Friday, January 29, 2010

Expanding the Taxonomy of Male Classifications


Eveybody's favorite Christian Libertarian anarchist blogger, Vox Day, recently posted about Roissy and his practice of classifying men into the Alpha/Beta dichotomy.

VD wrote a pretty good taxonomy that definitely expands on what many critics of game and Roissy have always pointed out as Roissy's ideological weakness in using only two definitions of male behavior on the spectrum of male value in the sexual marketplace's hierarchy.

Before I present Vox's list, I do want to note that I think Roissy's focus on a Alpha/Beta dichotomy is useful as an intro for people who have never heard of "game" in the first place to gain a solid understanding of the differences in male behavior and demeanor.

Vox's expanded taxonomy seems to be a pretty good breakdown that accounts for all of the variations people always seem to question Roissy about. Roissy's comments are often filled with queries about behaviors such as "Is this "beta" or "alpha?" Am I a "greater beta" or a lesser alpha." Etc.

Perhaps Vox gives us a more useful taxonomy here:

Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.

Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.

"Science" and the Epidemic of Obesity


Two articles came out this week that coincide perfectly with much of the dietary-based topics I've previously blogged about extensively.

First up, The Great Cholesterol Myth which gives a great rundown on how and why saturated fats and cholesterol have been systematically demonized by so-called "scientific studies" and eventually became the official policy of the Government/media zeitgeist that trickled throughout society to eventually become "conventional wisdom." This has lead to a whole host of consumer choices whereby most people thought they were eating healthier but were in fact contributing to the very diseases they thought they were preventing by following the conventional wisdom.

As Michael Chrichton once said in a lecture - (I)n my experience, we all tend to put a lot of faith in science. We believe what we’re told. My father suffered a life filled with margarine, before he died of a heart attack anyway. Others of us have stuffed our colons with fiber to ward off cancer, only to learn later that it was all a waste of time, and fiber.

Here here. I can't believe people eat "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!"

Scientific hypotheses don’t get much simpler than this: the cholesterol, or diet-heart, hypothesis, which has broken free from the ivory towers of academia to impact with massive force on society.

It has driven a widespread change in the type of food we are told to eat, and consequently the food that lines the supermarket shelves. Many people view bacon and eggs as a dangerous killer, butter is shunned, and a multi-billion pound industry has sprung up providing ‘healthy’ low-fat alternatives.

At the same time, millions of people are prescribed statins to lower cholesterol levels, and each new set of guidelines suggests that ever-more lowering of cholesterol is needed. When it comes to explaining what causes heart disease, the cholesterol hypothesis reigns supreme.

But as the US editor and critic HL Mencken put it, ‘For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable and wrong.’ This is how we might view the diet-heart hypothesis: just because it is dominant does not mean it is right, and just because it looks simple does not mean that it actually is.


The second article gets into the details of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and it's role in causing hyperinsulimia, diabetes and obesity...and also ties in the role of sugars and carbohydrates in raising dense, artery clogging LDL cholesterol.

From my own anecdotal experience, I have a young 22 year old male relative who came down with a painful case of gout. He went to the Doctor, who simply prescribed him some maintenance medication and told him to take it whenever he had a flair up.

I told him to just cut out HFCS sodas and juices, and to read the labels of anything he ate and make sure it didn't have any HFCS in it, and I bet his gout would go away.

He listened to me, and it went away in 2 weeks.

That stuff really IS poison. Just because it's from a "plant" doesn't mean it's healthy!

Friday, January 22, 2010

Awareness is Percolating


I've been reading various forums of a wide variety of different topics on the internet ever since I got my first computer and logged online back in 1997...with the Manosphere (btw - great all encompassing term for MRA/MGTOW/MRM/FRM/PUA blogosphere) being only one subject matter I discovered in the last 4 years or so.

Up until recently however, I've noticed that in just about any forum regarding whatever topic it's supposed to be focused on, like NFL football, martial arts, science fiction, news websites etc., most participants generally adhere to the politically correct, mainstream, blue-pill mindset on most every topic. Feminism, misogyny, and "equality" are pretty much taken as articles of faith by 90% of the people online.

Issues regarding domestic violence, divorce, adultery, cuckoldry, slutty behavior, non-jugementalism, the family court system, and all the other topics we in the Manosphere are used to discussing and such almost always had a lockstep conformity to the Matriarchy's cultural zeitgeist.

But as of late, I noticed the tide has slowly but surely turning. Awareness is percolating. While most people still don't recognize the full truth in light of the media and the culture's imposed vision of feminist-based mind control, I see more and more people looking at particular issues and raising important points that contradict the mainstream ideas of the Gynocracy. The cognitive dissonance between observed reality versus the socially engineered indoctrination is starting to manifest more and more amongst the brainwashed sheeple.

Take for instance this little news item reported on the NFL tabloid-esque website ProFootballTalk.com, about San Diego Chargers Linebacker, Shawne Merriman:

"Merriman "excited" about fatherhood, "shocked" by lawsuit"
On Thursday, San Diego Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman announced on Twitter that he's going to be a father.

"Wanted to wait until after the season to share some exciting news," Merriman tweeted. "I'm going to be Dad. I'm so excited."

But in speaking to the San Diego Union-Tribune on Thursday, Merriman's excitement turned to "shock": That's the word Merriman used to describe how he felt when he learned that the mother, Tiffany Horne, filed a paternity case against him in San Diego Superior Court.

"She's a great friend of mine and has been for almost six years now," Merriman said. "There's no denying of any kind of paternity. For this to be even taking place is a shock."

The case is under seal, and there are conflicting comments from lawyers for Horne and Merriman about what kind of case it is. Horne's attorney said, "It's not a paternity suit," while Merriman's attorney called it a "standard paternity case."

Merriman says he thinks the lawsuit stems from a breakdown in communication.


Of course even the tabloid styled website like PFT reports this news item in the neutral, non-judgmental tone of our age of permissive promiscuity and shameless bastardy. But the point I'm making here is found in the comment threads of PFT. A few commenters sound like the regular bloggers and commenters in the Manosphere!



Hey Dummy!
You know someone for 6 months, you knock he up, and you are a Professional athlete, you get served papers? CHA CHING!!!!!!!!
CHILD SUPPORT!!!!!!
Keep up the excitement, you should be real excited giving $15,000 or more a month to a baby youll hardly see. Way to go dummy.................................
LIGHTS OUT!!!!!

---

She sees $$$$$$$$$$$$.

---

She was "Horne" for Merriman's money!

---

Gold diggers! Mount up.

---

She's not interested in what's your pants anymore, Shawn... now she wants what's in your wallet!

---

Sounds like most of society today. Merriman "shes a great friend" ... I thought you were supposed to have kid with your wife and have a family e.g. the foundation of society.

---

I'm pretty sure Merriman could have the best communication skills in the world and he'd still get hit with this lawsuit. Mom is looking to legally document Merriman as father and arrange court-ordered child support. None of this dicking around with "talking" and whatnot.

One wonders what would happen if the courts stopped looking at men as wallets and codified the responsibility of pregnancy as solely that of the mother (after all the law is almost there now anyway re: Row Vs Wade) , whether you'd see a lot of decline of the phenomena of golddiggers and a drop in the single mom birth rate. I'd think it would be guaranteed. But hey, let's not do something to stop unaccountable behavior or anything.

---

It's all about child support. Probably a very good move because we all know the well documented history of black athletes and children.

---

oh i love when "great friends" turn into "money-grubbing whores"

---

This is about money -- lots of tax-free money.

The guideline in CA is that child support for a single child is 20% of the non-custodial parent's after-tax income. Merriman just ended his deal at about $2 million per season, so his after-tax income in 2009 was about $1 million. Based on this, the guideline will be about $200,000 per year, or about $17,000 per month, tax-free to the mother. The court will enter an order along those lines to take effect once the child is born.

That number will also go up proportionately when Merriman gets tagged (as a restricted free agent) or signs a new deal.



Of course, there are a few comments of folks that regurgitate the femtard/white knight/mangina sensibilities...

...but even a just a couple of years ago, you never saw comments of this sort on non-Manosphere sights!

Awareness is percolating.