Major Post: Alpha Game Rebuts My Roissy Takedown

Here.
I do not mind this Vox Day fellow so much (he is much better than the repugnant Roissy or even the less scary but still frightening Roosh), and although he doesn’t believe it, I am actually a reader of his site. And I even take notes. I am not so much of a Game Enemy as I am part of the Loyal Opposition.
He accuses me of not understanding Game, but I understand it very well.
My critique remains the same.
Obviously, according to Game Theory, 20% of men are going to monopolize most of the best women. These women will be content to share an Alpha’s harem. These 20% are the Alphas. They are attractive to most of the women most of the time.
60% of men are the Betas. Despite the despicable hatred in the PUAsphere for these salt of the Earth, sincamisas (shirtess ones), Ordinary Joe, guy next door types, Betas are average, ordinary men. They are attractive to some of the women some of the time, which is simply normal. In the past, due to religion and institutionalized marriage, almost all Betas married and had children. Now many are not. Nevertheless, most of the Beta types around me have a girlfriend or wife.
Omegas are the ~15% of men who are attractive to hardly any of the women almost all the time. The castaways and by-catch. Nevertheless, quite a few eventually marry or get a girlfriend.
According to almost all PUA sites, the only worthwhile men at all are the men who fall into the top 20% of all men. Since according the new system, the 20-60-20 rule is pretty much the way things go, the men who monopolize the best women and who are attractive to most of the women most of the time are the top 20% of men. These are the only worthwhile men in the whole world, PUA’s tell us. The other 80% are ridiculed and showered with spitting, frothing contempt on all PUA sites, but particular hatred is reserved for the Ordinary Man, the Regular Guy, the Beta.
So in a rigged system where only 20% of men can win and 80% must lose, the PUAsphere says that the only valuable men are the 20% winners, while the 80% losers (who must lose, now have you, no matter how hard they try, due to the rules of the game), are contemptible garbage virtually unworthy of life. Roissy is one of the worst offenders here. He constantly encourages his fawning street gang of sociopaths to pour contempt of the despicable Betas and anything resembling Beta behavior, whatever that is.
If Alphas are the men who rank 1-20 on the 1-100 scale, the low Alphas would be men who rank 13-20. High Betas would be men who rank 20-40 on the scale. According to Roissy’s commenters, even low Alphas and High Betas are disgusting failures to be mocked and jeered. I guess the only men who are worthwhile in society are the top 13% of all men. The other 87% are all untermenschen deserving of death.
All over this insane PUAsphere, we are told over and over that the only worthwhile women are the “top-notch” women, apparently those women who rank 9-10 on the scale of 1-10. Even 7’s and 8’s are hideous dogs that no man would give a second glance to. Acquiring any woman who is less than a model type means failure.
Realistically, 10% of women are in each category – 10% are 1’s, 10% are 2’s, 10% are 3’s, 10% are 10’s,  10% are 9’s,  10% are 8’s. Get it? On the 1-10 scale, only 10% of women fall into each category.
The only worthwhile women are the top 20% of hotties though, say PUA’s, and all the rest of them are ugly muglies. Any man who has a girlfriend or wife, or maybe even a date, who is less than a 9 is a complete loser, unworthy of even saying hello to.
All of this toxic nonsense reminds of me of rightwing economics, which honestly says that the only worthwhile members of society are the rich and the upper middle class (the top 20% wage earners) and all of the rest of us are filth, useless eaters, not even human beings, expendable.
Noting the comparison with rightwing economics, it is fascinating that almost all PUA’s are political reactionaries, although Roosh may be a more progressive guy.
This never made sense to me because all down through history, all the playboys have been liberal, progressive people. When I was growing up it was the same way. Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt were all liberal, progressive men and so were their magazines. Most of the players I knew growing up were leftwing hipsters of one sort or another with a joint, a surfboard or a pair of skis in one hand and an endlessly rotating series of hot babes in the other. They were my models, and this is how I lived my life as a young man as a surf bum – ski bum – pot dealer.
When I was growing up, conservatives were dorks, idiots, neckbeards, Omegas. They were “squares” – starched buttoned up clothes, voted for Nixon, refused to smoke weed, looked like they hadn’t shit in a month and of course could barely get laid, or if they could, they only got with equally square, uptight, lame rightwing chicks who most of us disparaged as “the square girls.”
Now it’s all turned around. The reactionaries are the wild playboys (Huh?). Liberals and hipsters are soft, wimpy feminist Betas.
So the whole universe got turned upside down in my lifetime.
Going back to economic analogy, in an unhinged, unregulated economy, 20% of men will be upper middle class (Alphas) and 20% will be lower class (Omegas). 60% will be some species of middle class (Betas). No matter how hard anyone tries, the outcome will always be like this. 20% will inevitably win, and 80% will inevitably lose.
Saying that only the upper middle class are really human, and the rest of us are failures is rightwing ruling class politics, but lo and behold, what economics does the PUAsphere push? This very same rightwing ruling class  economics, now called Libertarianism, in other words, Economic Game.
And just as I figured, Vox Day, who I previously thought was a decent guy (but I was suspicious as hardly any PUA’s are decent human beings) has authored a book on Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is the craziest of all the crazy Libertarian free market fundamentalist philosophies of economics. The Austrians are the most Libertarian of them all. Austrian Economics trends into Minarchism (Let’s Go Back and Live in the Middle Ages Economics), Anarchocapitalism (Somalia Uber Alles Economics) and other winner take all, loser die in the gutter, screw you, let em eat cake economic systems.
There is nothing special about economic systems like this. Read any book about 1700’s Europe. The rich were partying up while the cities were full of horrific slums, starving working people, and the worst of misery. Peasant and worker rebellions were regular occurrences.
So it turns out Vox Day is a serious asshole after all (the Austrians are on my list of “human beings I refuse to even speak to). He’s proposing winner take all, let em eat cake sexual economics, and he’s promoting (Who woulda thunk it?) winner take all, let em eat cake monetary economics.
Aren’t there any sites we can talk about this Game stuff while avoiding all these foul reactionaries?
You connecting the dots here? PUA’s say that only the 20% of us men who are winners, sexually or economically, have any value. The rest of us, the 80% who will lose no matter how hard we try because the game is rigged as all contests are towards those finishing towards first place, those finishing in the middle and those finishing at end, are worthless worms, failures, losers, men to be stomped into the ground like bugs on sight.
If they only advocated this it would be bad enough. But the PUAshphere is delusional. The PUAsphere more or less says all men can Alphas. All you need to do is read Roissy and buy all of Roosh’s books and videos (and I do mean all of them, don’t leave out even one of the $139.95 package) and you will get Game. Getting Game means becoming an Alpha. The unspoken (or maybe even  explicit) argument here is that all men can be Alphas if only they just try (and don’t forget to write Roosh that $150 check!).
In other words, all men can be in the top 20% of all of the men. All men can monopolize all of the best women. All men can be the top 20% of attractive men who get all the hot chicks. Are you laughing yet? It’s like Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average!
This post attempts to address this major complaint of mine, but honestly fails in that Vox Day doesn’t even answer my question. Many of the commenters get my point in one way or another though, and there are some superb comments on that thread. I hate to say it but this is one of the most intelligent and insightful threads I have read on a PUA site in a while.

0 thoughts on “Major Post: Alpha Game Rebuts My Roissy Takedown”

  1. Success with women and success with money are really similar. If you had a lot of it, it will become easier to get more. Also the occupy rhetoric 1% vs 99% goes for both money and women.

    1. I think Vox is a good looking man 🙂 and i like the fact he is a writer, and how his blog inmerse you in the blog of writing, however a criticism of mine is he is obsessed with Christianity, never seen a page with so many posts trying to “debuke” Atheism Lol Roosh is Atheist and Roissy declared himself Agnostic by contrast.

      1. Hi everyone 🙂 BraveAtheistGirl is actually my sister ,I did need to be on hiatus because my Laptop had issues, so i asked my sister to support Atheism and Asian in my absense, from her Ipad 🙂 now I take that place

        1. Hah Naruto! I knew BraveatheistGirl was you! just like we all knew that Proud feminist girl was you as well! You are one funny kid with serious issues, but still funny.

  2. Have to disagree with Rob’s notion that 10% of women are 10s. I know for damn sure that 1 in 10 women I walk buy is not a flawless supermodel(10). I think beauty follows a statistical bell curve where 70% of the population is very average in looks. 15% is attractive and another 15% is hideous. A perfect 10 would be like someone with an IQ of 180. Basically a 1 in a million genetic freak.
    I would also disagree that selling game materials and teaching game is futile due to the laws of game economics. The laws that govern the macro economics of game don’t necessarily mean anything for any given individual. Some guys who actually SHOULD be in the top 20% may not be because they lack game. You may be helping them reach their potential. I also am skeptical about all this talk of women sharing alphas. Very few women are going to be happy sharing a man. I know there’s niche of women who believe in open relationships, but most men if they are sleeping around have to hide it. To whatever extent they do share one, it’s like The Bachelor where they are vying for his commitment. But I think if it becomes obvious that she is not going to win the Alpha over to exclusivity, she’ll get the message and eventually move on. And yeah I know there’s a tiny minority of guys like Hugh Hefner or rock stars who can openly flaunt their harems, but we’re talking like a thousandth of a percent of men are at that level where they have groupies ready to fuck them at their beck and call. Most men will never experience that and it’s probably a good thing as it would mean social collapse.

    1. To me, a 10 is simply a woman in the Top 10% of attractiveness. That’s all there is to it, real simple.
      Game isn’t futile. But the notion that all men can be Alphas is insanity, and this what the whole lunatic PUAsphere is all about. It’s madness.
      Nevertheless, I think most guys would do better to learn some of the principles of Game and to try to be more Alpha. The more you learn Game and the more Alpha you act, I think the more success you are going to have with women.
      That whole PUAsphere is absolutely repulsive. I don’t even see how you guys can read any of that stuff. SMFH.
      Also, how come 100% of Game and PUA sites are run by reactionaries?! Why do all Game and PUA sites have be part of some junk called the Alt Right (the modern reactionary movement)? Game is simply the truth. Why don’t progressive men need to learn this stuff too? I mean the truth is that many of us Left guys have always known a lot of this stuff, and personally I have been practicing a lot of this Game stuff for 35 years now, but still, it is sickening that the only websites we can go to to talk about how to get girls are run by reactionaries and misogynists. Sickening.

      1. Not sure if you’re familiar with Mark Manson, but he used to be a pick up guy and now moved toward the mainstream. He always steered clear of the politics and more misogynistic stuff and kept things positive. I think he’s probably the most psychologically healthy game gurus out there.

  3. “All of this sickening garbage reminds of me of rightwing economics, which honestly says that the only worthwhile members of society are the rich and the upper middle class (the top 20% wage earners) and all of the rest of us are filth, useless heaters, not even human beings, expendable” yup, those pua douche bags are greedy psychopathic corporate scumbags! fuck them! I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them turned out to be closeted homos.

  4. Really dude? The common sites promoting game promote nothing more than positive masculinity and self improvement in one flavor or another. Maybe its that that you really have a problem with? Improving ones self often leads to more attention from women. Its cause and effect. For the moralist they can choose the best women to date, have sex with, marry, etc. For amoral men they may choose to bang as many of these women as they can.
    The biggest issue I see that you have is that you seem to think that these writers think much less of men who would be considered “beta” or “lesser alphas”. Now I can see why it’s funny to make fun of men who are “omegas” and such. (I use these terms loosely of course). The omegas seem to want to keep their head in the sand and deny the existence of many of our current problems by just wishing they did not exist. Many of these same men will choose to criticize Game in all of its formats instead of spending their time improving themselves or going out and actually meeting women.
    Anyways back to my point. Roissy, Vox, Deti, and all of the others seem to have a genuine interest in helping the betas and even the omegas improve themselves and improve their success with women. I have been an avid reader of many sites in the sphere for quite some time and very rarely if ever do I see the vitriol you expressly state exists.
    Although I have always had pretty good experiences meeting women I do not consider myself a womanizer or great alpha by any means. However I still met many a HB8 and above and married a woman who objectively was considered a HB9. She is tall, blue with long blonde hair and has a high IQ. Unfortunately it was my BETA mindset and her feminist ideology that led to the failure of the marriage. Not that I’m sorry about it because it’s what I learned from these sites that helped me to realize what a catch I am and helped me to be even more successful at meeting new higher quality women.
    As for the other issues you bring up, I will say that your take is very debatable and conflict with my own personal observations and experiences. Even my wife had to prove herself to me when we first started dating because I was dating several other women at the same time. She didn’t like it of course but I think that it increased her attraction to me. That’s the way it works in reality it seems.

    1. Trust me, I have no truck with masculinity of self-improvement and trust me, Game sites go far beyond that.
      You want to give me a reason why all PUA sites are swarming with the most horrible misogyny? You want to give me a fucking reason why I have to be a reactionary to sharpen my pickup skills? You want to give me a reason why most Game sites not only hate women but also hate men who don’t make much money (See the Libertarianism) and people who aren’t White (notice that at this point most of the PUA idiots are White nationalists if not overt Nazis). You want to give me a reason why most of these PUA tools are insanely narcissistic if not sociopathic? You want to give me a reason why all PUA advocate treating women like shit? You want to point out these PUA sites that don’t advocate being a promiscuous player Alpha and instead teach you how to settle down with your wife? You want to name me one site like that?
      Ok, now you see my beefs.
      You may not believe this but I read these sites myself, and of course I practice Game myself. If you knew about my life, you would realize that I was already practicing “Game” in the late 1970’s in my teens (all of us were – we had to be). A lot of this is stuff you already know or have been doing anyway. There is some new stuff there and I have been taking notes from all of these Game sites all the time. I agree that they have a lot of cruel and awful truths to tell, and I agree that your life tends to go better with Game.
      Now you see that I am part of the Loyal Opposition maybe you will calm down.
      I am very happy you used Game to have a happier and more productive relationship with your current girl and with the ones who came before. I myself am using Game to improve my relationships. My beef is not with Game per se but with some of the subaspects of it and mostly with the fools who peddle it.
      You seem to be implying that most men would do better if they tried to be more “Alpha” in their behaviors, no matter how the Alpha – Beta – Omega scorecard plays out when the whistle blows. I agree. Alphas, Betas and Omegas can probably all improve their lives with women by employing variations of Game.
      As you can see, we are actually on the same page here.

  5. Angry much? For one Dalrock promotes relationship game within a Christian context while also promoting a more moral execution of game theory. He does not advocate male promiscuity. I would love to emulate his marriage. Rollo Tomassi is another who speaks a lot about gender dynamics while leaving out politics and most personal experiences. That is 2 sites instead of just 1 like you asked for.
    As for your accusation of misogyny well I think your opinion is quite subjective because your premise is faulty. How about we talk about misandry?
    The blacks have their own sites. Furthermore blacks and whites approach mating and gender dynamics differently. Learn about black’s intergender dynamics pre and post Reconstruction Acts then report back. Your findings will surprise you. Also, there is no rule saying I have to write my essays in such a way as to encourage readers from other races. That’s just pure PC bullshit. Otherwise none of these sites are fundamentally racists. Point to a specific example of blatant racism, if you can.
    As for your issue of Game being reactionary. We all react to outside forces. When there is a bad storm coming I close the windows to my house. Game is a reaction to feminism (of all flavors) and the harmful effects it created and the harmful ideologies it inspired in women and to mangina type men. You come out strongly saying that the men who successfully use game in their mating strategies are sociopathic, well considering that the newspeak for otherwise normal behaviors is now considered bad I’m not surprised you make that accusation. It’s wrong though to the extent that the behaviors are developed and controlled. Most powerful and successful men have some or many of these so called traits. Its natural human behaviors in a certain subset of our population. You do not have to like the fact for the fact to be true.
    Poverty is a state of mind. I actually currently broke, but I’m not poor. I have made money and I have struggled financially as I’m currently doing so now. My current situation does not affect my ability to meet high quality women to any great degree. When I have more money, sure its easier but that’s just common sense. More money makes you more attractive to women. However for those of us with less we have to compensate with our awesome personality.
    Simply, game works. Men without game don’t get laid, at least not very often and usually not with quality women. Love it or hate it, that’s just the way it is.
    You have obviously invested heavily in your opinions and your subsequent hate of all things Game related even though you use it. Some of my most important advisers I do not like personally. However that does not change the validity of their info or knowledge. I see value for what it is, where it is.
    I think it’s intellectually dishonest of you to criticize Game and its advocates while practicing the techniques it promotes. If not for those men we would not have learned what we have and our lives would be less rich for it. You should be grateful they spend the time they do to write and compile the information they put out, sometimes at a personal expense.
    As the old saying goes, love the player, hate the game.
    I see you trying to couple your liberal ideology with game theory and it various flavors. I see that this may be creating a sort of dissonance in you. Us smart guys sometimes have a problem with this. However your resistance to things is a normal symptom of taking the red pill and in time it will pass. It’s a hard thing to reevaluate ones belief system and find out that there oh so many pretty lies.
    There is more I can write but I’m tired. One last thought. I have read many of the comments to your articles and what I see is a lot of men who refuse to accept the truth and the reality about how the world works and thus probably do not succeed to any great degree with women. Life’s not fair and it certainly as hell aint equal.

    1. Look I am banning you. Your presence here suffices to prove to me that almost all of you Game characters are assholes. You are also violating the Comments Rules. Hostile tone.
      HAND!

  6. If a woman is not beautiful she will have hard time because men always prefer beauty over anything when it comes to women. Other traits of women are really unimportant compared to the beauty. On the other hand if a man is not handsome he can easily compensate it by being powerful because women seeks power before anything. How can you become powerful? There are lots of ways but the best one is basically being rich. Brad Pitt is one of the most handsome man in the world but If he was not a world famous rich actor but a McDonalds worker would Angelina Jolie even look at his face? I don’t think so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *