I just read the Chateau Heartiste (or CH, it seems spelled without the circumflex since the site redesign) post “Ladies Like Him — In A Way.” It’s an informative post like always. I think it is the best blog on the Manosphere. That I would take the time to offer a refinement (IMO) is not attack but flattery by the least-adjusted imitation possible and by imitation voluntarily pursued. There was this part that was not convincing to me:
Beta niceguys reading the above passage are undoubtedly saying to themselves, “Reasonableness? Generosity? Modesty? Tenderness? Hey, wait, I have all those qualities! Why don’t men admire me and women invite me to their beds?”
Because, dear beta, you must impress upon people you are those virtuous things by choice, and not by necessity. And the way to prove that is by first demonstrating that you are capable of behaving in the opposite fashion, as suits your needs.
I was writing a comment on that post and it grew enough that I thought it would be better as a standalone post on my blog. I don’t think the abstract, philosophical relationship between alpha and beta is properly expressed because the cause and effect of why is not at all clear. As I am fond to say, context is half the truth. When someone asks you if the ends justify the means, or if you do it, that is bullshit. Bullshit is the language of psychological subversion. I am here to guide you to freedom in your own mind if you want it. I hate you if you don’t, and get the fuck off my blog.
It is waaaaay too easy to look at the history we live and make assumptions about context. We should never take context for granted. We are the social environment of each other, and per Game Theory what behaviors are punished and what are rewarded depend on the nature of those people who embody and define by physical imposition the social norms. What we have now is not culture but non-societal, non-cultural social norms posing as culture. To be post-modern as a society, to have the quality of post-feminism masculinity—and masculinity is the essence of all societies, even moribund ones with perfunctory motions of degenerate and feminine pretenses—is to be a builder-slave, to abdicate conquest of self as the foundation of freedom and prosperity. Let me address the phrasing I quoted above from the House.
I don’t think those beta qualities of the gentleman were punished or often unrewarded back then, or more precisely when civilization is culturally ascendant per the constructiveness of beta strength honored. What matters is not giving psychologically subversive manipulators (AWALT + whatever unscrupulous men) credit upon credit but expecting payment for one’s services and respect for one’s presence. If beta men take the law into their own hands as the default and work out the rules of culture day by day in the free market of cooperation and conflict, they usually don’t have much reason to impose frictional costs and plenty of reason to be cooperative once the bugs (vermin) are worked out: civilized prosperity.
The absolute dichotomy of alpha-beta is only true in a prevailing poverty of character, whether in the feral wilds to which women are perfectly adapted or the institutional farm of imposed degeneracy. In either case, it is everyone for himself. In either case, there are no property rights and wealth is not properly managed into extinction or else it never existed in the first place. The first wealth is character of the mind to have a true vision on making a difference of elevation above the animals, the opposite of how the phrase is defined by women and their masculine authority the state.
In the wild it is each person against each person with culture-killing defense costs the individual can’t afford except with few possessions and no investment into indefensible wealth management. In the institutional farmland among the herd (who is everyone not the elite), it is all against one for everyone, the social norm keeping each mustered for sodomy of one kind or another supposed by the herd to redound to everyone else in the herd. The latter condition of institutional gridlock exploitation is just a derivative progenitor of the former interlocking exploitation closing the circle and the noose on men unworthy to hold the brass ring of culture that is above animal and female nature, and on the hapless denizen women.
Beta Can Be Alpha Can Be Beta
Beta can be alpha if you recognize cooperation is greater competitiveness and absolute gain in the win-win-or-get-the-fuck-out-or-I’ll-kill-you relationship. Beta is an advanced add-on for alpha, and alpha is the foundation for beta. To wit, provisioning others at the expense of yourself is a luxury of strength and a tenet of perdition. As a tenet, it is a faux morality for the fool whose currency is an illusory guarantee not his own wits, flesh, and blood. (As I was writing this as a comment at Chateau Heartiste originally) only now do I realize that the true complementary nature of alpha sperm provisioning and beta non-sperm provisioning was hinted at in the post, but the harsh facts of life as the context that makes alpha-beta what it is is necessary to appreciate what is dichotomy and what is synergy.
First a conqueror, second a builder. The strengths of alpha and beta behavior I call lower and upper masculinity. What is alpha (primary) in the wild or decline is beta (secondary) in a healthy, growing society. What women do with their pussy proximity is the perfect indication of lower masculinity. Few men can appreciate higher masculinity, as it is the realm of philosophers who understand the gulf of temperament between men and women, of the cultural and the wild (or degenerate depending on context), and who understand the foundations of life include death, and the ideal of love in only shimmering in the distance one sees if looking in the direction lust’s refinement. Men love better than women do.
There is no feminine mystique, only the compulsive lies motivated by female reproductive instincts honed over the eons of wild hominids for psychological subversion to compete competitively but individualistically clear of the physical superiority of men. Women are simple once their toolkit of emotional hooks are known. When Betty Friedan wrote her book, suburban wives needed their emotionally A.W.O.L. government-programmed husbands to exercise and optimally max out their social climbing skills to measure up to their marriages, but they didn’t. Women become relentless relative-status social climbing cheats and whores when their survival needs are guaranteed by superlative institution. Women convince men they lack emotions, but that gives their abuses of men cover. Women count on the superior emotional capacity of men to leverage their inferior emotional capacities, for they have little else by which to compete mentally save their expedient ease of deficiency. The mystique is masculine, for men are the builders that raise humanity above the feral muck. Women instinctively know they are relatively deficient, and they project those deficiencies onto post-modern beta men relentlessly—because they can.
The closest experienced emotion to love is what brothers in patriarchy felt for each other as cooperative conquerors of their male popular sovereignty. Modern military men feel an intense caricature of this emotion, for a military troop is not a militia man setting foreign policy with respect to his castle. No man ever held onto his nuclear family by himself, but keep on trying guys. Philosophical corruption eventually works its own death and the institutional matrix gives way to the crucible of the wilds, where any handful of enterprising men can achieve at the expense of character-impoverished others. Happily, evolution sometimes does wonders. Ftw. That’s how real progress happens.
The implication from the quote I took from CH as worded is that your alphatude of social dominance and social proof is entirely an individual and primal choice. It is not. Humans are too intelligent to compete for alpha rank (now sovereignty) without wisely discriminatory cooperation because if you don’t, others will and you’ll lose. There are times to go it alone, certainly. Good men are hard but not too hard to find, like gold is to unicorns, which is why good men make all the socioeconomic difference. Self-serving patriarchy is the superlative potential state of humanity, or it was and can be again with a little assist to the self-pruning to come. Be rich in goodness, my brothers.
Yours in evolutionarily rational liberty,
—‘Reality’ Doug, 05 March 2014