Gamma solipsism

JW points out something it is important to keep in mind when dealing with Gamma males. And remember, most, though not all, SJWs are Gammas.

Speaking as someone who, much like the classic SJW, finds lots of things "triggering" seeing the picture of Vox with wife and also listening to his voice is jolting to me. I think its because, much like the SJW, I always suspect that deep down everybody is like me and completely insecure, and that this blog is actually written by somebody with deep insecurity. When it becomes clear that it isn't it is a mini-shock to me.

His comment about my voice is particularly interesting because I don't have a deep bass I AM ALPHA voice. I'm a tenor and I have a mildly sibilant S, which is why you'll never hear me reading my own audiobooks. It's quite common for people to be surprised by it after a radio interview, as these comments from last night's podcast about Sad Puppies demonstrate.

1. Vox, your voice is very different then I expected. I always thought of you sounding like George C. Scott in Patton
2. My son said "That's Vox? I always hear Darth Vador's voice when I read him."

And yet, JW still found my voice "jolting". Why? Because I am fundamentally at ease with myself. I'm confident in my strengths, I'm accepting of my weaknesses, and I don't have many illusions about myself. And most of all, JW could hear that I didn't have anything to hide and that I genuinely possess confidence in myself.

Confidence is so foreign to the Gamma that they can't imagine it actually exists. That's why their attempts to ape it are so often jarringly off; it is like a blind man attempting to draw a unicorn.

Gammas are insecure and solipsistic, so they will tend to project their insecurity onto you. Remember, they cannot distinguish between feigned confidence and the real thing. It's not a problem, at least not for you, although their inability to take you at your word can sometimes be annoying.

Alpha Mail: a malicious woman

GC asks how to counteract one:

I think the sister had it in for me because of all my past transgressions, and honestly, I think [ex-girlfriend] was just waiting until gala season is over to dump me because we were scheduled to go to a number of balls. Well, I told her that we're done and that we're not going to those events together, even though she suggested amicably attending these together as a goodbye to our relationship. But she's making it a point to go anyways, and she's already recruiting our mutual friends from the arts to be on her side. Yesterday she was having drinks with prominent figures in the arts world. Today she's scheduled to have dinner with a gay couple that also run an arts organization here.

At one point yesterday, while I was in my Italian language class, she texted me saying that she was going to all those events and that none of our acquaintances like me and that they won't talk to me. I'm currently part of a pilot program to get younger people on boards, and I'm worried that her contacts will block me when the time comes to nominate members.

None of this is the end of the world, I know. I'm a man, an engineer in the oil and gas industry, and something tells me that I shouldn't stress so much over all this foo foo stuff, but she can potentially derail everything that I've worked for over the past year simply because she's a scorned woman. And this means less business and social connections and less access to quality women.

Vox, you are a master of human dynamics and I think you are a sort of authority on military tactics. I thoroughly enjoy the way you tear apart every GamerGate and Pink Shirt SJW that even looks in your direction. I'm sure that you can give me some insight into my situation and I respectfully ask for your advice. What sort of social jujitsu can I use to counter an actively malicious person?

The best thing to do initially is to ignore them. When women say things like "nobody likes you" they are simply trying to get a rise out of you. Don't give it to them. Now, since GC wanted to go to the foo-foo events, he should have simply said "sure" when she suggested attending as mutual armpieces; that was his first mistake because he needlessly turned the ex-girlfriend into an opponent in addition to the sister.

So, what I would recommend is taking her out to dinner, offering an olive branch, and saying that he's thought it over and is happy to take her to the various events as a couple. If she rejects the idea, fine, he's no worse off than he was.

What so many men like GC don't understand is the whole "I've got my pride" thing is actually a display of weakness. It means you care. If you don't care, then you do what you want no matter what the other person does or says. All that "if you do x then that means y" is the way women and gammas. It's literally meaningless.

So, the first thing you do is turn those who don't really want to be enemies into allies, or at least neutrals. The persistently malicious, like the sister, you simply treat with cold contempt, and press their buttons without making a big deal of it. If you really want to set a woman off, let her go through her whole nasty spiel, then raise an eyebrow and comment that she looks like she's gained weight. Another tactic is to give her an unflattering nickname that plays off her size, appearance, or behavior, then use it when talking to her friends when they mention her. "Oh, so how is the Viper?"

Women are very, very sensitive about their weight, more so than men can really grasp, and you easily can send them into a week-long spiral with nothing more than a casual comment. But because of that, it's not a tactic you should use unless the woman is openly malicious, if she's merely being vicious because she's mad or her feelings are hurt, it's overkill.

Hergomous, hogamous

I believe I was among the first, if not the first, to warn of the inevitable problem facing college-educated women now that more women than men attend university. The more intelligent a woman is, the higher a woman rises, the less likely she is to find a man willing to marry her:

A study conducted with 121 British participants reported findings that females with high intelligence in male/female relationships were seen as problematic. Their intelligence were predicted to cause problems in the relationships. Whereas, high intelligence in the male partner was not seen as problematic, but desirable.

These cultural stereotypes and gender biases are inhibiting women from being seen as equals. Rational and educated women are being ignored and chastised for their intelligence.

Those women who teach you, show you and help you grow are being picked over, combed through and dumped for girls with shirts that show a little too much skin and platform heels.

Of course there are plenty of women out there with boyfriends who are intelligent. This is not to come at women with boyfriends, but to assuage that nagging, pestering pain all intelligent women feel as men continually take them out to dinner, have a great time then decide they’re not worth the work....

The number of college-educated women now outweighs the number of college-educated men, which in turn has diminished options in the dating pool. Men aren’t ready to accept being second in the bread-winning competition and this is causing women to either settle or stay single.

It shouldn't really be that difficult for women to understand. Women are hypergamous and men are hypogamous. It's neither right nor wrong, it's neither good nor bad, it simply is.

Hergomous, hogamous, men are hypogamous
Hogamous, Hergomous, women are hypergamous

My wife has a high IQ. I have an extremely high IQ. We both like it that way. The hypothetical woman with an IQ as high as mine is out of luck. She can either marry down, which women hate to do, or compete for a small pool of men that has been reduced by one.

Most likely, she'll remain alone, and fail to pass on her very high-IQ genes, which is precisely why our current social order is dysgenic. But female hypergamy is every bit as much to blame as "male insecurity" or "men feeling threatened", which are all just insufficiently educated ways of saying "hypogamy".

Breaking the scars

Good Looking Loser explains how being excluded from the in-group left lasting scars on him that inhibited his socio-sexual development:

A lot of girls made themselves available to me but I really didn't know what to do about it.

I also had an unhealthy attitude about it.

I loved that girls at my high school noticed me and talked about me.

It gave meaning to my life.

It made me insecure instead of COMPLETELY insecure.

But a big part of me was more bitter than ever. Girls were only interested because I became good looking when years before - they wouldn't even speak to me.

I turned down a lot of girls with pride.

Some girls - right to their face.

I decided I was absolutely not going to hook up with any girls wouldn't give me the time of day just 1 year ago.

I told myself and my bewildered friends that "I WILL NEVER SELL OUT."

While this was a temporary absurd self-esteem boost, it cost me dearly.

I went to college with very little sexual experience and a huge ego.

It was probably the main reason I only had a average sex life in college.

I was scared and still terrified of rejection.

Fear is the single most important factor that prevents a man from rising in the socio-sexual hierarchy. This fear can be externally imposed or it can be internal, but in either case, it prevents a man from doing what he knows to be the right thing, from what he hopes will change his circumstances, or from even approaching the women in whom he is interested.

It wasn't pride that kept Chris from hooking up with girls who wouldn't give him the time of day one year before, it was fear that they were going to reject him at some point and thereby invalidate all the positive changes that had taken place in his life. I understand, because I went through much the same transformation in my own life around the same age; the only time I went out with a girl from my high school, she was two years younger and a new transfer student. And we only went on one date. I went out with a lot of pretty girls everywhere from Mounds View, Irondale, and Centennial to Blake, Edina, Jefferson and Kennedy. But not a single girl from my own school.

Rejection, whether it is from the group or from a woman, hurts. But it is rather like contact martial arts. The first time you get punched in the face, it is normal to go into shock. By the tenth time, so long as you don't break anything or get physically stunned, you'll shake it off quickly. By the one hundredth time, it will barely register with you, you'll simply file it away under "okay, that didn't work" and you won't even remember it otherwise.

Don't be afraid to be rejected, learn to push for rejection. Don't avoid the possibility of rejection, push to reach that moment of truth faster. Because the faster you are rejected, the faster you fail, the sooner you can move on to more fertile grounds, more receptive audiences, and more accepting groups.

No disclosure means divorce

Remember the dictum about never asking a woman for advice about women? This answer from Dear Prudence to a man who belatedly found out about his wife's sexual past is exhibit A.

Your wife violated two rules: One, she didn’t tell you when she should have told you. Two, when she told you, she told you too much.

But you now need to put what you’ve learned into perspective. You two have been together for five years, and you don’t indicate that during that time you have ever had cause to doubt your wife’s fidelity or her satisfaction with your sex life. I don’t know if meeting you was the turning point in her life, or if by the time she met you she had moved past her emotional problems and was ready for a more fulfilling relationship. Whatever it was, it’s clear that when you got together she was a different person from the one who sought out illicit and even degrading encounters. You must know that people do change and that many people are able to leave destructive habits behind for good.

Your wife was not obligated to spill all to you when you were courting. But at some point after you two became serious, she should have informed you to some degree about her past, enough to convey the salient point that she once went through a difficult period during which she “self-medicated” through sex. She could have mentioned that she’d slept with married men and been unfaithful in previous relationships without going into detail. It would have allowed you to have a sense of her past without having disturbing images seared in your mind.

What’s important now is for you to remember that your wife is the same person you’ve known for the past five years, and that there’s no reason this confession should cast a shadow on your good fortune at finding each other. It would be sad if her desire to have you understand her better leads to your loving her less. You just recently got this news and have understandably been ruminating on it. Now it’s time to stop. See if you can decide to push these thoughts out of your mind and make the choice to return to being grateful for your life together.

Notice that at no point does Dear Prudence say that the woman should have told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Being solipsistic, women are always eager to protect their ability to hide their own secrets from men. But the fact is that any woman who behaved like this because "she felt sad" is almost certainly going to do it again, particularly one who exhibited no respect for the institution of marriage when on the other side of it. They've only been married for two years, and it's quite obvious that the distressed gentleman is a Delta fall-back scenario for the woman; the fact that he feels "quite lucky" to have her suggests that she's the most attractive woman who has ever been nominally interested in him, or at least in a relationship that involves him supporting her. Imagine that.

It's true, people do change. But they change for the worse as well as the better, and the scenario he is in is so common that there is a name for it: Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. It seldom ends well even when there is a considerably less sordid backstory. There is a good reason he's having trouble accepting the fact that he married under false pretenses; he should follow the lead of the gentleman who belatedly found out about his wife's college threesomes and Next her without looking back.

There will always be reasonable exceptions, but in general, young men should start expressing a firm No Disclosure Means Divorce policy, as this is the only way that women will begin coming clean and permitting men to make informed decisions with regards to whom they will or will not marry. In law, willful failure to fully disclose amounts to misrepresentation and is grounds for negating a contract, and the same principle obviously applies to marriage.

Wikipedia: Misrepresentation is a concept in the contract law of England and some other Commonwealth countries, referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.

Wait, come back

They belatedly said:

So, since the fifties, these groups have been for women only. Now, after almost 60 years of reverse sexism, they aren’t getting anywhere with their exclusion of men and now want men to join? Seriously? Why would any men join up?

Dr. Helen was right. And what we're seeing from the women's networks is only a harbinger. Women are sensing that men not only don't need them anymore, they don't really want anything to do with them. And it scares the hell out of them. As it should, because women need mental buy-in from men a lot more than men need it from women.

Hot white women and Jews most racist

I can hear Heartiste laughing from the other side of the ocean:

Among white women, one of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. [ed: :lol: ]

For white men, body type has no effect on their likelihood of excluding blacks or Asians. While political views also have no effect on racial exclusion by white men, white women who describe themselves as liberal or very liberal are less likely to exclude black men as dates than women who are not political, middle of the road, or conservative. Surprisingly, liberal white women appear more likely to exclude Asian men as dates, although this finding only borders on significance.

Finally, religion affects black exclusion, and Asian exclusion among white women. Specifically, we see that whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor; that is, all white men and women who identified as Jewish excluded blacks as possible dates; all white women who identified as Jewish also excluded Asian men as possible dates.

Yeah, that's going to be a useful study the next time some Jewish liberal is wagging his finger about antiracism. When it comes to dating, there is literally no one more racist than a Jewish woman.

This again explodes the myth that the media has been relentlessly pushing about the sexual attractiveness of Africans. The more attractive a woman is, the more selective a woman can afford to be, the less inclined she is to mudshark.