Vox Day’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy nomenclature receives plenty of criticism from some people, and much praise from others. The split itself is telling. Those men who have observable patterns of behaviour most associated with being Gammas reject or try to redefine the entire hierarchy to somehow position themselves as the real “tops”, which is why Vox refers to them also as Secret Kings.
A recent comment on my own post about rapey idiots in glass houses expresses what many normal (Delta) Type men believe:
These famous rich guys who drug women like Bill Cosby and this Danny Masterson must be particularly depraved because being rich and famous they could surely get women without doing so.
This idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the inner world of the Gamma and what drives them, in the context of being rapists or at a minimum creeps. I have observed their behaviour for years, with the same kind of disgusted fascination one might observe some parasite burrowing under an innocent’s skin.
The behaviour first became more prevalent and obvious on the internet in the mid 1990s, where frustrated men in alt-dot forums expressed a vitriolic hatred bordering on the psychotic towards any form of female rejection they experienced. Then I saw it in the flesh too and mostly it got told to me by pretty much almost all the women I was with in my life.
At first I though the behaviour of rage, when rejected, must apply to only a small percentage of unbalanced losers, but as I was told the same type of stories, by woman after woman after woman, and indeed saw it with my own eyes at times when a girl I was seeing was being hit on by some guy who usually was unaware she was with me in the specific context. As soon as she made it clear she was with me and therefore not available for his advances, some of these guys went into an obvious instant red-hot hatred. Because I look like I do, they usually just left, very occasionally making some sarcastic jab before slinking quickly away. On some occasions I even got an after-event report. One girl I was seeing for a time was a student at university and we had very much an on-off relationship. She was very pretty and was always surrounded by hangers on that thought they might eventually get with her if they just kept being in her orbit. One guy in particular went overboard with the “friends” cover. Whenever this girl and I were not seeing each other for a couple of days he would go over and try and “keep her company”. All of it was non-sexual “let’s watch a film together” or whatever, but his intent was obvious to me and I think to her too, though we didn’t really discuss it, because frankly, he was a non-entity and there was no chance she would do anything with him. It had not anything to do with looks or money either. He was just that sort of milque-toasty guy that really no woman wants to be with by choice.
Anyway, during one of these “pauses” in our relationship she later told me the guy was at her place for two days straight, during which she bitched to him about me and my uncompromising ways. She was marinated in British Feminist theory, and I simply have never had anything to do with it, nor ever accepted any of their absurd ideology. Her feminist theory invariably failed when confronted with her natural instincts concerning me and she would inevitably return to me with some very intimate ways to “make up”. Over time she would try to get me to bend to some insane feminist idea and I would once more simply reject it. Anyway, after her bitching about this for two days to this guy and his enthusiastically agreeing with her, and finally beginning to think this was his way to finally get with her, I believe, from memory that she recounted to me how her conversation went in the final stages. She had just said that I was impossible and drove her crazy with how I just made arguments she couldn’t really counter and it pissed her off and she “hated” me for it. He nodded and said something along the lines of “yeah, he sounds terrible, you should forget about him.”
To which she replied: “Yes, he’s terrible, makes me so mad… And yet… I can’t do without him. I’m going to go over to him now and be completely on his cock.”
And she did. Now, in that case, I can see the guy being frustrated, in his mind he had been sidling up to her like a proper gentleman of the woke variety, and was agreeing with her all the time and was obviously the “better” man, what with being all woke and pro-whatever feminist crap she spouted, and he affirmed and supported all her patriarchal suffering, or whatever, and then, she promptly announces that she’s off to do the very things he desperately was hoping to get from her with me.
You can see how he’d be upset. But the reality is he was more than just dejected. He was furious. Luckily he did not react physically against her, but the next time I saw him several days later, you could tell he had a murderous rage all about him towards me and her too. He never spoke to her again, as far as I know, which was just as well.
Now, in the above case you can sort of sympathise with the guy a little (not about the rage) at least everyone has felt a little sad or frustrated at being rejected by someone they really liked. But in my case, really that is as far as it has ever gone. Ultimately, if a person genuinely has no attraction for you, how can you get angry at them for that? The idea is just absurd to me. It has never computed and never will.
The reason I recounted that chapter of my life was to try and give you some insight into the fundamental difference of internal mechanism that a Gamma has from other archetypes.
The difference is in the internal world of the Gamma from that of a Delta or an Alpha or a Sigma.
The Alpha may actually get quite stung at rejection, especially if it is public and from a high status woman. His ego and need to be seen as the Alpha may in fact also cause him to be quite caustic or dismissive, but if so it will be generally only in the moment and temporarily. After all, no real Alpha wants to be seen as a pitiful shadow of a man that is pining after some woman. Besides, there are usually several waiting in the wings for him, happy to heal his broken heart. In the Alpha mind, getting angry at rejection from a woman is essentially below his dignity and status to do. He may privately be quite hurt, but rage, even to himself, goes against his nature, which is essentially generous and expectant of plentifulness (be it women, business, fame, and so on). The Alpha is a reacher for things, including women, but usually not a desperate grabber in the normal course of affairs.
The Delta is more of a balanced individual and generally will take rejection on the chin, be hurt, then move on with his life and try and find peace where he can. These are the majority of well balanced men.
The Sigma is a special case and may not care at all about the rejection, or be a freak on which the rejection is really the least of his concerns. Keep in mind that both James Bond as well a the character in the series Hannibal are Sigmas. These are not people who follow normal social conventions, but precisely because of that, their internal world, strange as it may be, is founded on a solid bedrock of self-reliance and hence self-knowledge. While they might be professional killers for hire, they are probably unlikely to get angry at a woman for rejecting them. A case in point from fiction may be Dexter. He killed bad guys with abandon, but was always a loyal boyfriend to the women he was with, and took their rejections or bad behaviours with calm resignation.
The Gamma however has wholly different internal mechanisms and they end up being the really creepy and dangerous ones, even if they present as easy-going, liberal, modern metrosexual men in touch with their feminine side. In almost diametric opposition to Sigmas, the Gamma has a profound (and un-admitted) lack of self-confidence. This is a root cause in their very core and they try to cover up that existential hole in their soul with all manner of fakery. Be it money, status, recognition by the masses for their achievements (real or most often imagined or “manufactured”), it is never enough to really fill that essential lack of self-truth.
A Gamma can be a billionaire (see Bezos) and still behave in a completely creepy/loser/gamma way with women. It is true that an Alpha or a Sigma or even a Delta, that is really a millionaire or billionaire can have his pick of women willing to be his sexual partners, and many of those women, initially attracted by the power, wealth and status, may even end up having genuine feelings for the man in question, but there is a core difference in the dynamics with a Gamma.
The billionaire alpha, sigma or even delta, may be perfectly aware of the sexual liaison with women being purely transactional. Their temporary thrill at being on a private jet, or even just seen with the billionaire in question, is enough for them to permit sex between them. The Delta will eventually be a bit sad at such an arrangement and over time get disillusioned with this woman or perhaps even women in general if the pattern repeats. An Alpha may even prefer the situation to be transactional and be fine with it and get a new “performer” once he bores with the first one, or have multiple ones in play or make a proper business contract out of a “marriage”. A Sigma may do the same or become a pimp, or a celibate monk by choice. But a Gamma will simply think that his material wealth gives him the right and the authority to do what he imagines Alphas do or get away with doing. And this is the tragic error.
An Alpha, whether a billionaire or homeless, will have a woman act towards him intimately because she wants to. Because the man’s internal sense of self is strong and she responds to that, ultimately, aside from his exterior, worldly, if you like, trappings. I have personally known (in my hedonistic days) beautiful women, married to extremely wealthy men, who, nevertheless would get naked and have sex with a man that had no money to speak of, but a sense of self that was of a different order from their husbands. This type of effect cannot be bought. The effect it has on women cannot be replicated nor faked very effectively even by the women themselves. So, what happens when a Gamma has reached some perceived pinnacle of power, wealth, fame or combination thereof, in his abysmal understanding of the female mind and heart, he thinks he is now “entitled” to the female attention that he imagines Alphas and Sigmas get (and in fact do get). When, to his utter shock and horror women continue to dodge him like radioactive plague, his natural emotion is rage. In his broken understanding of “life” he is rich, he is successful, he is famous, EVERY woman OWES him sex at will. HIS will. And if they don’t give it of their own volition, why, they must be defective, and/or it doesn’t matter, because in the Gamma’s mind Alphas just take what they want anyway and the women always go along with it.
And this is how you get the Danny Masterson of the world, the Bill Cosbys and all the other wealthy and powerful executives that end up getting caught groping angrily at unwilling secretaries and colleagues. So, no, the money is not enough. The fame is not enough. The status is not enough. And gammas simply will never get that.
Because all it takes is what in Italian is commonly referred to as “balls”.
And like real courage, real, intimate self-knowledge can’t be faked. And women can sense it.
The illiterate “Operator”
Few activities generate as many cretins with “tough man” bullshit syndrome as:
On my piece on the Colt 1911 allow me to introduce you to the illiterate retard, Thomas Ramsey of Thomasramsey@gmail.com those of you who agree with him, feel free to write to him and join a mutual admiration society. Those who do not agree with him, you may be entertained by the Kurganing about to take place below his now immortalised comments.
Using the same kind of analysis we had on my post of the fed-commenter on the video about Bombard’s body language reading, we will now dissect this living specimens of Professor Cipolla’s undying truth about the human condition.
Thomas never learnt to read for comprehension. This is clear. Thomas is probably one of those people that can’t form abstract thoughts nor imagine what he would feel like if he had not had breakfast this morning. Google that sort of thing, you will find some fun facts about IQ and how people think. Especially if you look at 4 Chan sites.
Was it hard to understand what I wrote Thomas? Did it hurt your brain and make you drool extra or bite your tongue as you scrolled your finger painfully on the screen to keep your place?
First of all, let us some hard data that incontrovertibly makes it clear that the most important aspect of an actual gunfight is… drum roll… shot placement!
Which also, incidentally, shows that basically people who shoot 9mm DO in fact spray and pray, and as a result miss more than people who use a revolver in .44 magnum or .357 magnum, who get far more consistent results of one shot stops.
So, there is that. Secondly, Thomas there, Tommy, I’m gonna call you Tommy, since you have the brain of a small, excitable child, who thinks Hollywood is reality. Thomas also thinks that if you are capable of doing double taps with a pretty near-certainty of death for the assailants at the usual handgun ranges at which firefights happen, even if there were more than three assailants, the remaining ones would just stand about and carry on returning fire.
Especially since in 99.99% of cases, as I explained in the original post I would have got the drop on them, since I was “part of the scenery” and not in any way obviously with the client team. He also assumes that Hollywood shootouts in the style of Heat (the film) are how things work out in the real world. It’s not.
The reasoning I had was very simple. With my 6 shot revolver in .357 magnum, the most likely scenario would be the first shot would immediately drop one guy, then depending on number of people, the next four shots would likely drop two more at least, which left me one shot as I then looked for cover. Total time to shoot those five shots would be about 2 seconds at most, or there about, even if the targets were pretty spaced out. That’s enough to pretty much dominate the environment of a gunfight. Especially since the first guy dropping was pretty much guaranteed as I would have surprise.
But, all that aside, and going back to the original post, I thought it was fairly obvious even to lost tribes in the Amazon, that the point of the post was not that the 1851 Navy is THE “operator” weapon of choice, or that the Colt 1911 is, but merely that I liked them.
What part of this sentence hurt you and made you shied away from it in fear Thomas?
Coming from a family of hunters and familiar with pretty much all aspects of shooting, meant that in general I would subjugate my personal preferences to functionality.
Aside from the fact you obviously did not understand my role, the situation, the parameters, or the work I used to do, despite my detailing it quite clearly, you obviously also missed the fact that I specifically stated that my personal preference in a context where I expect actual trouble are irrelevant. Meaning quite clearly I would use whatever tool was deemed best for the job. People who read English at a basic level understood this. You did not. That tells us quite a bit bout you Thomas. And your inadequacies. And possibly your genetic make-up as far as IQ goes.
Thomas then goes on to show that once more, he did not understand at all, anything I wrote. The scenario of “high as a kite” was not ever really a factor. We worked for extremely wealthy individuals, the shadiest of whom had rivals of an equally wealthy, or close to it, lifestyle. The attempts we did have were from well-organised criminals with a plan, although, ultimately not as organised as we were when I was in the team, since the only time one of our clients got hit (no bodies, just common robbery of a lot of cash) was the one time I was not on the team and they went and did their own thing under-staffed. The other times, guess who warned everyone of an impending attack? Yup. Me. And frankly, a high-on-drugs thing was not really much of an occurrence anywhere in South Africa in the mid 1990s. If it had been, he would have simply got Swiss-cheesed by the combined firepower of everything from our team to most bystanders since the incidence of armed citizens stopping armed criminals in SA was one of the highest in the world.
But all that aside, yes a Central Nervous System hit under duress is precisely what I trained for. And yes, I have had occasion to react under high stress situations enough times to know that in such cases, my movement only becomes absolutely more accurate than even when I am NOT under stress. Nor can I put that down to training alone, although training helps. I just seem to have been wired that way from birth. And I really don’t care what you believe Thomas. Because you are a nobody, with no real world experience nor any inkling of my actual life or abilities or realities I lived through. You’re a plastic cut-out of a loudmouth idiot who is (as usual) blathering on about things he has zero practical experience or knowledge of, and tries to pass off his YouTube/Hollywood/James Patterson fiction as though it were real life experience. It isn’t Thomas. It’s just you bullshitting yourself first and foremost, and then trying to gaslight everyone around you too, into thinking you know something about anything. You don’t. You’re too stupid to read a few paragraphs and comprehend them, so what are the chances you actually know anything about real world gunfights?
And goys, goys, remember! Seals don’t go around carrying 1911s! Yeah man, because Thomas here is JUST like an OPERATOR MAN. Like in the war! That’s how he lives in the mean streets man!
And of course, Navy Seals DID use Colt 1911s up until 1986, when the US Military mostly switched to the 9mm Beretta.
Not that that is any kind of point. The reality is that at least until the Zombie Apocalypse, Thomas is about as likely to use, or need to use his firearm, as an Eskimo is to use a ballista. But you can bet your last doughnut that Thomas will tell you all about how the latest ballista is far superior to the one used by the Romans, because OPERATOR REASONS.
And his fluid pressure drop comment… Where do I begin? No Thomas. There are PLENTY of faster ways for a person to be incapacitated a lot faster than bleeding out. Massive trauma to pretty much any part of your body tends to shut down main systems. A broken neck or spine will immediately make you into a rag doll or at least a partial rag doll that falls to the ground. And again, the resulting shock from that is enough to get most people out of the fight long enough you can pepper them with more shots at will even if it was “just” their legs they can’t use anymore. A shot to the face, even one that doesn’t immediately kill you, from a .357 magnum with Cor-Bons or hydro-shock, which is what I carried, is also not going to let you just carry on firing away with abandon while retaining your composure. You’d be lucky to survive it, but you can bet you’d be thinking about God, your mommy and possibly emptying your bladder as you prayed while trying to keep your eyeball/teeth/brain, from leaking out your new and improved ear-hole. Assuming you’d even be conscious, of course.
Do you see how tiring these retards are?
They can’t read.
They can’t understand basic concepts.
They watch some tiktok video and think they now have the combined expertise on firearms of a seasoned special ops soldier, and a master gunsmith.
And then they open their stupid mouths and spread their idiocy into the world.
To what end? None. None that is useful or good anyway, because their only aim is to feel IMPORTANT. Precisely in direct proportion to their absolute worthlessness as a human being.
Which explains why they are so loud and insistent.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 14 October 2023 | Posted in Gammas, Social Commentary