Wednesday, October 16, 2013

"Omegas" Killing "Alphas"

I've been reading the Manosphere for the past few years and see a lot of dubious concepts in it, such as the "Alpha." Alphas are supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women. An "Omega" is the guy at the bottom who gets nothing.

The idea that a bunch of intellectual second-raters have discovered something new, that hasn't been discussed by more intelligent men in the past, is also dubious, to say the least.

The word "Alpha' came from the study of wolves and it means "parent wolves." They are the only ones who bred, to limit having too many cubs. Often, the pack consisted of the parents and the cubs.

If you transfer those canine concepts to humans, what you get is...a patriarch. Not a cad who spends his life strutting and boasting and trying to have sex with as many women as possible. In fact, some of the commonly-accepted definition of an Alpha reminds me of the Omegas of the entire world....blacks. (Mimicking black "culture" is something no one in his right mind would do.)

Let's get to my point.

So: why should an Omega not murder anyone above him? Answer: they do.

Seung-Hui Cho was the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people. He of course was mentally ill, but he was made fun of his entire life, never had sex, never had a girlfriend and of course never kissed a girl.

People unbearably humiliated and ostracized get revenge, sometimes through murder. People who have been unbearably shamed try to restore their pride and self-esteem through revenge against those they believe have hurt them.

Then we have James Holmes, the Aurora shooter. He, too, was mentally ill, probably a paranoid schizophrenic, Still, he was a complete loser with women who couldn't even find a woman on a sex site. Even they rejected him.

As I read about Holmes: "James Holmes struck out with three women on an adult sex website shortly before he allegedly perpetrated the Colorado movie massacre...[he] was "a shy, pretty socially inept person."

Another Omega, not known at all today, was Charles Guiteau, the man who shot and killed President James A. Garfield in 1881.

Guiteau had joined a commune practicing "free love" and had been completely rejected by the women during the five years he spent there.

Author Candice Millard wrote of him: "Guiteau’s extravagant dreams and delusions persisted in the face of consistent and complete failure. Although the commune promised the pleasures of complex marriage, to Guiteau’s frustration, 'the Community women,' one of Oneida’s [the commune] members would later admit, 'did not extend love and confidence toward him.' In fact, so thorough was his rejection among the women that they nicknamed him 'Charles Gitout.' He bitterly complained that, while at the commune, he was 'practically a Shaker.'"

These men, alone, rejected, humiliated and ostracized, then get attention (revenge) by going out in a blaze of glory.

By the way, the German word "achtung" means both "attention" and "respect."

Writes the psychiatrist James Gilligan, who spent 35 years studying violent inmates: "One of the most common fantasies I have heard from many of the most violent prison inmates is the scenario of going to their deaths in a hail of gunfire while killing as many people as possible before they themselves die."

The first recorded murder in Western mythology is when Cain slew Abel. Why? Because God rejected Cain’s sacrifice and accepted Abel’s.

“Unto Abel the Lord had respect…unto Cain the Lord had not respect.” So Cain, humiliated, attempted to replace his feelings of shame and humiliation with pride by murdering his brother, on whom he (inaccurately in this case) blamed his problems. It was revenge.

For that matter, the first recorded war in the Bible comes right after Cain and Abel, when Dinah’s brothers slaughtered the entire tribe of the man who had seduced Dinah. It was to them a matter of honor and pride and in their minds it could only be restored by wiping out all the men and taking all the women and wealth.

Gilligan said he always heard the same story as to why his interviewees said they murdered or brutally assaulted people. What he heard, every time, was “He dissed me” or else humiliated, mocked, insulted and ridiculed the prisoner’s children, wife, parents, friends. Gilligan one day realized what he was hearing, over and over, was the story of Cain and Abel: the feelings of humiliation followed by revenge manifesting itself as murder. (Gilligan also said, “The most dangerous men on earth are those who are afraid they are wimps.”)

"Omegas" aren't respected. They receive no recognition (the word "recognition" means "to look twice"). Then they make people pay attention to them by the easiest and quickest way - violence.

What is the shorthand for "lack of respect?" Dissed. "He disrespected me."

These Omegas are already dead inside. The word "mortification" means to "make dead" through overwhelming humiliation.

People who commit these kinds of crimes always feel justified since they consider it self-defense against people whom they feel are trying to murder them. And it certainly isn't going to help things now that there is shorthand word to describe them - "Omega." At the bottom. The exact opposite of an Alpha. A complete loser with nothing going for him.

Let's take the fictional Walter White. Was he an Alpha? Or just a Beta or Omega with a pistol and the will to use it (which I'm sure made him feel powerful)? Did he feel humiliated and resentful because he didn't get what he thought he should out of life, and so sought revenge on everyone? Some "Alpha."

What's going to happen, human nature being as ignorant and perverted as it is, is that anyone who isn't an "Alpha" is going to be contemptible. I read one ignoramus who said that intelligence was "a Beta trait." Know how he came to that conclusion? He made it up.

If those terms - Alphas, Omega, etc. - ever become commonly used, it will get to the point that calling someone a Beta or Gamma or Omega, or whatever silly terms are used, is going to be an insult. And after a lifetime of that, what do you think some of the responses are going to be? They won't be good ones, I'll tell you that.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The people who are writing about the alpha, beta concept seem to be the type who need external validation to maintain their self image.

Bob Wallace said...

That's the impression I got, too.

Ajax Murgatroyd said...

I see such designations as alpha, beta, and omega to be entirely situational. For example, when I'm on stage playing guitar with my band, I am definitely an alpha. The next morning, however, I'm just another invisible schmuck working an invisible job; beta at best. And this makes sense, too, as it would just be exhausting (if even possible) to be "on" 24/7.

Wyowanderer said...

You must be riling up the "alpha" over at the chateau, because he's challenging your assertions about alphas...poor little fella.

Anonymous said...

Wyowander-

Your comment is interesting, because you apply the female tactic (shaming) with about as much subtlety as a falling piano.

"Poor little fella"? Such comments are fit to come from the mouths of the effete and powerless. You can do better, my friend.

The alpha/beta classifications, for those who are paying attention, are terms that are used as conversational shorthand for certain types of behaviors or experiences.

Those who rail against the use of such conversational shorthand are constructing a strawman, which they then passive-aggressively deconstruct.

By substituting a cartoonish representation of an "alpha" or "beta", it is then a simple step to appear to discredit the concept.

The fact that some manosphere commenters use these terms as some sort of absolute taxonomy of men proves only that every group has adherents who mistakenly oversimplify the conversation.

Here is a little thought for you, though:

A real man can have a debate within the boundaries of someone else's frame, and using their terms - if they are interested in real debate, unless of course they feel intellectually threatened. And I can tell when someone feels intellectually threatened, because they use terms like "poor little fella".

It is the insecure that have the most use for straw men and petty attempts at mockery. That is why women use those methods, as they are less equipped to engage in direct debate. It is always a disappointment to see men co-opting female methodologies.

Bob Wallace said...

"The alpha/beta classifications, for those who are paying attention, are terms that are used as conversational shorthand for certain types of behaviors or experiences."

They will never work and in the long run will be discarded.