Monday, September 7, 2009

Our real enemies: alpha males

A few weeks ago, someone calling himself Anonomega left the same comment on both In Mala Fide and Half Sigma, in response to the George Sodini incident. This comment intrigued me, though it was poorly formatted and a little obscene. I'm going to take the liberty of editing it slightly and reposting it here, in hopefully more readable form:

After pondering on Omega rage and pain, I realise it would do the Sodinis of the world good to, to paraphrase Sinead O'Connor, Fight The Real Enemy.

Gammas, Omegas, lend me your ear: your misogyny is, at worst, understandable; of this I will not argue. But stay your hand at those with the XX chromosome and heed... Yes, women ought stop having such high standards, settle more for lower males, appreciate nice guys, give them chance etc., since this is what men have to do. But consider: we can be pretty damn content with a 5, heck, even a 4.5. But what if there were many 10s not only making themselves available, but AGGRESSIVELY SEDUCING us? Would we bother with those 5s? Is it reasonable to expect us to? So in this alternate reality, if a 5 is deprived the joys of sex, romance, marriage, and motherhood, who should she really blame? The men, or a bunch of bitchy, slutty 10s who already have plenty of men, but still run around rubbing up against every halfway attractive man, simply because they CAN?

Do the "math".

Fight the Real Enemy: the ALPHAS.

All alphas have to do is pick one or two of the hottest ass they can get and f***ing MAKE DO with it, and it will trickle down to some come hither stares in Sodinis direction. But with each just-because-I-can extra lay, they brutally SNATCHED away Sodini's one chance at meager sexual contentment.

And many alphas know this! Look at Roissy's blog! They know this and they're laughing their sick f***ing asses off about it!! "Trix are for kids, motherf***er!" May I remind you these are the guys who TORMENTED YOU IN SCHOOL?! REMEMBER THAT, OMEGAS?! And when we learn how the mating game is really played, we realise they destroyed us far more than we thought they were when we were young. By beating us down, crushing our self-esteem, they were wringing out of us something PRECIOUS: our confidence, something ESSENTIAL to securing a mate, though we did not realise it at the time! Wake up and smell the locker insides and toilet water!

Alpha's, higher Betas, the Real Enemy, have always been our oppressors, their cruelty fueled by nothing other than their vile despising of the weak. Yet so many Gamma-Omegas wanna lash out at the c*nts. Why? The reasons are obvious. when your beaten down and SCARED--SO TERRIFIED--of your oppressors, it is expected to direct your bitterness and hurt at softer, easier targets. I walked the path of misogyny too, and I'm not suggesting going back to women-are-angels bullsh*t. It's just that upon simple thinking, reflection, analysis, whatever, I realise that misogyny is the easier path, yet it is ultimately the more cowardly.

To any future, budding, wanna-be, halfway, or neo-George Sodinis out there: I don't, ahem, support the sort of bloodshed he was about or anything... but I'm JUST SAYING.... IF YOU HAVE TO SHOOT SOMEBODY, IF YOU HAVE TO KIDNAP AND TORTURE SOMEBODY... think on my words and ask yourself: WHO DESERVES IT MORE?! Ahem... of course, in the name of decency and morality and all that good sh*t, I would have to advocate less psychotic means. Vengeance on alphas will be a lot harder and scarier than c*nt-hatred: you may have to discipline yourself, make yourself combat ready, and ultimately become that which you hate. Heck, I can't practice what I preach! But if you put down the "Stupid Sluts Take It Up The Ass Like they Deserve" porn and pick up the barbell, it will be potentially more rewarding, for yourself and (I think) society. And Alphas will learn the one downside rule of the alpha life:

Watch Your F***ing Back.
I have to admit that, while morbid, what this commenter said really resonated with me. I, too, was a frustrated teenage boy, with no clue about how to even begin interacting with these strange alien creatures called girls, impotently looking on with envy as the more popular boys somehow won their affections effortlessly, seemingly without doing anything, as if by magic. I wasn't exactly tormented by the bad boys in school; for the most part, they just ignored me, though this was doubtless due to the fact that I didn't even try to insert myself into their world. But those about whom I entertained sadistic fantasies of torture, murder, and worse (perhaps a bit too much disclosure, but I'm assuming most of us go through such a phase as a teenager) were not the girls, they were the cooler boys who were getting those girls. It was they I wanted to hurt.

And I'm sure Anonomega articulates the thoughts of many a frustrated teenage boy/young man with his observation that all an alpha has to do is pick a woman and make do with her. Just pick one! How many betas, at the nadir of their despair, have thought, "my God, he doesn't know how lucky he is! If I could be with just one of the countless girls he could get, I'd feel like the king of the world!"

I believe this tendency to view the man who is getting the woman as the problem, rather than the woman, is deeply embedded in the human psyche. After all, in lower animals, such as wolves, how does a male gain the privilege of mating with a female? Not by doing anything to the female herself, but by physically defeating the higher-status male who would stop him.

The problem is made complicated by the fact that today, alphas have been divided into two groups: as Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has been calling them, male alphas and female alphas. ("Female alphas" referring not to females who are alpha, but males who are alpha in the eyes of females.) As Thursday has pointed out elsewhere, some of the men who are best with women have almost nothing else going for them. In modern society, where women don't need providers, you can have a dead-end job, be up to your eyeballs in debt, and have no future to speak of, yet be a world-class ladies' man. But it wasn't always this way. In traditional society, male alphas--leaders of men--more often got the girl, and it was hard to be a player. You were universally reviled, and the lack of contraception and abortion made multiple sexual conquests extremely impractical. In the past, naturals usually did have to just pick one and make do with her.

As Half Sigma recently wrote:

When pre-marital and extra-marital sex was very strongly discouraged by society, being able to talk a girl into bed didn’t mean spreading your genes as much as it meant being forced to marry her at the end of a shotgun (or crossbow or sword or whatever weapon was used back then), or even worse, killed by her angry relatives, put in jail for the crime of adultery, etc.
Examples of this sentiment--that it's not the ladies, but the ladies' men, who are the problem--abound. It's is captured well in the lyrics of country singer Vince Gill's song, "Pocket Full of Gold," about the life of the cad:

Some night you're gonna wind up
On the wrong end of a gun
Some jealous guy's gonna show up
And you'll pay for what you've done
What will it say on your tombstone?
"Here lies a rich man
With his pocket full of gold."

And remember the ending of Mozart's Don Giovanni: the seducer is depicted, quite literally, burning in hell.

And just today, Lawrence Auster at View from the Right referred to a sordid tale from his ancestry, in which his grandmother shot and killed his grandfather during an argument about an affair he was having with an another woman, and the jury let her off out of sympathy with her. In other words, they believed the philanderer deserves what he gets.

This tendency to blame and hate women that arises in some segments of the MRA/MGTOW community appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm not sure why this is. It could be that traditional society carried an implicit recognition that women were fallen creatures too, but was also resigned to the fact that women were going to do what they were going to do, and given the necessity of men leading and women following, thought it more important to discipline men. (Incidentally, this would contradict the Roissysphere's description of men as keys who will adapt themselves to whatever shape women choose their locks to take, but that is a topic for another entry.) And it could be that in modern society, even MRAs/MGTOWers have unconsciously absorbed the belief in female equality, so they expect women to make decisions on the same basis as men do, and become angry at them when they don't.

Whatever the case, like Anonomega, I don't advocate going out and shooting anyone, but I'm sure we can all agree that George Sodini didn't accomplish any good with his choice of targets.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Our real enemy is cultural norms that accept and even celebrate promiscuous behavior.

For every alpha that 'corrupts' a pure woman, there is a pure woman who allows herself to be seduced. Additionally, women use the 'love' card to justify their temporary lack of judgment. Men have no such culturally pre-approved weasel excuse.

Violence, like drug use, is for people who can't accept life on life's terms. It is scary, especially when you realize how little warning we had in the Sodini case. Throughout history, people have endured racism, unjust imprisonment, war, and many other atrocities and kept their composure. We have to dismiss Sodini's act as one of pure frustrated narcissism.

Back on topic:

Each time we are accepting or approving of sexual promiscuity and other societal ills, we are each reinforcing the idea that there is no social penalty for that behavior.

I have called out women on their behavior when I could, and I have noticed that they often exhibit a distinct sense of shame when I do so. Does this help? Probably not, but recreating on a larger scale the idea that reputation matters might be a small component of change.

Anonymous said...

Further thoughts (still me).

This recession, which will probably be longer and more severe than most people expect may also provide a new environment.

Sadly, if it prompts women to seek providers to a larger degree, it may only act as a mask for their already corrupted hearts. If betas suddenly find themselves awash in interested ladies, I would be very suspect that they have not had a change of heart as much as they have altered their financial strategy.

The only real cultural tool we have is a total withdrawal of that which women desire most of all: attention/affection.

This means that even if you are being 'friends' with a woman that is not interested in you while she hunts for a man that gives her the 'tingle', you are keeping her ego on life support with whatever attention you provide (some use the term 'cuddle bitch').

This must not happen. Just as it is wrong to use a woman for sex while you search for your own true love, it is wrong for them to use our attention and affection.

A simple marriage strike will not suffice, it must be an attention strike on the part of GOOD men.

Right now, women enjoy positive (or 'wholesome') attention from nice guys and negative (or 'exciting') attention from cads. They also get the benefit of the more exciting cad's sexual attention.

Let them marinate in the whole package - stop providing any healing attention. Show them that they must take one man in entirety, and while they glow from the exciting sex, they can worry over the uncertainty about being used and dumped.

No more emotional life support from me. I've cut contact of from several women, and believe me, it bugs them. The woman's greatest weapon against man is to withhold sex. The man's is to withhold attention.

Cut the supply off guys. Treat these women with the regard they are due - to be thought of as tramps. I love the look on their faces when I tell a pretty girl that I would never marry a women who has been with more than two guys. Try it, it is good for the beta's soul.

FB said...

If "alpha" means "promiscuous pseudo-alpha idiot," then I agree.

The promiscuous man is the enemy of the faithful man. The whore is the enemy of the decent woman. The difference is that men inevitably find ways to kill each other, and women often don't kill.

Whoring is a widespread practice in many human cultures. It is not easy to wipe it out, and if one believes one has wiped it out, one may have missed some well-hidden whores and johns.

An armed society is a polite society. People like Roissy only exist in the parts of America where law-abiding citizens have been disarmed. Note that his blog is "Roissy in DC" not "Roissy in Kentucky."

Thursday said...

After thinking this over, I don't think it makes sense to assign blame more to alpha males than females. But the larger point, that one shouldn't just blame it all on women, is well taken.

Anonymous said...

Hermes,

You have been pwned over at Welmer's blog.

http://www.welmer.org/2009/09/13/defining-social-conservatism/#comments

Hermes said...

No, I haven't, unless by "pwned" you mean "personally attacked by an ignorant blowhard who hasn't read what you actually wrote nor knows what you actually believe."

SFG said...

Some of it may be resentment against feminism. I had quite a bit of that.

Jennifer said...

"Yes, women ought stop having such high standards"

Actually they have low standards when they pick players.

"But consider: we can be pretty damn content with a 5, heck, even a 4.5. But what if there were many 10s not only making themselves available, but AGGRESSIVELY SEDUCING us? Would we bother with those 5s? Is it reasonable to expect us to?"

What a bunch of shallowness. The crap about men always leading is silly too; women in fact have led men in behavior for many years, and they need to get their act together.

"Try it, it is good for the beta's soul."

Please, the alpha/beta thing is more over-simplistic nonsense. All a man needs is a good frame, of confidence and dominance of whatever field he excels in and refusal to be stepped on; this is the backbone of manhood.

Jennifer said...

FB, perfect post.