Saturday, March 28, 2015

Gamma, not Omega

It appears the Chateau was correct. Andreas Lubitz was an embittered and heartbroken Gamma male, not a rage-filled Omega:
Maria told the German newspaper Bild: "We got to know each other last year on a flight and exchanged numbers, then stayed in contact. We met in hotels, but it was difficult because of our jobs."

Speaking of Lubitz's emotional make-up she described him as someone who was"nice and open minded" in public, but who needed constant love and reassurance in private.

"He was a good man who could be very sweet. He brought me flowers," but she added that he suffered from the pressure of his job, stating: "We spoke a lot about work and then he became another person. He became agitated about the circumstances in which he had to work, too little money, anxiety about his contract and too much pressure."

Maria said they eventually split up when she felt unable to deal with his growing problems and his increasingly volatile temper any more.

"During conversations he'd suddenly throw a tantrum and scream at me. I was afraid. He even once locked me in the bathroom for a long time."

German investigators refused to confirm whether the sick note, or the hospital treatment, related to depression, though Lubitz is reported to have taken time out from his pilot training after suffering mental illness before he finally qualified.

As the hunt continued for a motive for Lubitz’s mass murder, it also emerged that he had recently split from his girlfriend, and appeared to have made a desperate last attempt to win her back by buying her a brand new Audi car only weeks ago. She appeared to have said no, as the car was never delivered.
And some men wonder why women are instinctively creeped out and disturbed by grand gestures. It's a much finer line between "buying her a new Audi" and "crashing an airplane" than most people would like to believe.

As much as the feminists find it hard to believe, women are in far more physical danger from the Gammas who supplicate to them and are eager to grant their every wish than they are from the Alphas who objectify and use them.

Heartiste explains the difference:
When I saw a photo of the guy, my gut told me he was a lovelorn beta male candidate who may have flew (heh) into a psychotic episode triggered by a relationship breakup. I decided against my gut, in favor of the more “PC” speculation. I should’ve stuck with my gut. News arrives that Lubitz was seeing a therapist to get over his fiancée dumping him.

(NB: This isn’t omega male rage, a la Elliot Rodger. Omega males are sexless castaways. Beta males can get girlfriends, but are awful at maintaining relationship hand, so they frequently get dumped, what seems to them, out of the blue.)

Friday, March 27, 2015

Irrational discourse

From a conversation on Twitter:
 Vanir ‏@Vanir85
 @voxday the problem (for misogynists) is women CHOOSING instead of being wifebots or sex-slaves. it's almost like they're *people*

Vox Day ‏@voxday
The real objection is to the way so many women are choosing to stuff their faces and evolve into land whales.

Vanir ‏@Vanir85
because looking thin for men is NOT the most important thing in their life, i imagine. and good for them :)
If you want to know how to make an SJW dance like a puppet, just utilize their contrarian instincts. Once you have been identified as a badthinker, they will say literally anything so long it is in opposition to you. And they almost never think beyond reacting to your immediate statement.

One easy way to recognize an SJW white knight is how he will reflexively defend women under any and all circumstances. Think about how objectively silly his response is, it's not even logically coherent.

WK: The problem is X.
VD: No, the problem is Y.
WK: I imagine Z, and Z is good!

I don't know about you, but I certainly find it convincing! SJWs are so haplessly irrational and limited to the rhetorical level that they don't realize an appeal to their own imagination doesn't even rise to the level of logical fallacy. At this point, you already know that there is absolutely no point in even trying to utilize reason or talking to such an individual. Whether you choose to entertain yourself by kicking your interlocutor around or to simply ignore him is totally irrelevant. The point is that you have been informed that any form of rational discourse is not in the cards.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

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.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

The past has consequences

Rollo astutely juxstaposes Sheryl Sandberg's advice for women to sow their wild oats with Alphas, then settle down with Deltas and Gammas afterwards with one woman's actual experience of having her past unexpectedly disclosed to her husband:
As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.

Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship. Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.

So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.

My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.

So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.
As Rollo points out: "One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years. Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife."

It seems to me this gentleman was absolutely, if belatedly, correct about his wife's complete lack of character and he's doing the right thing by kicking her to the curb as quickly and cleanly as possible. Not only did she conceal her past from him, but now that she's been caught out, she's trying to figure out how to escape an arrangement she agreed to even though he's going beyond his legal obligations by paying off her student loans. (Is anyone even remotely surprised that a woman like this has debt?) Her Female Imperative of the right to historical revisionism and the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed has been violated, and rather than regretting her mistakes, she is enraged by the consequences of them.

Women always want to believe the past is irrelevant, which is remarkably stupid because the past informs who and what we are today. And those pasts can only be fully understood and accepted if they are admitted; lying about them is foolish because most lies are eventually exposed sooner or later over time. Not everyone is short-sighted enough to live only for today; most women don't want to be married to such men anyway since they tend to be unreliable and unable to support women and children.

Expecting any man who is sufficiently far-sighted to successfully launch multiple businesses and insist on a pre-nup to react like some drug-addled musician who can't remember yesterday or think past tomorrow is cognitive dissonance of the sort that gets Epiphany Phase women in trouble. If a woman is a slut in college, she's still a slut even when she cleans up her act, she's a reformed slut. Epiphany equals reform, not erasing history. A reformed slut is not the same thing as a woman who is not a slut. That doesn't mean the reformed slut can't be a lovely individual, or that she is a woman no man will marry, it simply means she can't marry any man who isn't willing to marry a slut. This isn't rocket science.

Once a gambler, always a gambler. Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. Once a player, always a player. Once a slut, always a slut. It's about the internal wiring, not the external actions. Even when one gets one's behavior under control, the wiring is still there.

And if the reformed slut does marry under false pretenses, she's a con artist, and she should be no more surprised when the man she conned no more wants to continue the marriage than Bernie Madoff's victims wanted to continue their investments with him.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Graduating Gamma 4

Graduating Gamma
Step Four: Mental

There is no man on the planet more intellectually dishonest than a Gamma, as even an Omega has enough self-awareness to avoid being a buffoon at social event and will instead stay at home and play computer games. Everything from a Gamma is a con or a presented image because behind that shell is a scared, miserable boy who uses whatever tools are at his disposal to build the Gamma Delusion Bubble. The Gamma Delusion Bubble shields the Gamma from somehow and some way ever being wrong about anything, as there is no being wrong about “something”, there is only being a wrong “person”. His identity is so tied up in his opinions about everything, including himself, that any slip-up is a catastrophe which must be avoided at all costs.

I don’t know

The second-most terrifying statement for a Gamma is to admit that he doesn’t know something. A Gamma constantly speaks of having knowledge in areas he most certainly does not. Being ignorant for a Gamma is being discredited as a person, so they will do what is in their power to bluff, obfuscate, and redirect people so others don’t see their ignorance. If you wish to escape the life of a Gamma you must learn the statement, “I don’t know” and use it when it is appropriate.

I must unfortunately take a moment to explain to the binary-thinking Gammas that no, you do not go from being a know-it-all to blurting out “I don’t know” at the start of nearly every conversation, feel the need to explain all of the time now about how you don’t know something, and talk about how proud you are about not to knowing things. You may laugh at this, but I know Gammas well, and there are some out there who will do this exact thing thinking they are improving their situation, until it obviously doesn’t work and they blame this post for their failures.

In simple practice you say this when needed and you honestly don’t know about the topic at hand. While at first glance it seems easy enough if you are a Gamma, it is difficult in reality. It’s challenging because typically you’ve already hung yourself on your own ignorance in a conversation by saying way more than you should have, and by the time you are challenged on a point, having to say you don’t know part of it means your entire argument might collapse. Think about this for a moment. If you are saying so much that if someone challenges a point, and by admitting that you don’t know about something in which you are pontificating about, it destroys what you are saying, where was your first error? It was bull-shitting in the first place. Stop making definitive statements about things if you can’t back them up with logic or evidence, unless it is clearly a subjective opinion of little matter.

Examples of subjective opinions of little matter: favorite color, sports teams, movies you like, the hottest actress. You don’t have to know why you have a favorite sports team or why you like green over blue, it doesn’t matter. On the other hand if you think we should use gold as a currency rather than fiat, you’d better know all about the subject before trying to tell people how the monetary system should be run. Gammas do not want to admit ignorance, they want to appear intelligent, so they overreach their arguments and then feel they can’t backtrack an inch.


Monday, March 23, 2015

Little girls need fathers

A woman who was raised by two mothers explains why girls need dads:
Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, wrote in an essay this week that same-sex "marriage" is not the same as normal marriage between a man and a woman, that the traditional family is best, and that while growing up she "ached every day for a dad."

Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, says "gay marriage" not only redefines marriage but also parenting and that "as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy."

Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that "same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not."

"A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost."

"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn’t need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet, as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says that men are unnecessary."
Ironically enough, it appears that her two mothers did a pretty good of raising her. She's married with four children by 31; many two-parent Christian homes can't say as much. But it would be foolish not to heed her words, and her warning.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

The Gamma identifier

There were a lot of good guesses, many of which were indeed phrases popular with Gammas, but no one landed precisely on the phrase that I have observed to be most useful in correctly identifying a Gamma early in his argumentative process. Aquila Aquilonis came closest when he said: "I'm pretty sure the phrase is a re-framing phrase that is blatantly dishonest." Slarrow was also in the neighborhood with "I think what you're saying...."

The actual phrase, however, is "You seem to be saying" or its variants "It appears you are saying" or "So you're claiming/telling me"

This is subtly, but significantly, different than what slarrow guessed, as it is NOT a statement about what the Gamma thinks, which would be perfectly legitimate even if incorrect, but rather a dishonest reframe of what the other party has already said. What the Gamma is doing when he uses it is setting up the strawman he intends to attack in lieu of what the other party actually said.

Notice that it appeared in the Gamma example from the other day: "However, you seem to be repeating that claim again, despite having the contrary evidence up front. So, you're pretty close to providing me with adequate support for my earlier claim."

Of course, I did not repeat the claim again, in fact, I pointed out that I had never made the claim in the first place. My response: "You can't repeat that which never existed in the first place."

Then, in another post made after I mentioned how this phrase is a useful early identifier, another Gamma utilized a variant of it twice in precisely the same manner.
  1. "So you're claiming that Iraq attacked Iran and started the war?"
  2. "So you're telling me a coup d'etat that the British used to establish control of Iran during the days of British colonialism is justification for the medieval regime of the Ayatollah?"
Both of these characterizations were false. My response: "I wrote what I wrote. I said what I said. Stop this "so you're telling me" and "so you're claiming" bullshit. If you can't address exactly what I wrote, not some idiotic revision of your own device, then you're not tall enough for this ride and you don't belong here." This led to the customary Gamma verbal deluge.
"Yeah Ok. So the British overthrew the Iranian Government for stealing the oil wells they drilled in Iran by themselves, and the Iranians had no use for without Western Technology like cars and electric generators. Oh no! Those evil oil companies that steal the resources of backward natives that don't even know its there to make those evil industries that feed the world and provide lifesaving medicine and technology! Are you sure you're not a Liberal Democrat? Evil Oil Companies? Really? What the fuck were these Iranians going to do with this oil without Western Technology? Were they going to build another House of Saud like Saudi Arabia?"
I wasn't the only one to notice the blatantly dishonest reframing. As it happens, I never said anything at all about oil companies, evil or otherwise. All I pointed out was the simple, easily confirmable historical fact that the United States was in part responsible for the 1953 coup that toppled the democratically-elected Iranian government.
And here we have another perfect example of a Straw Man argument. Joshua invents the claim that Vox is saying "Evil Oil Companies" were behind everything, then proceeds to flail at the straw man.
And thereby anecdotally demonstrated that the use of the phrase "You seem to be saying", and its variants, is a reliable Gamma identifier, and therefore the individual resorting to it is probably an individual who merits a purely rhetorical dismissal rather than a honest dialectical response.