Thursday, September 18, 2014

"Omegas" Murdering "Alphas"

I've been reading the Manosphere for the past several years and, as I have pointed out before, there are a lot of very 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.

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. He and his four-inch Korean micro-dick would have been much better off staying in Korea where he belonged.

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.'"

Then there was George Sodini, whose failure with women led him to murder four women and wound nine before talking his own life. He left some notes saying he hated women...which make me wonder what will happen when more and more men are utterly rejected by women. Such as the nut Elliot Rodgers.

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 - pulled it straight out of his butt.

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.

This is what happens when civilization starts to break down.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Alphas are supposed to be good-looking guys with money who get all the women."

What you seem to be doing here is defining your own terms so as it's easy to demolish the argument.

That's not my understanding of an 'Alpha'.

"The word "Alpha" came from the study of wolves .."

There you go again. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and is used in the PUA context to mean first among men (specifically) for the favours freely given by women, but it might mean, a natural leader to which other men are happy to defer.

The term may also have been used in other unrelated fields of study but that is irrelevant.

It's used in mathematics or Radioisotopes. but that too is unrelated to human sexuality.

"Seung-Hui Cho was the Virginia Tech shooter .... He of course was mentally ill, "

Well yes. That's all you need to know. He was mentally ill, and thus probably not easily categorized into the normal socio sexual hierarchy.

There are a lot of men lower down the socio sexual hierarchy that don't go ape-shit and shoot the place up, they just suck it up, and probably die prematurely but quietly.

May well go some way to explaining the higher rate of suicide in men than women.

Anonymous said...

What?

Anonymous said...

There's a better explanation of the Alpha/Beta/Omega types of men:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com.au/2006/01/keynesian-sexual-marketplace.html

Anonymous said...

Another link:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com.au/2001/01/what-is-alpha-male.html

Bob Wallace said...

Since everyone has their own definition of "Alpha" - and think everyone else is wrong - they don't exist. It's a comic book concept, and only fools use the word to describe people.

Anonymous said...

"Since everyone has their own definition of "Alpha" - and think everyone else is wrong - they don't exist."

No, through observation it is possible to identify a variety of personality traits that women find appealing in the opposite sex. Nearly always only a subset of which are manifest in any particular man.

Some men, naturally or by artifice have an over-abundance of attractive characteristics, such could be called Alpha.

Dominance for example, might be countered by neediness, making a dominant but needy man seem unattractive, or augmented by good humour. If you were to claim it is a difficult dynamic to observe dispassionately (especially from the inside ) I'd agree.

'Alpha' could apply to a spectrum of men who have a variety of characteristics in differing measure. That there isn't one Alpha prototype that has exactly 60% confidence, 20% dominance, 20% humour and 10% looks, isn't in dispute.

When you contrast a man who is commonly considered 'successful with women' with the unfortunate man who is not, it is clear which personality characteristics are preferred by women.

Neediness, overt desire to please a woman are characteristics that by and large do not interest or arouse women.

A dominant, confident, humorous man, might clean up if set free among a group of women.

These characteristics too, by the way, are attractive among men.

Anonymous said...

60+20+20+10 <> 100

Interestingly enough, intelligence doesn't seem to register very strongly on a woman's attractiveness detector.

It's a factor, but other factors give more 'bang for your buck'.

Ingemar said...

This reminds me of an old Dane Cook stand-up (don't know if he ripped off the joke though).

He would find the obvious outcast in the company and be nice to him/give him treats because when Outcast inevitably goes postal, all he'll say to him is, "Thanks for the chocolate" and spare him.

Bob Wallace said...

"No, through observation it is possible to identify a variety of personality traits that women find appealing in the opposite sex. Nearly always only a subset of which are manifest in any particular man."

No, everyone has their own definition of Alpha, including you.

I've been told they're rapists, murderers, bombers, mass murderers, serial killers - all that Dark Triad bullshit the naive never understand.

I never use the word since it's worse than adolescent - it's comic book.

Anonymous said...

"I've been told they're rapists, murderers, bombers, mass murderers, serial killers - "

Ah! That settles it, gossip trumps empiricism.

"all that Dark Triad bullshit the naive never understand."

Which oddly enough was a large part of one of the trashiest but best selling female fiction novels, 'Fifty shades of grey' ... Yea, it was bollocks, but women lapped it up. FSoG had a comparable impact on the female psyche that a Penthouse centrefold might have on a man before the advent of the Internet.

"I never use the word since it's worse than adolescent .. "

Except as a shorthand it is perfectly adequate.

Anyway, whatever!

Bob Wallace said...

People who use the word "Alpha" are never Alphas - and they don't understand themselves or women, which is why they read the Manosphere. They don't understand what the word "empiricism" means, either.

Unfortunately, the Lost Boys of the Manosphere, who use such terms, were raised by weak/nonexistent fathers and clueless mothers, and in public schools with dipshit female teachers. They were raised in a feminized culture and without male mentors.

This sounds familiar to you, doesn't?

Grown men do not use the word "Alpha," since it is a word for 12-year-olds.

Anonymous said...

"I've been reading the Manosphere for the past several years .... "

and

" .. and they don't understand themselves or women, which is why they read the Manosphere."

No dispute there.

"
This sounds familiar to you, doesn't?[sic]"

To the extend it sounds like unnecessary ad hominem, by an individual who is highly emotionally invested in his own point of view and consequently refuses to consider any conflicting viewpoint, Yes.