Tag: Alpha Game

Wounded Gamma loses again

One significant characteristic of the Gamma male is that he cannot deal with being publicly shown to be wrong. Such an event punctures the delusion bubble in which he, the Secret King, always triumphs, so it creates a wound that never heals, and festers much longer than any higher-rank man can imagine. Even if he manages to control himself and not let it show immediately, it eats away at him and preys on his mind.

The way the Gamma usually deals with a festering wound is to attempt to negate it by subsequently demonstrating his superiority to the party who dealt it to him. This means that he will lie in wait, for years if need be, for what he sees as an opportunity to prove the offending party wrong. This, he believes, will disqualify and discredit the party, which somehow means that the Gamma was not wrong the first time, even though he was. But no matter, the Secret King triumphs in the end!

This behavior is so predictable that I not infrequently find myself able to correctly anticipate when a previously wounded Gamma is going to think he sees an opening and launch what I am coming to think of as a restorative rebuttal. However, I did not see this one coming; I did not think that Camestros Felapton was dumb enough to launch what is either his third or his fourth attempt to repair his delusion bubble since being so publicly humiliated about his lack of knowledge concerning rhetoric in Of Enthymemes and False Erudition. Apparently the sting of his repeated defeats at my hands has become more than he can bear, because he is really grasping at straws now.

The other day Vox was disparaging about the value of scientific evidence. I’m not entirely sure if he is clear himself about what he means but when it comes to IQ he is happy to post anything that he feels supports his case. This time, it is a pair of studies that point to a 4 point decline in IQ in France in a 9-10 year period. Vox quotes a second study that was an analysis of the first. This second study was an attempt to discern the cause of the decline by looking at the magnitude of the changes at a subtest level. This second paper concluded that the decline ‘likely has a primarily biological cause’. Vox declares it was due to immigration.

Did I now? What did I actually write? Let’s review:

My estimate of a post-1965 four-point IQ loss in the USA was a minimum estimate based solely on replacement migration, but considering that dysgenic fertility is also a factor in the USA, the actual decline is almost certainly worse.


If replacement migration is also the lesser factor in the US case, then the post-1965 IQ decline in the USA could be as much as 10 points. However, US immigration has been higher and US native birth rates have remained higher than in France, so something on the order of 7-8 points is more likely. This is not insignificant; it is the difference between the current USA and Sierra Leone.


So, Camestros is obviously wrong. I did not say the decline was due solely to immigration, I merely repeated what the study said, which is that the reported IQ decline in France was primarily due to dysgenic fertility and secondarily due to immigration.

Moreover, this shows that Camestros was not merely wrong, he was lying, because I even pointed out that while dysgenic fertility appears to have been the primary factor responsible in France, in the US it is more likely that immigration is nearly as important a factor for two reasons: US immigration rates are higher and US native birth rates are higher. There is a third reason as well; higher abortion rates among the lowest-IQ population tend to partially counterbalance the lower fertility rate of the highest-IQ population.

We had damn well better hope I am right, because we know the immigration-related decline of IQ in the USA is at least 4 points based on population averages. If the dysgenic fertility decline in the USA is, like France, even worse than the immigration-related decline, then we will have already seen a catastrophic decline in average US IQ of 9 points or more! In his desperation to declare me wrong about immigration and IQ, (and therefore retroactively wrong about Aristotle and rhetoric) Camestros fails to even notice the horrific implications of his argument. Who cares about that, what is important is to patch up that punctured delusion bubble stat!

Finally, after again trying to cast doubt on IQ as a reasonable metric for intelligence as well as upon the possibility of comparing average national intelligence levels, Camestros ends by saying, “neither paper ends up agreeing with Vox’s conclusion.”

Considering that neither paper addresses the USA at all, it would be absolutely remarkable if either of them had.

Once more, Camestros provides us with sufficient evidence to safely conclude that if IQ is a reasonable measure of innate intelligence, his is considerably lower than mine. It’s funny that despite being such a questionable metric, a similar percentile just seems to keep showing up no matter how it’s measured.

Of course, my actual vocabulary is probably more than twice that, but then, we’re not counting Italian, German, French, or Japanese vocabularies.

UPDATE: Gammas never learn. And they never stop lying.

Camestros Felapton ‏@CamestrosF
@voxday declares me beneath his consideration, again

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
You’re lying, again. I take on all comers. Even hapless, midwitted gamma males like you. 

Gamma stalker fail

Camestros Fellatrix is still butthurt over being depantsed in the midst of his attempt to pose as a master of Aristotelian rhetoric that he’s been commenting almost nonstop about me ever since. (shakes head) Gammas are nothing if not predictable. Anyhow, it’s more than a little amusing to see him try to figure out how he can try to figure out how to produce a justification for calling me stupid while simultaneously undermining the significance of IQ:

In Vox Day’s case, his claim is this: the difference in IQ score between man-who-made-Vox-grumpy (MWMVG) and Vox is >50 IQ score points. If we assume the MWMVG is at least in the average range (90-109) Vox is claiming an IQ score of >140 and possibly >159. Note that the upper end of just ‘average’ IQ has Vox claiming to be pretty much at the limit of meaningful IQ scores on the most generous reading of IQ and even at the lower end well above the boundary which most reputable IQ test stop bothering to classify (around 130 IQ points). An informed (and presumably smart) person shouldn’t make a claim any more precise than ‘greater than 130’ – beyond that the figure as some sort of intrinsic property of a person that would be consistent across multiple methods of quantification doesn’t make sense EVEN ASSUMING IQ MAKES MUCH SENSE ANYWAY.

Put let’s take that figure of 130. Let’s say Vox is taking a more grounded view of his own IQ and is seeing himself as 130. A 50 point difference would put the MWMVG at an IQ of below 80. For comparison, an IQ of below 70 is used diagnostically as evidence of intellectual disability. An IQ of 80 to 70 is likely to represent somebody who would struggle with school and many cognitive tasks (assuming the score was representative). Which would be an odd thing for Vox to claim – after he is attempting to write a point-by-point rebuttal of what the MWMVG and struggling to do so, claiming that he is struggling to counter an argument from a person with an IQ lower than 80 would be tantamount to claiming he really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Aaron doesn’t make me grumpy in the slightest. I find his determination, shared by a few similarly stupid File 770 headcases, to stake his reputation on my being wrong every single time in all circumstances, to be downright funny. It is always a pleasure to see one’s expectations met so reliably.

Especially considering how his fixation led him to publicly conclude that LEEEROY JENKINS was the greatest battlefield commander in military history.

Anyhow, Cammy has unnecessarily occupied himself with trying to assess “a more grounded view” of my IQ, in that its lower limit is a matter of public record. I was a member of Mensa, so obviously my IQ is above 132. More importantly, I was also a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140. Therefore, the minimum estimated IQ for Aaron is 90, which is in the average range, and may actually be considered a little generous in light of the obvious silliness of his expressed position on tactical matters.

And then, of course, there is the perhaps-not-entirely-irrelevant fact that I already posted it.

We have now reached the point at which you should feel free to:

  • Explain why you reject IQ as a metric for intelligence. Preferably at length and with personal anecdotes.
  • Lecture us on the 34 different types of intelligence, as well as which ones are best.
  • Tell us how you were out partying the night before the SAT and you were totally hungover when you took it and besides you don’t care.
  • Brag about your 800 IQ.
  • Inform us of your Bachelor’s Degree in Philosophy of Language from the University of Chicago. The University of Chicago!
It’s totally going to fool everyone. I guarantee it. No one will ever be able to ascertain your true motivations. We’ve never seen or heard anyone do anything like it before.
Anyhow, this is nothing more than Vox’s First Law in action: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.

The multilingual requirement

Heartiste explains why both rhetoric and dialectic are necessary in today’s politics and political commentary:

Dialectic is the preferred form of communication when level-headed White men are drawing up policies to ensure prosperity for their nation and a future for their posterity. But we don’t live in that world anymore. Our world is tribal wagon-circling and feral women. Dialectic falls on deaf ears in an Idiocracy and in a Jizzocracy.

Rhetoric has the stage now. The beta male who patiently and thoroughly explores all the logical implications of a woman’s emotional extemporizing will bore her to tears. No sex for him. As it is in 2016 American politics; the cuckservative who patiently and thoroughly explores all the Constitutional implications of a liberal’s destructive anti-White animus will ostracize himself from the public discourse. No influence for him.

The ideal set-up for the alt-right rebel is rhetoric + dialectic. Get your kill shot in, then cow the others with an unanticipated foray into informed dialectic.

This is why Alpha Game had this motto from the start: Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

In any society where women have the vote, both sexual politics and Game are going to be absolutely integral to the process of government. As women are much more inclined to favor rhetoric over dialectic, this means that it is vital for anyone who is interested in influencing the process in even the smallest regard to learn how to communicate with the rhetorically-minded.

The call of the cuck

David French preaches a secular version of the standard Churchian “Only Real Man in the Room” sermon:

In Trump, feminists have a true cultural bogeyman, and he is actually dangerous. Trump is commandeering the debate over masculinity and providing the cultural Left with a lifetime’s worth of dissertations, think pieces, and television tropes on the evils of “manhood.” And Trump will have helped define their terms.

He has brought out of the woodwork a bloc of people who apparently believe that the answer to political correctness isn’t truth and virtue but rather becoming what the other side most hates. If the other side polices language, then the answer is vulgarity. If the other side embraces diversity, then the answer is flirtation with white nationalism and white-identity politics. If the other side tries to cast men as dangerous, sex-obsessed bullies, well then hoist the middle finger, glory in Trump’s apparent sexual and financial success, and relish the whining of feminists and “betas” everywhere.

Trump’s masculinity is a cheap counterfeit of the masculinity that’s truly threatening to the cultural Left: man not as predator but as protector, the “sheepdog” of American Sniper fame. This is the brave man, the selfless man who channels his aggression and sense of adventure into building a nation, an economy, and — yes — a family. This is the man who kicks down doors in Fallujah or gathers a makeshift militia to rush hijackers in the skies above Pennsylvania. Or, to choose a more mundane — though no less important — example: This is the man who packs up the household to take a chance on a new job, models strength for his family when life turns hard, teaches his son to stand against bullies on the playground, and lives at all times with dignity and honor.

The masculinity that threatens the Left is the masculinity that embraces the manly virtues while minimizing the traditional manly vices.

It’s more than a little amusing to read this in light of the knowledge that David French is a virtue-signaling cuckservative with the standard African accessory. He has read Heartiste, but he has not understood the first thing about Game; this is little more than an evangelical-flavored BETA whining about an ALPHA and attempting to redefine what winning “really” is.

There is no such thing as “counterfeit” masculinity, there are only the different socio-sexual expressions of it. Trump’s masculinity is Alpha and confrontational. He is a leader. He fights. French, on the other hand is a Delta, and so, unsurprisingly, he values service and selflessness and being a team player. And he is absolutely and utterly wrong about what threatens the Left; the Left will use Deltas, chew them up, and spit them out, as Deltas are naturally inclined to obey anyone with a mantle of authority, even a stolen or false one, who gives them orders.

Just as conservatism has conserved nothing, French’s Delta protectionism has protected nothing; even his own family has been invaded by outsiders. He is a chihuahua that believes it is a sheepdog and thinks the real sheepdog is a wolf.

What genuinely threatens the Left are male leaders who are confrontational, who will never submit to them, and who have the ability to inspire other men to stand up to them as well. In other words, they fear Alphas who publicly stand against them. That is why the Left is having conniptions over Donald Trump and could not care less about anything David French thinks, says, or does.

Deltas always want to redefine leadership, winning, and Alpha as reliability. French’s little sermon reminds me of the Delta who wondered if there was such a thing as a “Stealth Alpha”, the IT guy to whom everyone turns when their computer doesn’t work. But the fact that people need you, rely upon you, and use you does not mean that they follow you, obey you, or even respect you… nor does it cause women to find you attractive.

Speaker for the butthurt

Matt Walsh rage-quits the Republican Party because Donald Trump has won the nomination:

Goodbye, Republican Party.

I mean that in more ways than one. I’m leaving. You’re dying. I could stick around while you gasp your last pitiful breaths, but what would be the point? I’m certainly more pro-life than you ever were, but when it comes to political parties that have been overtaken by some kind of unintelligible, socially liberal populism, I say pull the plug.

Good riddance. Your wounds are self-inflicted anyway. Clearly you have no desire to live. So goodbye. I am abandoning you on your deathbed, and I feel no shame in it….

The Republican Party is host to many millions of people who fell prostrate before a flamboyant charlatan, despite, or perhaps even because of, his compulsive dishonesty, his moral cowardice, his cruelty and pettiness, his blatant and unapologetic ignorance and disinterest in the most important issues facing our country, his liberalism and so on. As Trump said himself, he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and these people would still follow him.

That’s why I’m leaving. It’s also why you’re dying. It’s not my fault, and it’s not even Trump’s fault. Trump is just a parasite who took advantage of a weakened immune system. He’s the violent case of dysentery that finally kills the frail man who was already sick with a thousand other exotic diseases. The untrained eye may say the man died because he was vomiting blood, but in truth he was vomiting blood because he was dying.

The Republican Party, we should remember, is made up of Republicans. And most of the Republicans are voters, not politicians. So even if nobody else will say it, I must make it clear that I’m leaving because of these voters. Whatever else can be said of citizens who want a man like Trump to run the country, it cannot be said that they’re anything resembling conservative. Nor can it be said that we have anything much in common.

Yesterday, a Republican in Indiana told the media she’s voting for Trump because he’s a “different kind of liar.” The day before, Cruz attempted to have a reasoned dialogue with a couple of Trump supporters who responded to all of the senator’s arguments by shouting slogans and pumping their fists. Trump fans perform even less admirably in cyberspace, where an impassioned collection of anti-Semites and white nationalists work tirelessly to confirm every negative and cartoonish stereotype liberals have ever concocted about Republicans.

I’m not saying they’re all like this, but I’m done answering for the antics and inanities of the Trump squad. They’re not in my party. Or, I suppose they’d respond, I’m not in theirs. And they’re right.

Remind Matt of this every single time he claims to be a Republican in the future. Rub it in Matt’s face every single time he claims to speak for Republicans. Remind Matt that he quit, that he very publicly left the party, when he claims to be its true voice.

Because, if there is one thing we have learned about gammas like Matt, it is that they always try to come back and pretend nothing happened.

The only thing that is more pathetic than Matt’s gamma rage is the losers in his comments encouraging him to self-immolate.

Gammas never lose

But sometimes they win in ways no one else can see. This probably belongs on Alpha Game, but since everyone here is familiar with the entire discussion that led up to it, I’m posting it here. In his response to my banning him, we learn that the recently-banned Camestros Felapton is not only an SJW, he is a Secret King Who Cannot Ever Lose Because Even When It Looks Like He’s Losing, He Is Really Winning, You See.

Cool! Banned by Vox! I had to give Vox a little lesson on Aristole and logic the other day and now he seems to have got a tad upset with me.

Wow, how cool is that! See, Felapton wanted to be banned from the place that he had sought out on his own and where he was commenting repeatedly without invitation. That was his plan all along! The joke is on Vox! This is always the immediate reaction of the Gamma who has just been beaten in public; he immediately tries to spin the negative into a positive. And, of course, this spin requires an amount of historical revision; I clearly don’t understand the great Greasean philologist Aristole as well as he does. SJWs being SJWs, we also have all three Laws of SJW on display.

  1. SJWs Always Lie: there are four obvious lies in the first three sentences. To say nothing of a classic Gamma tell.
  2. SJWs Always Double Down: instead of simply admitting that he was wrong and had failed to correctly understand Aristotle’s distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, he continues to posture as some sort of expert on philosophy and logic. But does he have a Bachelor’s Degree in the Philosophy of Science from the University of Chicago?
  3. SJWs Always Project. I’m not even remotely upset with Felapton. Quite to the contrary, I am amused by his utterly predictable Gamma behavior. As one observer commented yesterday, he’s going to be looking for his chance to take a revenge shot for years.

Oopsie! The rationalization is because of the point I made on File770 regarding the Castalia House published work on Gene Wolfe:

This is close enough to the truth. Although “the lies I told” would have been a more accurate way for him to phrase it.

Vox claims this somehow ‘proves’ Larry Correia’s point about politics and the Hugos or something. Which is odd because the focus of my point was not Vox Day’s admittedly unpleasant and confused politics but his active campaign against the Hugo Awards and other science-fiction writers.

It does prove Larry’s case. The focus of Felapton’s point is irrelevant in this regard. Felapton admitted that he would be voting on grounds other than the literary merit of the works concerned. That concedes Larry’s primary point. Larry argued, correctly, that the claims the Hugo Awards were awarded solely on the basis of merit were false, and moreover, that it was nothing but a popularity contest among a small group of people who leaned heavily to the political left. Although Felapton’s point is irrelevant, it also happens to be wrong since my active campaign is entirely the result of politics in science fiction. Their dislike of my politics is the only reason Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and John Scalzi started this conflict by publicly attacking me back in 2005.

Sigh. That isn’t the genetic fallacy.The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of IRRELEVANCE that confuses the SOURCE of a claim with its VERACITY. There isn’t a factual claim at stake here – I’m not saying a factual claim made by an author is false by virtue of his publisher (e.g. if somebody was to say that a claim about Gene Wolfe in the book was false purely on the basis that the book was a Castalia House book THAT would be the genetic fallacy).

My claim is that I can’t reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House. Nothing to do with the genetic fallacy. Vox concedes that I raise one valid point, which is that “there is no way of separating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.” That is the ethical basis of my position and Vox concedes that it is valid and not fallacious.

More posing. Felapton is trying to play fast and loose with both his claims and the applicability of the genetic fallacy here. As the tagline to his blog states, “even when we’re being honest we come across as being disingenuous” and he is not being honest here. We know that he believes the Puppy nominees to be low-quality; he has openly said as much in the past. Now he is pretending that he doesn’t necessarily believe that Castalia-published works are of insufficient quality to win awards, only that he “can’t reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House.”

In other words, he is being disingenuous, and attempting to pretend that he is not claiming that a published work is not worthy of an award on the basis of its origins, it is simply that his pressing need to avoid rewarding what he believes to be obnoxious behavior just happens to justify precisely the same course of action. What a fortuitous coincidence!

However, he made a mistake. He did not merely say that he was not refusing to support Castalia-published works on the basis of their origins. He could have said, in response to my statement, “the genetic fallacy doesn’t apply and here is why”, but instead, he said “that isn’t the genetic fallacy” and then proceeded to adminster another of his little lessons. He tried to kill two birds with one stone and thus exposed his true intentions. Let’s break it down:

  1. My claim is that Felapton has concluded Castalia-published works lack merit due to their origins.
  2. Felapton asserts that that is not his conclusion. Dubious, but possible.
  3. Felapton asserts that is not the genetic fallacy. Wrong.

He blundered because it wasn’t enough for him to simply state that I failed to understand his motivation for no-awarding Castalia publications, he also tried to pretend that I don’t understand the genetic fallacy because he is still smarting over my demonstration of his inability to understand rhetoric. Interesting word, smarting, in light of the typical gamma response to being intellectually bested.

As for Felapton’s veracity and how seriously one should take his claims, well, his closing statement alone should suffice to judge that.

What is more interesting is Vox losing his cool. That is a major departure from his play book and poor tactics. He is actually rattled? Surely not by me, so I assume it must be by Philip Sandifer’s campaign.

As it is written, SJWs always lie. Felapton and others continue on that theme in the comments. Those in italics are his.

  • I suspect VD is completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle
  • he tried the liberul-head-explody thing and then the liberul-heads didn’t explody
  • For a master of rhetoric, he has the debate strategy skills of a goldfish
  • He really can’t stand having people who know formal logic and rhetoric better than he does around
  • It’s also amusing to see him flailing around in his flop-sweat as you call him on being a serial bullshitter

The idea that I am “completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle” is fascinating, considering that more than one journalist has contacted me this week to ask if I am Chuck Tingle. That “let’s make their heads explode” thing is a Sad tactic, not a Rabid one; I don’t care how SJWs feel about Chuck Tingle or anything else. Delenda est. As for my “debate strategy skills”, well, there is this. And this.

UPDATE: Lunacy from one of the banned ones, Golden Flowers aka Micael Gustavsson. Talk about the Third Law!

Classic pathological narcissist – rubbing VD’s nose in the fact that he’s spouting crap threatens his identity as the Bestest Argumentarian EVAH, so he has to double down and come up with more bullshit on why his admirers should ignore his previous bullshit. I suspect VD is completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle, and is flailing around trying to restore his feeling of being in control. He can’t; having opened Pandora’s box he is stuck with Tingle until the sun goes nova.. When VD is “amused” you know he is really upset.

    We got us a runner

    Matt Walsh bravely strode forth to conquer the Lion Guard:

    Matt Walsh ‏@MattWalshBlog
    I will debate any conservative media Trump shill who made my blacklist. I’m “just a blogger” so it should be easy to beat me, right?

    Someone brought it to my attention, and as will probably surprise no one, I answered the call:

    Ronald James ‏@ron3name
    If you’re serious hit up @voxday. He’s pretty good at demolishing churchian cucks, when he has time and can be bothered.

    Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
    .@ron3names @MattWalshBlog I will debate you any time, Matt. And yes, it will be very easy to beat you up.

    Thereby prompting Matt to imitate a contortion artist in coming up with excuses for why he is only going to debate people with their own show, which is to say, people who don’t know who Matt Walsh is and could not care less. One observer on Twitter characterized it thusly:

    >be a cuck
    >offer to debate
    >vox: ahem
    >ohshit.exe
    >to cuck/not to cuck
    >”I don’t debate trolls!”
    >secret king wins…

    See, Matt is TOO IMPORTANT a blogger to debate another blogger. Especially one whose readership he DWARFS!

    Matt Walsh ‏@MattWalshBlog
    My readership is several million a month. Dwarfs yours and it’s not close.

    And yet, he keeps running, running, running. Diagnosis: Gamma.

    Perception vs perspective

    The anti-Trumpkins are strutting around the Internet and bellowing about how Ted Cruz blew away Donald Trump in the two states he won and narrowly lost to Trump in the two states Trump won. And that’s true, if you’re dumb enough to look only at the reported percentages rather than the actual numbers involved.

    In Kansas and Maine, Cruz beat Trump by 18,145 and 2,480 votes, respectively. In Kentucky and Louisiana, Trump beat Cruz by 10,866 and 9,781 votes. So, Cruz actually lost to Trump on the overall vote count by a grand total of 22 votes, which is a) a dead heat and b) as irrelevant as who won what state.

    On the delegate side, Cruz took 64 delegates to Trump’s 49. This, too, changed nothing, because Trump’s ability to reach the required number of delegates before the convention is going to be solely determined by the 391 delegates awarded by the winner-takes-all states so long as he can take 30 percent or more of the distribute-delegate states. Since he took 49 of the 112 delegates allocated yesterday, or 44 percent, Trump remains ahead of the game; the only real significance of Saturday was the implosion of Rubio.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, it was a great night for Cruz, but it was a great night because it showed he is the only alternative to Trump, not because it demonstrated that his popularity had exploded or that he could actually beat Trump. The key result for him on Saturday was Rubio’s demise, who really should drop out of the race on Monday, and presumably, endorse Cruz before getting humiliated in his home state, virtually ensuring Trump’s nomination, and becoming entirely irrelevant.

    Since Florida (99) and Ohio (66) account for nearly half of the remaining winner-takes-all delegates, Cruz has to prevent Trump from winning at least one of those states on March 15th. If Trump wins both, it will be extremely difficult to prevent him from collecting the additional 694 delegates he needs even if Cruz wins all of the proportional-distribution states.

    The dilemma for Cruz is that if Rubio and Kasich drop out, it increases his slim chance of beating Trump in one of the two critical states. But if they stay in, they will continue to reduce the amount of proportional delegates that Trump collects. Cruz already knows he isn’t likely to get enough delegates himself, so his winning strategy is to try to stop Trump, not to try to win himself.

    Game theory says that Cruz needs to get Rubio and Kasich out of the race and get their endorsements right now so they can campaign for him and help him poach either Florida or Ohio. Whether they are in or out, Trump is going to surpass the 30 percent threshold in the proportional states. Since Cruz was at 21 percent in Ohio and 12 percent in Florida, the key to the nomination is Kasich, not Rubio. And presumably, Kasich knows this, which is why he has stayed in the race up until now.

    If I’m Trump, I’m making a deal with Kasich to get his endorsement and strike for the kill. Anything short of VP should be on the table. If I’m Kasich, I’m getting out of the race before Wednesday and cashing in at my peak value. And if I’m Cruz, I’m arranging for a quiet telephone call with Trump to see if what he’s willing to offer in exchange for an endorsement. There is a three-way Prisoner’s Dilemma here, as the first candidate to endorse Trump is the one who is the most valuable to him. Alternatively, Cruz should tell his supporters to vote Rubio in Florida and Kasich in Ohio.

    On a side note, it’s interesting how this campaign has been largely consistent with the socio-sexual interpretation of the candidates from the start. It’s down to Sigma against Alpha, and the outcome will largely depend upon whom can do a better job of assembling popular support versus working the system. The situation appears to strongly favor the Alpha, but it is always dangerous to expect a Sigma to do the obvious or to count him out.

    I am nagged by one serious doubt concerning what I’ve been told about Ted Cruz, and it’s not related to the obvious one concerning the extent to which he is the Goldman Sachs-preferred, CFR-approved candidate. If, as we are told, the establishment hates him so much more than Trump, why has Cruz been overperforming so dramatically in the states where the GOPe has more influence in the process.

    I expect that we will soon learn whether Cruz fans have been telling the truth about whether the Republican establishment prefers him to Trump or not. If Fox and various GOP figures immediately begin fawning all over Cruz once Rubio withdraws, we will know they were, at the very least, incorrect.

    The stench of gamma

    Man, once you whiff it, you will never forget that bizarre scent of passive-aggression, insecurity, dishonesty, and truculence. One of Matt Walsh’s fans decided to jump in and white knight for Matt, and he appears to have obtained a copy of the McRapey playbook, right down to his very vocabulary:

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    @mattwalshblog You sneer at Trump’s supporters. Trump tells them he loves them and wants them to be great. That is why you lose.

    Paul Foeller @pfoeller
    I’m not sneering at all. I’m echoing the sentiment that Trump supporters are all surface – and you’re proving it.

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    You claim to be better than Trump’s supporters, but you’re not sneering?

    Paul Foeller @pfoeller
    I’m more policy-focused, yes. Do you disagree?

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    I know nothing about you. The point is that you have publicly claimed to be better than all Trump supporters.

    Paul Foeller @pfoeller
    I don’t think I’m better. I think my views make more sense. There is a massive difference between the two.

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    You said Trump’s supporters are all more superficial than you are. So, is being superficial a virtue or a vice?

    Paul Foeller @pfoeller
    Again, I’ve not done so. In fact, I’ve explicitly stated exactly the opposite. Do try to keep up?

    Read the rest at Alpha Game. Keeping in mind that this is how he describes himself on Twitter: “My wife’s only flaw is her taste in men.”

    After all, there are few things that women find more attractive than a self-deprecating man with much to self-deprecate.

    A world-class tantrum

    Matt Walsh is exceedingly butthurt by the fact that Donald Trump just took his third state in a row:

    Dear Donald Trump Fan,

    I’m going to tell you the truth, friend.

    You say you want the truth. You say you want someone who speaks boldly and brashly and bluntly and “tells it like it is” and so on. According to exit polls in South Carolina, voters who want a president who “tells it like it is” are an essential demographic for Trump, just as they’re an essential demographic for Judge Judy and Dr. Phil. You say you want abrupt and matter-of-fact honesty, and you want it so much, you’ll make a man president for it regardless of whether he defies every principle and value you claim to hold.

    Personally, I think you’re lying, and I’m going to test my theory. In fact, I believe I’ve already proven my theory because you’re now offended that I called you a liar. But Trump has called half of the Earth’s population a liar at some point over the past seven months, and you loved every second of it. You said you loved it not out of cruelty or spite, but out of admiration for a man who’s willing to call people liars — even if he’s lying when he does it.

    Yet here I am employing the same tactic — accurately, I might add — and you recoil indignantly. Over the course of this campaign season I’ve said many harsh words about you and your leader, all of which I stand by, but you’ve never respected my harsh words, or the harsh words of any Trump critic. Indeed, you insist that our tough criticism of you only vindicates your support of Trump, while Trump’s vulgar and dishonest criticism of everyone else also vindicates your support of Trump. You’re tired of people being critical, but you love Trump because he’s critical. You say you like Trump for his style, but you hate his style when it’s directed at him or you.

    It’s epic. You really have to read the whole thing to believe it, let alone appreciate it. But wait, there’s more! I happened to tweet about it.

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    The butthurt. The salt. The tears. The meltdown of @MattWalshBlog is simply delicious. Deal with it, cucky.

    Matt Walsh ‏@MattWalshBlog
    Thanks for sharing my stuff

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    Are you kidding? I made certain to archive it before you come to your senses and delete it. That was a self-evisceration!

    Now, I don’t know much about Matt Walsh, but I do know where he stands socio-sexually now, because like every other Gamma bitterly licking his wounds, he didn’t hesitate to leap in and take a shot when he thought he saw the opportunity.

    Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
    Even as the political elite sneer at them, Trump tells the poorly-educated that he loves them. And they will love him back. #Trump2016

    Matt Walsh ‏@MattWalshBlog
    So you need politicians to tell you they love you? Are you an actual toddler or are you just pretending?

    Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
    No, Matt, the difference is that they know you hate them and think you are better than them. That’s why you’re irrelevant.

    Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
    Also, you’re projecting, Matt. That was a world-class tantrum you threw. That’s why so many people are laughing at you.

    Klejdys ‏@klejdys
    What @voxday is doing to @mattwalshblog now is illegal in 38 states.

    That little exchange explains something I didn’t understand when I first read the article/tantrum, which is why Matt Walsh doesn’t merely oppose Donald Trump politically, but harbors genuine hatred for him. As a Gamma, he’s a Secret King, which is why he is simultaneously contemptuous of Trump and envious of Trump’s success.

    Anyhow, enjoy the salt. I certainly did.