Hierarchy and the respect for roles is what made civilization possible, and what rescued beta males from complete subservience. In that sense a man might take an alpha role while supervising his workers, then a beta one while talking to the boss. And even the lowest worker could go home at the end of the day and rule his family.

This worked as long as the roles were *respected*. Thus we had responsibility (beta) and obligation (alpha). Woe to a society that loses these. When the obligation goes, so does the responsibility, eventually.

Problem is there is no obligation thus no cohesion. And don’t know about you, but a society of angry and hungry males is about as explosive as an A-bomb.

LoaB: you can make fun of duty and honor, but without it, what do you have? Warlords plundering the land, raping your women and stealing your children. Life surely won’t be any better for betas without civilization’s constraints.

We can’t all be leaders. Smart leaders understand that unhappy followers eventually destroy their world. Duty and honor at their best represent a ‘deal’ made between the rulers and the followers that as long as each side keeps things straight, we can all profit. Up until the early 1970s in the USA, this was still intact. Real wages rose up until that time and then the deal began to be twisted, and we are only just beginning to pay for that.

Maybe the deal sucks, but the alternative is what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTdjoA8HeAM

Duty and honor are integral part of the male wiring. But to play and profit (I mean, for that to work) you need to be playing an honorable game, with honorable opponents. Otherwise it’s like playing chess against a monkey.

In the absence of honorable games and adversaries… a man has to take his own honor and duty and do his own thing. Like a shadow boxer. Or go out there and kill the monkey and reclaim the table.

We´re all slaves.

Depends on how you use that word. We’re slaves to our nature and laws of physics. But it’s best not to call people who still have rights to be slaves in its formal definition (which Africans in the Americas were), or else a victim group of one or the other gender will appear and demand compensation, because they fit under your expanded, loose definition of slavery. Same goes for loose definition of rape. Feminists love this technique, it seems.

Yep it depends on what we mean with the word. What I mean is more related to the slaves on the farm.

You work at the farm, and purchase the items the farm produces. You’re bound to the rules. You cant leave the farm, mostly because it’s all you know, but also because it’s illegal, and also because its the big fear, and everyone pushes you in when your mind starts wondering what’s outside.

Society brainwashes people and turn them into slaves.

That, and, money.

Most of the profits you make for society are taken from you. And depending on where on the ladder you are, you exist because all of the ladders under you are being exploited. And there are plenty of laws (& hairwires) to ensure that keeps that way.

Krauser, most of these guys were omegas, not betas. The Beta is the guy playing along. The Alpha is the guy directing the game. The Omega is the guy breaking the game. Sometimes the Omega makes it big.

It’s not illegal to quit your job…

What happens if you quit your job?

Bad example bro. When you look at undeveloped cultures youre introducing way too many variables. Better look at our own, more developed culture, and look for who is creating it, who’s created it, and who is putting the labor. Usually the ones putting the labor are not the same ones deciding what needs to be created.

We dont know that. Maybe they are just stupid as fuck. Fortunately you dont need to look elsewhere to appreciate the social dynamics between Alphas Betas Omegas and the variations and combinations. Like I said, check our own culture.

“Plus alphas tend to avoid cooperation, and no hierarchy can work without cooperation.”

Alphas are the ones setting the rules that betas use to cooperate. Look closer.

“alphas neither invent nor enforce such things.”

I guess you go by a different definition of Alpha, since in mine Alpha is the only one able to enforce anything.

Alpha is just the top guy in the chain, the one ruling the rest. Without him there’s no system to follow. But kill him, and a former beta will take his place.

Hollen, that’s the PUA definition and it’s misguided as hell. The common denominator women find attractive is dominance. Now, depending on the system, such dominance can be expressed in many different ways.

Our culture is fucked up, so we have a lot of fucked up, dominant guys making profit.

Our culture also shames masculinity, so guys with a moral sense shy away from being masculine, and decreasing their dominance.

“Outside of attracting women, they are completely, utterly useless for any society. ”

That translates to dominance being useless for society… when in fact it’s the foundation. But your points are valid when used against jerks.

I totally hate the “betas created civilization” meme that flies around the manosphere. It’s one of those memes that made me largely withdraw from it years ago. 85% of the time the person saying it is racist to boot, and has bitterness toward both alphas and nonwhites, at least in my experience. They usually say it because they feel they’re a white beta who has been overlooked by modern women, and they want to justify their bitterness by claiming it was men like them in the past who “created civilization” and therefore they should be getting more women today in society. It’s such a stupid talking point. It’s as pointless as the black guy who claims he deserves reparations because his distant ancestors were slaves.

Si Yohami, aunque me fuí hace muchos años.

So anyways, yes Chavez is a mentally ill jerk of an alpha, can we say guys like him created Western Civilization? really? Maybe, we would have to go down an exhaustive list of historical examples. I do wonder what made Socrates, Plato, Thomas Jefferson, Buddha, Jesus, et al be either different than an Alpha, or a different kind of alpha.

And going back to Venezuela, a culture that as you know, creates players like a dime a dozen, has failed to create a ongoing supply of alphas who could take down Chavez and the dictators before him.

So I am back to square one. What kind of alphas should I raise my sons to be?

Wendy, Alpha is a social condition with basis on dominance. There are personalities that are more dominant than others, so, some people with some personalities can naturally become the leader / center figure of a social group = the alpha. Once a person has a social alpha persona, that becomes an identifiable set of personality traits that are all rooted in dominance and hierarchy = confidence, self amusement, etc. And then some people can develop such personality traits “just because”.

The other thing to consider is that we also have freaks. Freaks, weirdos, exceptions – normally get excluded from the group or land at the bottom, and become “omegas” who cant play the game. But not being able to play the game creates a problem, and sometimes the freaks solve that problem by creating a parallel game, and become the center of a new social group.

I’d say Socrates fits that mold. I think Plato was his beta, the second in comand, who wouldnt have done it all by himself. Benjamin Franklin did a lot of amazing things from a problem solving point of view, but he never was able to capitalize that into his MAN value. He was always a freak. An institution around him would give him the throne of an alpha, but we would have been unfit to properly play the part.

And last, once a group is formed and the alpha is gone, and the rules are well established, the more dominant guys compete playing with the rules and one of them, or several of them become the alphas of the group.

And “betas” are all the guys who dont have an interest of climbing / are content with just doing their share and being and get some little return for all their work. Those guys become heavily involved in the system and rely on the rules, since they need the machine to sustain them: they cannot break and become freaks and create another game, and they cannot raise and become the kings of the current game either.

So. Chavez is a freak. But he also had enough dominance to turn the game. His game / his society sucks ass though. And we need another Alpha, another leader, with a better game, with a smarter game, to overthrown him.

Raise your kids to be smart men, dominant men, who believe in themselves fully, and can either climb and own their society, or break apart and create their own.

How women fit there: once a group is created, women fill and build the neuronal connections of the group, micromanage the resources and macromanage the emotional investment on the rules, pushing the unwanted out, and pulling the wanted in. You can say that society is a body, with men being the flesh and bones, and women being the nerve system. A nerve system that cant solve any problem on it’s own, and it’s function is to report “alerts” of danger and pleasure that ultimately make the flesh and bones move.

Women also need to breed. And they are attracted to the power / dominance signals in men. They are attracted to the superficial, positional Alpha characteristics. They are attracted to the position itself, say, a woman will be instantly attracted to a guy, at least briefly, after she finds he’s a successful CEO. The position on the chain presses a trigger. Fame also presses a trigger. But ultimately she will screen for the personality traits, since that’s whats going to tell her what is this guy really made of, which also translates on how long and how well this guy will be able to keep his position or climb further.

Also the position on the chain creates expentace: we expect more Alpha qualities of the leaders, because of the position they occupy, and then get disappointed when they dont behave as expected. So, say, Bill Gates is less attractive as the multi billionaire owner of Microsoft than he would be if he was just a professor at Harvard. On the other side of the spectrum, Steve Jobs was so much of a freak that his attractiveness depends exclusively on his story and the success of Apple. Outside of that success story, he’s just a freak.

And then.

Any guy who’s playing a game which has already been established and is not one of the top guys (yet), is a beta by definition. So every guy is a beta when he gets into the game. Climbing the ladder usually means following the rules strictly. Which also evolves into a mental state of placing the game above of yourself. Which leads to not developing the alpha personality traits, and only developing the ones that are strictly required for playing the game properly.

Say. Tiger Woods was the top figure in golf. He sits in the Alpha throne. However he had many mistresses which his communications were on the “I need you, I miss you” – Im nothing without you lines, really? and then his own wife beats him with a golf club. And then when questioned, he acts so submissive and apologetic – so beta, that the whole society turns against him. He didnt lose the public appeal because he cheated. He lost it because he didnt own it. I still cant believe his ex wife didnt serve jail time after hitting him with a golf club. Alpha what?

Men that are freaks and build new societies… Zuckerberg and Gates are unattractive for the outside world, but they are, however, the top node for a bunch of people, like, the workers at their respective companies. And within those circles you bet they behave with natural dominance, in an environment that is deferential to them, and you bet that every woman there wants to jump on their bones and fuck them like there was no tomorrow.

Or so I imagine. I cant imagine them being all humble and apologetic and indecisive. I imagine them in command.

No, these traits are not beta, but betas want to claim them as a consolation prize or something.

In reality betas are not very good at any of that.

When a guy is VERY good at any of that, chances are he’s an omega.

And a guy who uses any of those skills as tools to increase his dominance, becomes alpha, or at least rises above beta.

Omegas are social outcasts and socially inept. They rarely become active members on the chain. When they do, it’s either at the very bottom, or at the top, but usually in a way they are “used” for their skills – that when it’s an skilled omega.

Betas are the regular guys. Do what you’ve been told and be good and cooperate. Omegas are the guys you (or people around you) feel pity for.

Freaks and outcasts and etc. A lot of highly intelligent people land there because they cant play the social game. Intelligence is often a trade.