as I would if she was an alien (actually, I'd probably do better with the alien since at least then I'd have an excuse...). I know that no amount of improvement in my social skills (I'm including game here) will allow me to get a model, but how attractive (or not) of a (non-damaged--one beautiful bunny boiler is enough for me) girl do you think I will be able to get?

I think an omega male should spend more time thinking about actually spending some time with a girls he finds attractive than worrying about maximizing the physical beauty of his female companion.  Very few alphas settle down with the most attractive woman with whom they've ever been, because as those men who have actually spent sufficient time with women know, the amount of time you spend looking at them or having sex with them is not going to be the majority of the time.

As has been said before, there is no woman so beautiful that there isn't a man somewhere who is sick of putting up with her.

SW would be well-advised to learn how to stop killing the initial attraction that women are feeling for him.  He should practice looking women in the eye, asking them questions, and otherwise keeping his mouth shut.  I mean, it's not surprising to hear that he has an omega-class disattraction vibe, as even his question here has a mildly disturbing vibe to it.

(SW, I'm not saying that to pile on and omega-shame, I'm simply trying to point out what sort of thing inspires a negative reaction in people. When you talk about the maximal limits of the girl you can get, it really sounds as if you're about two steps away from skinning said girl and making her into a lampshade.  People are people, not inanimate objects.)

What creeps people out is the Uncanny Valley effect. The reason women are disattracted to SW and other omegas is that they sense their psychological abnormalities, which strike them as not quite human.  The solution is to reduce that effect, but I don't know enough about SW to know what those abnormalities are or how severe they are.  Regardless, progress comes one step at a time. SW needs to learn how to relate to women and be able to communicate with them before he worries about dating any of them.

I've asked SW to email me an example or two of a typical dialogue with a woman who approaches him.  This should help us figure out the extent of the problem.

Persecuting omega

This white knighting gamma can't figure out why men get so angry when people complain about creepers:

I confess: I still don't get it. We write about things that make people angry: sometimes on purpose (u mad bro?), sometimes because the topic interests us. But few topics are as consistent in their ability to draw anger and trolling and bizarre visitors as the issue of sexual harassment and responses to it.

If I talk about my experiences training clients' employees in how to avoid sexual harassment, I draw nutters. If I talk about sites that discuss bad behavior towards women in gaming culture — great sites like Fat, Ugly, or Slutty — people get angry. Discussions of outing and vigorous more-speech remedies seem to be more controversial when the target is chosen for being a creeper rather than, say, a racist. Even the abstract subject of this post — the meta-examination of why the subject of harassment is so incendiary to some — generates some of the most vituperative comments we ever see here.

This attitude is common among low-ranking men who don't understand the socio-sexual hierarchy.  They don't understand that by talking about the subjective realm of "sexual harassment" as if it is objective, they are usually taking a position that unfairly persecutes the lower-ranking men in society.

And just as the cruelest school bullies are those who are just above the lowest boys on the totem pole, the most clueless white knights are the gammas who have mastered their creepy instincts and don't see why everyone else doesn't do the same.  Because they a) know they are at least potentially creepy, and, b) have managed to modify their behavior in a manner to control it, they believe that sexual harassment is objective, universal, and intentional.

None of those things are true.

You see, here is the observable fact of the matter.  Men of sufficiently high socio-sexual status cannot sexually harass women.  They simply cannot do it. A man of sufficiently high rank can, in public, grab a woman's ass, squeeze her breasts while making honking sounds, stick his tongue down her throat, sling her over his shoulder and haul her off to a bedroom, slide his hand down her pants and inside her underwear, or tell her to lift her skirt and turn around, without ever hearing a single word of protest.

Millions of women don't read 50 Shades of Grey because they so perfectly hate the idea of men ordering them around.

And a high-status man can do all of those things without having met her or even knowing what her name is. For example, compare the difference in the public reaction to direct complaints that Bill Clinton had raped various women to reports that Anthony Weiner had been sexting land whales.

Clinton not only raped and assaulted multiple women over the years, but inserted a cigar in an White House intern's body in the most power-imbalanced employment relationship that is even theoretically possible in the United States.  He got a pass from the women and everyone else, with female journalists offering "one free grope" and volunteering head, simply because he is an alpha.  Weiner, who is more of a Washington insider than Clinton was prior to his presidency, provokes considerable disgust for far lesser sexual offenses.

It's all about sexual dominance.  The gamma can offend a woman by simply looking at her.  The alpha not only won't offend that same woman by ordering her to lift her skirt and turn around, but the chances are very high that she will obey him even if she hasn't actually met him.  Even if she won't obey on the spot, she will still laugh, slap his shoulder, and tell him "you're so bad!"

So, it is the intrinsically false perspective of the white knight that provokes anger and irritation from a wide range of men.  The higher ranking men are not angry, they are merely expressing contempt for the mouthy gamma and his cluelessness.  The lower-ranking men are angry at the unfairness of how they are targeted and castigated for behavior that is objectively less egregious than what they see their higher-ranking counterparts, and, for that matter, women, are permitted to do with impunity.

Lecturing creepers is, for the most part, bullying of omegas by gammas.  It's wrong-headed and it's wrong.  And it provokes anger for the same reason that most bullying does.

Consider, for example, the average sex scene in a SF/F novel written by a gamma male.  Now reverse the sexes.  I will bet that more than 50 percent of those sex scenes would qualify as "sexual harassment", if not sexual assault, if committed by a gamma or omega male.