On Alphas, Betas, and "Game"

Somone had asked me about this a few days ago. I knew nothing about it, but it seemed like such an immature, shallow way of looking at the world, not worthy of serious attention, that I placed it at the bottom of my stack. I misjudged its appeal -- it seems to be very popular. The Liberal rot is much deeper than I had suspected.

Fortunately, Larry Auster and pals have taken time to investigate and expose this schoolyard, Roissy libertinism for what it is: the natural outcome of Liberalism run amok. Here is an excellent post from a reader in this thread:

In a preceding post, "Bio-cons versus social cons," you (Larry Auster) wrote:

This is the way liberals argue who seek to make any conservatism disappear; and the bio-cons at In Mala Fide, by showing total contempt for social conservatism, show that they, too, want conservatism to disappear and thus they show what side they're really on. The Roissy-ites accept the total rule of liberalism, including rampant female promiscuity, and seek to operate within it, rather than offer a countervision of man and society.

It seems very likely to me that the whole package displayed here--the contempt for social conservatives, the obsession with "game" and female psychology, the insistence on seeing rampant female promiscuity as the ultimate cause, not a proximate manifestation, of our woes--is a coward's excuse for avoiding the fight that matters, which is always and everywhere a fight among men for the civilizational ethos that will prevail. Thus the feverish clinging to the belief that they are nothing more than helpless victims of female choice. But women are followers, not leaders, even in feminized societies like ours--they tend to adopt what they perceive to be the approved views of the ruling men. It's ironic that some self-described "biological realists," at least those who appear to have some spark of social interest beyond getting laid, seem to be waiting around for the ladies to start using their inherent female leadership abilities, ha, to turn things around. Women do not make or dictate culture in any ultimate sense. Sure, they choose--but they choose after men have settled the order of things amongst themselves.

Easier to sit around trading tips on how to get one over on, get back at (and how deeply feminized is that attitude?) some confused, de-cultured young woman in a bar somewhere. Organizing and fighting those actual "alpha males" further up the food chain, who benefit from PC, AA, feminism, etc., who are selling out our country, our future, our civilization from under us--now that's dangerous and frightening, with a terrible probability of defeat. And as you suggest, they do not really want to fight "liberalism," despite all their posturing, because they share the flaccid libertarian dependence on cultural junk food. They exist in an impotent state of wanting conservatism and "wanting conservatism to disappear". They adamantly defend their right to perpetual habitation in the '60s funhouse, yet expect women to "lead the way" and behave themselves: the castrate's cry for mommy. But these harem eunuchs, who fancy themselves such hard-eyed realists--and who defensively respond by accusing you of being some fluffy idealist who can't handle the tough truths they revel in--have long since conceded the fight. The "Roissy-ites" flatter themselves that they are "taking back their manhood" in reaction to a feminized, degenerate society. But in reality they are its polished, finished product.

The manly way to save women, family, and society is for men to be real Western men, not to "get back at" liberal women, and not to exploit and degrade them further than Liberalism already has.