I know of only one omega. A large seemingly slow man. His only goal in life was getting married. He works in a factory. Never speaks to anyone, follows orders exactly. Spends hours in conversation in his head almost schizophrenically. But it's done in such a child like way it's clearly wierd. Total social outcast and sexual outcast.
Even though he doesn't look terrible, a solid 5 he may never get married. It's painfully obvious that even the gamma with aspergers had a better chance. And he was a solid 2 on a good day.
I loved this guy. One of the absolute best people to work with by far. Gentle giant.
I have always tried to engage him in conversation. But aside from "hey". And that one extremely brief conversation where he said he wanted to get married. For 2 years there was nothing else. Despite effort.
This man never once projected unhappiness of any kind ever. And half the time would be smiling and giggling like an inside joke was said.
He definitely had some mental problems but it's hard not to find mental issues at the bottom of the barrel.
His behavior was so cringe so often, but it's hard to say if the core motivator was secretkingitis or social cluelessness. I am leaning towards the former, based on how often he denied responsibility, and would bully others rather than admit being wrong.
Or maybe "Keith" was Omega? (or Gareth?)
Might just be SSH-inconsistent writing, from Ricky Gervais (Gamma?) ...and Stephen Merchant, but I suspect SM is more of a Bravo.
When it comes to Omegas, are we talking about loners or outcasts? Guys who prefer their own company or guys who piss off the group and get kicked out? There is a difference.
"OMEGA: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place."
A loner who has the option to join the party but prefers not to is not an Omega by definition.
an idea regarding the Omega/Sigma distinction - both are out of the hierarchy, but Omega is so because the group sees no benefit from him - he has nothing the group wants so he is left out. in the case of the Sigma - he sees nothing offered by the group to be of value or benefit to him, so he rejects it.
"If you’ve ever said “forget it, I’m not getting out of bed today” and simply ignored the world from dawn ‘til dusk, then perhaps you have experienced a small fraction of the blissful freedom that the Omega enjoys literally all the time. Although it is possible that I’m projecting Sigma feelings onto the Omegas; perhaps an Omega here can set me straight on whether I’m reading this properly."
You're partially right. You've described how we like things to be, and how they are most days. Problem is, there are also many days in which the world does not ignores you, and imposes bothersome demands when you just want to be left alone. Think Milton having to move his desk.
I wonder if sigmas have the freedom, or power, to not have to deal with this crap...?
Stepping outside of myself, I'd guess most here would grade the first half of my life as Omega. No argument there. I was badly mis-raised by my parents and "society".
Later, after getting some insights and introspection and a decent amount of experience with women, I'd say I'm somewhat of a hybrid of Delta and Sigma. At work, I like contributing to a team but I don't want to lead. I also feel as though never fit quite right. But I know I'm well above the average on my crazy-complicated accounting job and I pull my weight, and then some. I feel liked and respected.
Socially, I tend to be forgotten or ignored in our friend groups of mostly married folks w/ kids. But I get along great with everyone when we do get together, best I can tell.
If I hadn't become a Christian, my realism / cynicism would probably lead me into seducing women "for their own good" in Sigma mode. I know from experience that it's not at all difficult, and a lot of fun. It's easy for me to be selfish, teasing and seductive. Women reward that... a lot. At least in the short-term. I sometimes also get - unexpected to me - nice reactions from women most would probably say are out of my league.
But I always feel the weight of the angel on my shoulder, so I feel the need to restrain myself.
I really just want one decent girl to settle down with.
And I still don't know how to secure a woman who's attracted to me, without acting on it and being sinful. I lost a very attractive woman by being too moral and restraining myself. That really sucks. She might not have been a good partner for me, but that problem still remains.
•Both omegas I know have a history of being in abusive relationships. I think they are easily preyed upon by the narcissistic types. Even the Office Space Milton was in one with his boss.
•Omegas have a general bitterness towards the world but they are optimistic about it. Like, "The world sucks, but I'll make the most of what I have". Reflected well in the Office Space guy who could be happy as long as he had his red stapler despite suffering worse than the delta protagonists.
•They are happy when they realize everyone hates them. It sounds contradictory but as soon as they accept that they are hated, then they no longer try to fit in, then they seek the things that truly make them happy. I believe Elliot Rodger, "The Supreme Gentlemen" was a strong omega candidate who was forced to participate in a hierarchy by his parents (college) and snapped. He never realized he would always be hated by everyone and being forced into college rubbed it in his face. The evidence is that he described being happy in long drives from CA to AZ to purchase lotto tickets - he believed he was driving to get money to get happiness, but I noticed he was content simply being alone in that car for 12 hour stretches. Most people can't tolerate that sort of thing.
•Omegas would make great cross country truck drivers. Vox mentioned sigma being miserable in a forced hierarchy, such as the school system, and I think omega suffers from that too. Society has VERY few ways for a man to simply be out and alone nowadays. Mostly because of all the fees, taxes, regulatory burden - think Rambo 1, urbanized society is not friendly towards vagrant types. The cowboys of old likely had a lot of omegas in their ranks.
Think of Clint Eastwood movies. He wasn't a sigma-type like James Bond where he'd roll in and charm the pants off of everyone and be treated like an alpha. He was a loner, generally hated, he generally hated the world, he knew it and he was content with it.
For the omega trying to be more social it's nearly a self defeating cycle. You get into your routine and work on your hobbies/projects, and before you know it you haven't text, called, or interacted with anyone in over a month.
I think people who you can pick right up again as if no time has past are probably sigma or omega. Because from their perspective, no time has past.
I have a theory that omages and sigmas don't actually exist but have an SSH modifier in their personality. Deltas and gammas with the modifier become omegas. Alphas and bravos with the modifier become sigmas.
There seems to be more Omegas here than I would expect given their relative rarity. Dropping out of society ran by Demonic Clowns, or burning out working for the Clowns does not make one an Omega.
Many men of different stripes are done with Clown World, unfortunately this allows charlatans such as Peterson to flourish. Although his works are targeted towards Omegas and people with mental issues, most reading them are probably Deltas or Gammas, and so are most of the drop outs. I would guess Omegas do not read self-help books, nor find as much of an issue in their affairs.
I can play the role of Delta well, but I don't like to. I find normal conversations tiresome. Small talk = slow agony. I'd rather listen to an expert in some field talk about a deeply technical subject.
I think higher IQ and higher intrinsic talent level can make someone feel more like an Omega - other people find it hard to relate.
My impression is that some of these things may self-reinforce. Assume a chatty extroverted Omega, who after much rejection becomes more solitary. There core nature may still be extroverted, but they may end up being molded into an "introvert" due to social inputs. I could see how a truly introverted Omega could be happier than one with a extroverted type.
One challenge I am having in understanding the Omega is that the definition seems to be more about the status than behavior. I suppose this is somewhat like the Delta, where a broad swath of men fit within it.
In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe?
"One challenge I am having in understanding the Omega is that the definition seems to be more about the status than behavior."
They're damaged. Lots of different ways for a human being to be broken.
"In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe"
Solitude is the result. Rejection is a function of the group's standards, and the standard for rejection is variable.
Unwillingness or incapability to fit into the group's standard is probably as close as we can get to core Omega behavior. Groups can allow solitary individuals, but there are additional lines to cross to have them disengage and exile.
"In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe?"
You've summarized why people don't have much specific commentary - they're rejects so when would you actually see them in action? An extrovert omega I know talks to all sorts of people to this day - he just gets kicked out of every static large social group possible because he eventually says some landmine of a comment. Racism, misogyny, politics, religion, population culling absolutely nothing is off limits to him and only through brute repetition did he learn to keep his mouth shut and that only sometimes. He can't not-be-himself at all, only put a lid on it temporarily. It's a very endearing type of 'honesty', but only to the few people who still call themselves his friend.
He's not a slovenly guy either. Fit, tall, handsome, sporty, can dress well....but he is confused why he's blocked by every normie social group on facebook even his own family members.
To back up DarkLordFan: remember, half of young liberal white women have a diagnosed mental illness -- and the other half undoubtedly have an undiagnosed one. We can argue that non-woke people are the actual normals, and the wokies are the insane ones.
One clue that you're in fact a Delta and not an Omega is: how do you get on with a group of non-woke men, or even right-of-center normie men? Or, say, Russians? If you're *still* ostracised or at least considered weird, then yes, you might be an Omega.
Likewise, as for your friend with no filter... what is his sex life like? Is it non-existent, middling, or pulling hotties on the regular? How does he get on with dissident men?
His sex life is decent (not great) now, extremely bad before, and if he were to become single today it would become bad again. Strangely he had a tough time dating as a younger man despite his looks. He said most dates would go poorly when he'd tell them they don't deserve rights and other funny things, except he's being 100% serious. Many dates with beautiful women, no close.
He would have done better if he just pretended to be a mute. Dating websites have been productive to get many dates just because of his pics, though again few closes. My opinion is that he didn't understand how to leverage discomfort tension into emotional relief. Maybe he didn't even perceive the concept. He is dating a former model current nurse right now he met on a Trump-themed dating site, she is hot.
With dissident men: He gets kept in groups as long as someone there can exploit him or finds him useful. Gun groups, outdoor groups, drug groups, trade worker groups are ones I'm aware of that are also majorly dissident. Men who show loyalty to him, and loyalty is a major component of almost all SSH interactions, are incredibly rare. It's like they're his buddy because he brings ammo, brings the outdoor gear, does a ton of work, gives narcissistic supply and once he doesn't or can't they treat him like a forever enemy that they've always hated.
With dissident individuals, if I may call myself one, he has friends. Like 2 maybe, including me (a sigma is the other one). However I have no expectation he can do anything for a group and is likely to eventually piss off someone in any group I would put him in. Probably within 3 days. Thinking on it, none of his real friends expect any group contribution and we generally feel bad exploiting him. He's a great guy to laugh with but I don't like doing any actual activities with him because he can't cooperate at all, no matter how talented he is. Yes, the sigma is somehow more cooperative in group activities than the omega.
Right. So, a Delta then, albeit a strange one with a much higher than normal level of sociopathy and honesty which gives him enough of a Sigma vibe to attract hot women at the beginning. In men's groups, Deltas in general tend to get exploited if they let other people get away with it, and aren't looked at as natural leaders, so in that regard he's relatively typical. But it appears he could easily become a full-on Sigma if he learned to be more Machiavellian or Jesuitic about his personal beliefs and otherwise.
"In men's groups, Deltas in general tend to get exploited if they let other people get away with it, and aren't looked at as natural leaders, so in that regard he's relatively typical."
The aspect I emphasize is the lack of loyalty he gets, though. A delta is kept in a group even if they're not super useful because they do what you say and their deference gives them enough 'social money' to pay the 'social rent' of staying in a group. If merely being exploited and not being seen as a leader were enough to say 'Delta', then Milton in Office Space is a delta. Which he obviously is not. Think of the differences in Milton vs Peter/Michael/Samir. I hoped to get across that he was tolerated in groups purely for individual profit reasons and was not tolerated because his place in the hierarchy was assured by anything social.
The omegas I know are 2 for 2 in some form of misanthropy. I disagree with the idea that deltas can become sigmas or that the omega described is a sociopath. The first is a category error ('sheeps can become skunks' type of statement) and the second doesn't fit his behavior. Sociopaths tend to go out of their way to harm others and resist helping (Mr. Hyde, in the book, going out of his way to trample a child that was crossing the street) while this guy is very helpful. His actions may hurt people's feelings or offend them, but there's no intentionality behind it.
Mental Illness doesn't exist. If half of young liberal women have an undiagnosed mental illness that means everyone has an undiagnosed one. Including your fearless Alpha Leaders who seem to not be fighting back in anyway shape or form against the Destruction of Western Civilization. Not very Alpha of the now is it?
I dunno... voting for Democrats because of an alleged threat to the "right" to kill your unborn children, completely disregarding how Democrats run the economy and everything else otherwise, strikes me as just a bit batty, to put it nicely.
Devon Stacks analysis of Office Space is a must watch and it's still on YouTube.
I love his anecdote that his boss played it for an office movie night and a bunch of productive people didn't show up for work the next day. Himself included.
Bilbo is the Sigma at least as far a Hobbits are concerned. Goes away for long periods unannounced and gets ornery when people start looking to him for leadership.
Seeing the comments, and then reading over this article again, a sudden realization may be dawning on me. Strike that... no, I'm not fool enough to suggest a Dark Lord might be hiding a heart. Well, maybe in a jar somewhere.
I know of only one omega. A large seemingly slow man. His only goal in life was getting married. He works in a factory. Never speaks to anyone, follows orders exactly. Spends hours in conversation in his head almost schizophrenically. But it's done in such a child like way it's clearly wierd. Total social outcast and sexual outcast.
Even though he doesn't look terrible, a solid 5 he may never get married. It's painfully obvious that even the gamma with aspergers had a better chance. And he was a solid 2 on a good day.
I loved this guy. One of the absolute best people to work with by far. Gentle giant.
I have always tried to engage him in conversation. But aside from "hey". And that one extremely brief conversation where he said he wanted to get married. For 2 years there was nothing else. Despite effort.
This man never once projected unhappiness of any kind ever. And half the time would be smiling and giggling like an inside joke was said.
He definitely had some mental problems but it's hard not to find mental issues at the bottom of the barrel.
David Brent from "The Office" UK: Gamma or Omega?
His behavior was so cringe so often, but it's hard to say if the core motivator was secretkingitis or social cluelessness. I am leaning towards the former, based on how often he denied responsibility, and would bully others rather than admit being wrong.
Or maybe "Keith" was Omega? (or Gareth?)
Might just be SSH-inconsistent writing, from Ricky Gervais (Gamma?) ...and Stephen Merchant, but I suspect SM is more of a Bravo.
Gervais is not a Gamma, he couldn't give a toss what people think about him and regularly challenges the world to cancel him.
Maybe, but he sure can write convincing Gammas.
When it comes to Omegas, are we talking about loners or outcasts? Guys who prefer their own company or guys who piss off the group and get kicked out? There is a difference.
Check Vox's definition:
"OMEGA: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They're not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone's mind to invite them in the first place."
A loner who has the option to join the party but prefers not to is not an Omega by definition.
an idea regarding the Omega/Sigma distinction - both are out of the hierarchy, but Omega is so because the group sees no benefit from him - he has nothing the group wants so he is left out. in the case of the Sigma - he sees nothing offered by the group to be of value or benefit to him, so he rejects it.
"If you’ve ever said “forget it, I’m not getting out of bed today” and simply ignored the world from dawn ‘til dusk, then perhaps you have experienced a small fraction of the blissful freedom that the Omega enjoys literally all the time. Although it is possible that I’m projecting Sigma feelings onto the Omegas; perhaps an Omega here can set me straight on whether I’m reading this properly."
You're partially right. You've described how we like things to be, and how they are most days. Problem is, there are also many days in which the world does not ignores you, and imposes bothersome demands when you just want to be left alone. Think Milton having to move his desk.
I wonder if sigmas have the freedom, or power, to not have to deal with this crap...?
Stepping outside of myself, I'd guess most here would grade the first half of my life as Omega. No argument there. I was badly mis-raised by my parents and "society".
Later, after getting some insights and introspection and a decent amount of experience with women, I'd say I'm somewhat of a hybrid of Delta and Sigma. At work, I like contributing to a team but I don't want to lead. I also feel as though never fit quite right. But I know I'm well above the average on my crazy-complicated accounting job and I pull my weight, and then some. I feel liked and respected.
Socially, I tend to be forgotten or ignored in our friend groups of mostly married folks w/ kids. But I get along great with everyone when we do get together, best I can tell.
If I hadn't become a Christian, my realism / cynicism would probably lead me into seducing women "for their own good" in Sigma mode. I know from experience that it's not at all difficult, and a lot of fun. It's easy for me to be selfish, teasing and seductive. Women reward that... a lot. At least in the short-term. I sometimes also get - unexpected to me - nice reactions from women most would probably say are out of my league.
But I always feel the weight of the angel on my shoulder, so I feel the need to restrain myself.
I really just want one decent girl to settle down with.
And I still don't know how to secure a woman who's attracted to me, without acting on it and being sinful. I lost a very attractive woman by being too moral and restraining myself. That really sucks. She might not have been a good partner for me, but that problem still remains.
Anecdotes:
•Both omegas I know have a history of being in abusive relationships. I think they are easily preyed upon by the narcissistic types. Even the Office Space Milton was in one with his boss.
•Omegas have a general bitterness towards the world but they are optimistic about it. Like, "The world sucks, but I'll make the most of what I have". Reflected well in the Office Space guy who could be happy as long as he had his red stapler despite suffering worse than the delta protagonists.
•They are happy when they realize everyone hates them. It sounds contradictory but as soon as they accept that they are hated, then they no longer try to fit in, then they seek the things that truly make them happy. I believe Elliot Rodger, "The Supreme Gentlemen" was a strong omega candidate who was forced to participate in a hierarchy by his parents (college) and snapped. He never realized he would always be hated by everyone and being forced into college rubbed it in his face. The evidence is that he described being happy in long drives from CA to AZ to purchase lotto tickets - he believed he was driving to get money to get happiness, but I noticed he was content simply being alone in that car for 12 hour stretches. Most people can't tolerate that sort of thing.
•Omegas would make great cross country truck drivers. Vox mentioned sigma being miserable in a forced hierarchy, such as the school system, and I think omega suffers from that too. Society has VERY few ways for a man to simply be out and alone nowadays. Mostly because of all the fees, taxes, regulatory burden - think Rambo 1, urbanized society is not friendly towards vagrant types. The cowboys of old likely had a lot of omegas in their ranks.
Think of Clint Eastwood movies. He wasn't a sigma-type like James Bond where he'd roll in and charm the pants off of everyone and be treated like an alpha. He was a loner, generally hated, he generally hated the world, he knew it and he was content with it.
For the omega trying to be more social it's nearly a self defeating cycle. You get into your routine and work on your hobbies/projects, and before you know it you haven't text, called, or interacted with anyone in over a month.
I think people who you can pick right up again as if no time has past are probably sigma or omega. Because from their perspective, no time has past.
Months after university and without contact since then, a colleague sent me a text asking if I wanted to skydive.
The only thing I did before confirming was to check if I was free that weekend.
It wasn't until a while later that it occurred to me that this interaction was a little strange.
I have a theory that omages and sigmas don't actually exist but have an SSH modifier in their personality. Deltas and gammas with the modifier become omegas. Alphas and bravos with the modifier become sigmas.
There seems to be more Omegas here than I would expect given their relative rarity. Dropping out of society ran by Demonic Clowns, or burning out working for the Clowns does not make one an Omega.
Many men of different stripes are done with Clown World, unfortunately this allows charlatans such as Peterson to flourish. Although his works are targeted towards Omegas and people with mental issues, most reading them are probably Deltas or Gammas, and so are most of the drop outs. I would guess Omegas do not read self-help books, nor find as much of an issue in their affairs.
I am most likely a Delta, but I larp as an Omega.
I can play the role of Delta well, but I don't like to. I find normal conversations tiresome. Small talk = slow agony. I'd rather listen to an expert in some field talk about a deeply technical subject.
I think higher IQ and higher intrinsic talent level can make someone feel more like an Omega - other people find it hard to relate.
My impression is that some of these things may self-reinforce. Assume a chatty extroverted Omega, who after much rejection becomes more solitary. There core nature may still be extroverted, but they may end up being molded into an "introvert" due to social inputs. I could see how a truly introverted Omega could be happier than one with a extroverted type.
One challenge I am having in understanding the Omega is that the definition seems to be more about the status than behavior. I suppose this is somewhat like the Delta, where a broad swath of men fit within it.
In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe?
"One challenge I am having in understanding the Omega is that the definition seems to be more about the status than behavior."
They're damaged. Lots of different ways for a human being to be broken.
"In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe"
Solitude is the result. Rejection is a function of the group's standards, and the standard for rejection is variable.
Unwillingness or incapability to fit into the group's standard is probably as close as we can get to core Omega behavior. Groups can allow solitary individuals, but there are additional lines to cross to have them disengage and exile.
"In thinking further, I suppose as a social reject, the Omega doesn't have a lot of behavior to to describe. Solitude is the behavior, maybe?"
You've summarized why people don't have much specific commentary - they're rejects so when would you actually see them in action? An extrovert omega I know talks to all sorts of people to this day - he just gets kicked out of every static large social group possible because he eventually says some landmine of a comment. Racism, misogyny, politics, religion, population culling absolutely nothing is off limits to him and only through brute repetition did he learn to keep his mouth shut and that only sometimes. He can't not-be-himself at all, only put a lid on it temporarily. It's a very endearing type of 'honesty', but only to the few people who still call themselves his friend.
He's not a slovenly guy either. Fit, tall, handsome, sporty, can dress well....but he is confused why he's blocked by every normie social group on facebook even his own family members.
To back up DarkLordFan: remember, half of young liberal white women have a diagnosed mental illness -- and the other half undoubtedly have an undiagnosed one. We can argue that non-woke people are the actual normals, and the wokies are the insane ones.
One clue that you're in fact a Delta and not an Omega is: how do you get on with a group of non-woke men, or even right-of-center normie men? Or, say, Russians? If you're *still* ostracised or at least considered weird, then yes, you might be an Omega.
Likewise, as for your friend with no filter... what is his sex life like? Is it non-existent, middling, or pulling hotties on the regular? How does he get on with dissident men?
His sex life is decent (not great) now, extremely bad before, and if he were to become single today it would become bad again. Strangely he had a tough time dating as a younger man despite his looks. He said most dates would go poorly when he'd tell them they don't deserve rights and other funny things, except he's being 100% serious. Many dates with beautiful women, no close.
He would have done better if he just pretended to be a mute. Dating websites have been productive to get many dates just because of his pics, though again few closes. My opinion is that he didn't understand how to leverage discomfort tension into emotional relief. Maybe he didn't even perceive the concept. He is dating a former model current nurse right now he met on a Trump-themed dating site, she is hot.
With dissident men: He gets kept in groups as long as someone there can exploit him or finds him useful. Gun groups, outdoor groups, drug groups, trade worker groups are ones I'm aware of that are also majorly dissident. Men who show loyalty to him, and loyalty is a major component of almost all SSH interactions, are incredibly rare. It's like they're his buddy because he brings ammo, brings the outdoor gear, does a ton of work, gives narcissistic supply and once he doesn't or can't they treat him like a forever enemy that they've always hated.
With dissident individuals, if I may call myself one, he has friends. Like 2 maybe, including me (a sigma is the other one). However I have no expectation he can do anything for a group and is likely to eventually piss off someone in any group I would put him in. Probably within 3 days. Thinking on it, none of his real friends expect any group contribution and we generally feel bad exploiting him. He's a great guy to laugh with but I don't like doing any actual activities with him because he can't cooperate at all, no matter how talented he is. Yes, the sigma is somehow more cooperative in group activities than the omega.
Right. So, a Delta then, albeit a strange one with a much higher than normal level of sociopathy and honesty which gives him enough of a Sigma vibe to attract hot women at the beginning. In men's groups, Deltas in general tend to get exploited if they let other people get away with it, and aren't looked at as natural leaders, so in that regard he's relatively typical. But it appears he could easily become a full-on Sigma if he learned to be more Machiavellian or Jesuitic about his personal beliefs and otherwise.
"In men's groups, Deltas in general tend to get exploited if they let other people get away with it, and aren't looked at as natural leaders, so in that regard he's relatively typical."
The aspect I emphasize is the lack of loyalty he gets, though. A delta is kept in a group even if they're not super useful because they do what you say and their deference gives them enough 'social money' to pay the 'social rent' of staying in a group. If merely being exploited and not being seen as a leader were enough to say 'Delta', then Milton in Office Space is a delta. Which he obviously is not. Think of the differences in Milton vs Peter/Michael/Samir. I hoped to get across that he was tolerated in groups purely for individual profit reasons and was not tolerated because his place in the hierarchy was assured by anything social.
The omegas I know are 2 for 2 in some form of misanthropy. I disagree with the idea that deltas can become sigmas or that the omega described is a sociopath. The first is a category error ('sheeps can become skunks' type of statement) and the second doesn't fit his behavior. Sociopaths tend to go out of their way to harm others and resist helping (Mr. Hyde, in the book, going out of his way to trample a child that was crossing the street) while this guy is very helpful. His actions may hurt people's feelings or offend them, but there's no intentionality behind it.
Mental Illness doesn't exist. If half of young liberal women have an undiagnosed mental illness that means everyone has an undiagnosed one. Including your fearless Alpha Leaders who seem to not be fighting back in anyway shape or form against the Destruction of Western Civilization. Not very Alpha of the now is it?
I dunno... voting for Democrats because of an alleged threat to the "right" to kill your unborn children, completely disregarding how Democrats run the economy and everything else otherwise, strikes me as just a bit batty, to put it nicely.
> There seems to be more Omegas here than I would expect given their relative rarity.
Alt-Right does select for damaged and alienated people who spend too much time on the Internet.
There is Omega by situation, and Omega by personality. Both have legit claim to the label.
The former are much more common than they should be due to ClownWorld inversion.
God has use for them. If they worship him.
Devon Stacks analysis of Office Space is a must watch and it's still on YouTube.
I love his anecdote that his boss played it for an office movie night and a bunch of productive people didn't show up for work the next day. Himself included.
I'm a married Omega. Worst of both worlds, dude
Was Bilbo Baggins an omega?
Bilbo is the Sigma at least as far a Hobbits are concerned. Goes away for long periods unannounced and gets ornery when people start looking to him for leadership.
Gollum is the Omega
Makes sense, thanks!
Seeing the comments, and then reading over this article again, a sudden realization may be dawning on me. Strike that... no, I'm not fool enough to suggest a Dark Lord might be hiding a heart. Well, maybe in a jar somewhere.
Hey. The Dark Lord has a heart. He is not a psychopath. He was tested.
Thanks for this post.
Being outside the hierarchy lends a moral and intellectual clarity that seems to be difficult for those who have to consider social standing.
Life can be good at the bottom. My wife is 40 lb lighter after our 5th child. I have a low status job that is tolerable and pays the bills.
God is very good and generous.
This comment thread is so enjoyable! "For godliness with contentment is great gain."