The Origin of Alpha

“Safe sex, safe clothing, safe hairspray, safe ozone layer,…too late! Everything that’s been achieved in the history of mankind has been achieved by not being safe.”
– Lemmy Kilmister, Mötorhead

In the Think Like a Woman post comments Rational Reader Jeremiah presented me with a well worn question:

My question is, Tomassi, do you think alpha traits are usually learned or genetically inherited? What percentage of modern men “get it” and of the men who “get it” how many of them have always “gotten it” and how many of them learned to adapt? It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth.

As I’ve illuminated in past posts, I don’t think distilling the essence of Alpha ‘presence’ in a Man is as subjective as most people feel compelled to qualify, enumerate or otherwise yammer on about in as personally identifying a manner as they can muster. In this humble blogger’s estimation Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic. The manosphere will endlessly debate the qualifications of what is Alpha, but I think for the most part, the influence of an Alpha mindset (whatever the qualifiers) is more or less agreed upon.

However, with this in mind, I think it’s a perfectly valid question to ask whether an Alpha is born that way or molded into his Alpha mindset. This is actually the classic debate psychology has always always put to its various schools of thought; Nature vs. Nurture – is a dynamic influenced by inherent, biological, environmental prompts or is that dynamic a learned, socialized and acculturated phenomenon? And of course the equally classic conflict comes from people attempting to define various dynamics in terms of absolutes, when to greater or lesser degrees a dynamic is influenced by both nature and nurturing elements.

While the Tomassi school of psychology is firmly planted in the nuts and bolts of behaviorism, it’s also important to take into account that external influences can and too often do modify innate, inborn predilections – even inborn self-preservation instincts.

So with this in mind, my perspective on the origin of Alpha is that biology determines the starting point for Alpha, what happens to it from there is modified by a man’s environmental conditions. Alpha ‘energy’, for lack of a better term, is to varying degrees, part of a male human’s biologically determined “starting package”; from there, through social feedback, it’s either refined and developed by his upbringing, acculturation and social affirming, or it’s repressed, constrained and mitigated by his social environment.

When I was in art school one of my most influential teachers told me, “There are two types of artists; those who were born with a natural, innate gift for art, and those who lack that gift, but possess such a passion for art that it drives them to be good at it. The true masters are the artists that combine both natural talent and the drive that comes from a passion for it.” I’ve always referred back to this model in my creative efforts, but I believe this model can be extended beyond just the artistic sense.

The Learned Alpha

Roosh has an excellent breakdown of The Myth of the Natural that perfectly encapsulates the learning theory of Alpha. The premise behind this is that Alpha behavior, and consequently facility with women, comes as a set of modeled behaviors based upon trial and error.

If I were forced to agree on what a natural is, it would be a man who’s a prodigy of sex—someone who gets laid way above other men with no formal instruction in game. This means he was not exposed to any 12 DVD “Cocky Humor” sets or seminars in a hotel room with three dozen other guys. You look at him and think, “Wow, he gets laid automatically. He was born to get laid!”

But he wasn’t. Just because he didn’t read a book doesn’t mean he didn’t learn through trial and error like you did, practicing his game on a large number of women. It doesn’t mean that he wasn’t conscious and deliberate with his behavior, incrementally improving his moves and tactics over a long period of time. He has experimented like you have experimented, and he has also connected his attempts with results to figure out what works and what doesn’t.

He may not be obsessive about it enough to log his data into a spreadsheet, but he’s mindful and aware of what he’s doing. He understands the mechanism behind charm and can often turn it on or off depending on what he wants. He has learned the type of humor and story-telling that gets a positive response in women. The last thing you can say about him was that he was born into the world with the “automatic” ability to fuck a lot of girls.

Essentially what Roosh explores here is a very basic behavioral psychology premise – macro-psychological dynamics to micro-psychological schema are developed, deliberately or unconsciously, through a process of deductive trial and error management. Whether you’re aware of it or not, everyone has Game to varying degrees. Every man you know has some concept of behaviors and mental attitudes he believes will best help him arrive at sexual intimacy with a woman. Even the worst Blue Pill Beta believes he has some idea of how best to get with a girl.

All of this proto-Game has been in a constant state of trial and error management since you were five years old and had your first interaction with the opposite sex on the kindergarten playground, right up to the point when you discovered the Red Pill. And you will continue to modify your old behavior and mental sets based upon the new information available to you after you adopt formalized Game. In fact, in its rawest sense, the PUA community, the manosphere and all its permutations are really a meta-effort in behavioral modification by way of experimentation and information feedback.

For some this learning process comes easier than it does for others. Again Roosh:

The reason he blows you away isn’t because of his genetics, but because of how early he started. A unique set of circumstances threw him into the sex game years before you, during a time he was lucky enough to be surrounded by giggly schoolgirls. By the time you did your first approach, he had already practiced his game on hundreds of women.

While I do agree with this from a behavioral standpoint, this is where I have to depart from accepting Roosh’s theory entirely. There are far too many biological and environmental determinants involved in developing an Alpha male to ascribe an Alpha status based solely on learned behavior. The simple, observable, fact is that a genetically better looking, more physically arousing male is going to statistically have more opportunities to experiment and develop his Alpha Game prowess than a less physically impressive male. In theory, a man with a more advantageous physical presence will “start earlier” in his process of deductively evaluating behaviors since his efforts will be more frequently encouraged by the women who are naturally attracted to his physique.

Unfortunately all of that assumes developing a behavioral set in a vacuum. There’s literally a world of environmental conditions and variables that would predispose a man towards behavioral development of Alpha status or (more often) limit him from it. Roosh touches on this:

At this point you may be thinking, “Well, there have to be guys who were born with it. Look at Mozart!”

Nobody questions that Mozart’s achievements were extraordinary compared with those of his contemporaries. What’s often forgotten, however, is that his development was equally exceptional for his time. His musical tutelage started before he was four years old, and his father, also a skilled composer, was a famous music teacher and had written one of the first books on violin instruction. Like other world-class performers, Mozart was not born an expert—he became one.

I don’t think this example excludes for a natural, innate talent, but it does help to illustrate the environment’s role in molding a person by limiting or encouraging his behavioral development and ultimately his personality. In the Mozart example we see the success story (the story of a master artist) of a natural talent encouraged and developed to potential by favorable external conditions. Mozart was the perfect storm of natural talent and an ideal environment for nurturing it, thus giving him the advantage of an “early start” in his behavioral trial and error efforts.

Jeremiah laments, “It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth” and of course this is a negative example of an environment (deliberately) averse to nurturing an Alpha mindset. There’s no shortage of examples, but feminization from a behavioral psychology perspective, is nothing less than a socialized effort in deliberate behavioral modification of men’s natural drives and predilections to better fit the feminine imperative. As men socialized in an all-encompassing, pervasive, fem-centric reality, we tend to see “Natural Alphas” as outliers because somehow, through some combination of innate gift and external development, these Men have developed themselves into an Alpha state despite the meta-environment we find ourselves in.

The Natural Alpha

A lot of people call my credibility into question when they read my holding Corey Worthington up as an example of an apex Alpha. Guys who believe that Alpha should necessarily mean “virtuous leaders of men” are understandably insulted by Corey’s indifferent Alpha swagger. As I started in this post, the ‘Qualities of Alpha’ debates aren’t going away, but I think there’s an overall consensus among the manosphere and legitimate psychologists alike that there is an innate (probably testosterone fueled) Alpha drive that manifests itself in human males.

No one has to teach the average, healthy, five-year-old boy how to be Alpha – he gets it on his own. In various contexts that ‘lil’ Alpha’ wants to explore his surroundings, take risks, see what works and see what doesn’t, even when the consequences may be endangering himself or destroying the thing he took apart to see how it worked. It may manifest as a boy attempting to ride wheelies on his bike or a kid tinkering with his dad’s computer, but that unrefined, irrationally confident, Alpha swagger, is by order of degrees, an innate element unique to the male condition.

When a boy is unencumbered with an adult capacity for abstract thinking (ages 3-21 progressively) he is as Alpha as he will ever be. He is unapologetically Alpha and it takes a lifetime, and an entire world of feminized social conditioning to repress and/or crush that Alpha vigor and turn him into the pliable Beta the feminine imperative needs to insure its social primacy. This is precisely why the raw, irresponsible, irrepressible, obliviously un-self-aware Alpha energy of the Alpha Buddah/Corey Worthingtons of the world offend our sensibilities so well.

All of the Game theory, PUA techniques, even feminine-serving appeals to Man-Up! or any other effort designed to help men better mimic or internalize an Alpha behavioral or mind set, all of those efforts’ latent purpose is to return a man back to that primal Alpha energy the five-year-old you had in spades.


45 responses to “The Origin of Alpha

  • gregg

    Why are we teaching this young men to be this “alpha”, fellas? What is this “alpha dude”? Why are we not teaching boys to be free. To have integrity, courage and strenght. To live as a man, from their core.

    Learning – “alpha”, in other words learning to be attractive? If you happen to be attractive enough – symetric body, high level of energy and testosterone, and you are not complete IDIOT – all inherited traits, you ARE showered with feminine attention right from the start. They basically take you and fuck the shit out of you. You just let them DO it. How is this learned? Winner is known right from the start. Even in the very young age – when all the young boys did not know a SHIT about women, there were “lucky” guys and there were the others. If you happen to be in the skin of attractive male for a week you would understand. He earns a good level of respect from random woman in the street just for BEING AND STANDING there.

    Do not underestimate inherited level of attractivity. Looks ARE important. Live with this. Loooks are VERY important, even in males. They are telegraphing the quality of your genes. There are good looking guys with FEMININE personality, no money, no status, drowning in female pussy like mad. And there is no shortage of unattractive, rich and sharp businessmen, having only their hand for company or banging ugly sluts, paying big money for that. Knowledge definitely helps – it helps to preserve our integrity, to live as a man and prevents to become emotional tampoon. It facilitates better relationship – but it does not change unattractive man into womanizer, banging queens (your Alpha). Sorry. Take a good look on ourselves, asses our cards. Then play with them. As good as it gets.

  • And Balls

    In kindergarten I convinced this girl to show me her pussy when we were outside during recess. She told her friend who then told an aid who then told the pricipal. So I got hauled into the office and had to have a meeting with the principal and my seething mother. Fuck that bullshit.

    Then in the 5th grade I grabbed a girls ass and she giggled (she liked it). An ugly girl reported me to the teacher and I got a lecture on sexual harrassment. I didn’t think of this then, but its clear now. The ugly girl saw what happened and became jealous. She then shamed the girl whose ass I grabbed into feeling like a slut. The cute grabee came back later to tell me that her dad is an attorney and so I better watch out.

    That conditioning, both before and during puberty, lead to my descent into total bitchdom by the time highschool came around. In hindsight, if it wasn’t for the fact that I’m a good looking guy and was a leader in the church youth group (which gave me status in the eyes of the churchy girls) and I met a beautiful, troubled ingenue with daddy issues and I’m witty, I don’t think I would have ever gotten laid.

    Except for the glorious 2mins that I was actually inside of this girl, the whole experience was burdened with external anxiety (i.e., anxiety outside of thoughts about performance and accidental babies). I was made to feel like a bad person because I wanted to stick my dick in this girl who looked like snow white.

  • Jordan

    Somewhere between my last few years in elementary school I lost my aggressiveness (probably due to getting in trouble for every scrap i got into) and that’s when I started just curling into a ball around girls.And then that turned into a huge introvert problem that didn’t resolve itself until my marriage fell apart 12 years after I first contracted betaitus.

  • modernguy

    “No one has to teach the average, healthy, five-year-old boy how to be Alpha – he gets it on his own.”

    There are little budding betas just like there are budding alphas. Being a kid doesn’t mean you’re automatically alpha. Some kids are shy or wary by nature.

    And alpha has nothing to do with taking things apart, alphas exist only in a social context.

  • Jack

    I still struggle with what exactly is meant by the term “alpha”. I know what an alpha is for a wolf or a horse or a gorilla. But what of a human where the cognitive powers of the human brain change everything?

    As I see it the term is being applied to a suite of attributes that revolve around male dominance and aggression. That dominance can be physical or psychological. But it involves the ability to control either through force or the power of persuasion.

    For the purposes of Game, “alphaness” is best captured by the concept of frame control which was identified by Ross Jefferies as far back as 1989. Control the frame, control the communication, ultimately control the pussy.

    Natural alphas somehow maintain their ability to do this and apply it to women. I suspect that its less than one man out of 1000 that has this “facility with women”. Maybe even less than that. What Game does is create “simulated alphas” or “natural unnaturals” (Struass’ term).

    I was gelded and castrated as a young kid by a combination of religion and feminism (doesn’t that just capture the essence of modern America), and it took the Seduction Community and the Manoshpere to help me break out of that mindset.

    For all its flaws the manosphere is a lifesaver.

  • blackbirdyoung

    I can relate to the anxiety you felt, as I was dealing with the lifelong debunking & abdication of my Christianitis upbringing which – without mention, or if mentioned, demonized sex & sexuality – & terrified me to the point of depression when I lost my virginity to a similarly & aptly descript girl. I remember sitting in my Jeep the next day smoking an entire pack of filterless camels in an empty parking lot until I puked (before I was a regular smoker) thinking I had just done the only thing that was preventing me from eternal damnation, as I’d fucked everything else up.

    But, that changed my life for the better eventually. Though I remember the terror combined with the pleasure & the performance anxiety & the sudden holy shit my girlfriend is an evil whore thought’s & the how & why & what & bam two minutes later WOW & then a crippling depression and drinking myself to sleep with her wondering what was wrong & me being a beta fool for a while. But after that girlfriend, it was only onward and upward with women. And to hell with the version of Christianity I’d had shoved down my proverbial throat like a slut slobbering on God’s cock by choice for salvation. Soon thereafter the holy eucharist became me blowing my load with girls & my enigmatic path down many trial & error roads full of glamour and blood began.

    Just wanted to say though, I can relate to that anxiety you felt. It screwed with me for a LONG time, and it’s taken a long time to, no matter how many experiences, accept my sexuality as a man after believing it was supposed to be otherwise for so long, wanting to believe things for so long, until that first move beyond making out with every girl I could find (cause I thought that wasn’t wrong – only sex). It led me to exploring outside my private school and into the realms of the forbidden fruits of normals who were exotic to me, and I exotic to them.

    lasdjjlkasljksa

  • blackbirdyoung

    that was many many years ago, btw. hadn’t thought about how much that had effected me & turned me into a rebel of sorts (after being an emo about it) at a younger age than my peers, and set me apart from them immediately, revealing whole new worlds & perceptions – ones that even the LSD I’d experimented with before having sex at 16 wouldn’t show me. it switched my hormone fueled drive from ‘consciousness expansion’ rebellion to vagina-women-girlfriend-love-sex-experimentation-consciousness expansion hah

  • King A (Matthew King)

    The confusion over what constitutes alpha owes to the borrowing of an ethological term for the narrow purpose of distinguishing among men in the sexual marketplace. In ethology, alpha means exhibiting the leadership traits which attract both men and women to the pack, period. Beta means followership.

    In pick-up, alpha means manliness and beta means emasculation. There’s the handy-dandy translation for late arrivals requiring a glossary.

    Insofar as manliness applies to picking up women, the PUAsphere focuses on those traits and defines alpha that way. As for alpha’s applicability beyond pick up (or even retroactively back toward the pack-dynamic)? PUAs aren’t quite so interested. And yet they can’t avoid dabbling into the broader social realm as circumstances occasionally warrant.

    Now, what distinguishes manliness from femininity, feminized emasculation, and feminist ballcutlery? There’s the rub. PUAs have defined manliness exclusively with regard to intersexual relations, and they make the mistake of believing that because they choose not to expand it beyond pick-up, it cannot be expanded beyond pick-up. Which is patently false. The more thoughtful and experienced PUAs are maturing into this wisdom, especially as they encounter the banality that attends the sexual saturation point.

    Matt

  • Kevin Anon

    We’re all struggling with trying to define “alpha”. I have theories that don’t amount to much, but I think the real question we’re asking ourselves is “Is it possible for me to become an alpha, or is it too late, or was it never ‘me’ to begin with?”

    Heartiste defines alpha purely in terms of quantity and quality of lays, but I have a hard time with that. Maybe one guy is just trolling the bars regularly, and bringing home drunk girls; whereas another guy is just minding his own business, and women are regularly approaching him. Could be the city/state you live in: too many elderly people, or too many families. Guys who go to college get an automatic knoch count bonus.

    I like what Rollo says. I want to be perfectly honest with myself, and suggest that the alpha is just something you’re probably born with. It could be just a hormone thing, like some guys simply have more testosterone, or more testosterone at the right time during childhood (the same way the timing of more testosterone leads to some guys having larger penises).

    It’s too easy to say that it’s because of fem-culture that we’re not all alphas. I think if you’re truly alpha, you’re less susceptible to social conditioning. That’s why they often become “outlaws” or “bad boys”, because they simply don’t care about society’s pesky rules.

  • Jack

    This is an interesting reply. In ethology alpha means leadership which amounts to dominance. But dominance is neutral. George Washington was dominant as was Hitler; one was noble the other a monster.

    Alpha in the PUA ‘verse is about having psycho-sexual dominance over women for the purposes of seduction and romance. A man can be born with more natural dominance/leadership traits as a result of genetics or he can learn the skill set as a result of training.

    I’m doing real well with women now as a result of three years of hard work of constant approaching and working mid and end game tactics. This was a skill set that I had to learn through a lot of hard work. But am I alpha? I understand how to lead a woman. I guess that makes me alpha enough for my purposes.

    But for definitional purposes it would be nice if the manosphere can figure on a standard definition of what alpha is. Roissy says its the ability to screw high numbers of attractive females. Fine. But what traits do you need to do that? Leadership and dominance (as well as charisma and style, etc). I see no way of avoiding the necessity of dominance for defining the concept of alpha. And if we don’t define our terms properly than we’re just intellectually masturbating.

  • Mike

    ROLLO this is an amazing post. I loved the connections to mozart and your old teacher’s example of the best possible painter.

    Kids really are the best flirters too. No holding back and no regard for anything except what they feel.

  • BlackCat

    I also think that natural testosterone levels have a definite effect. Further, the ‘beta-ization’ of society may be promoted by dietary and environmental factors that have been shown to lower testosterone while increasing estrogen. Which just makes paleo diet and muscle-building exercise to increase testosterone and confidence that much more important.

  • modernguy

    Actually that’s where the whole model breaks down. Trying to translate the traits and techniques that work to get women into a model of ‘manliness’ that men are supposed to aspire to.

    It’s overreaching by over-intellectualizing betas who’ve spent their whole lives in the dark and (laughably) think they can translate their blogosphere-begotten enlightenment into some kind of grand philosophy. Except it always fails because there are so many inherent contradictions in trying to turn what women want into a model of what men should be. Ironically, since leading is supposed to be a core tenet of game, building up a Frankenstein model from women’s attraction cues and holding it up as a model for men is at the very least a total reversal of that central tenet.

    Probably the first mistake they make is confusing the reproductive function with their personal life’s purpose.

    Another confounding factor is that guys who have been successful with women throughout their lives, for whatever reason, also want to turn that ability into an accepted litmus test for being a “man”. Obviously that would serve them since they would be crowned the kings.

    I suppose what you guys are really trying to say is that you would follow Tommy Lee into battle, or bow down to that dirty Jew from Kiss and kiss his filthy robes if he passed you in the street.

  • Kevin Anon

    I would really like to know if society is really more beta now than before. I actually really doubt this, everything is in place for the opposite trend: Men are taller, more muscular, than their fathers. Famine is the best producer of betas…if beta wasn’t a relative thing.

  • Kevin Anon

    I think we’re all just intellectually masturbating anyway. Alpha is just the guy you’re pretending to be when you’re gaming girls.

  • Wudang

    We should all send our sons to martial arts classes at a young age. Helps a lot to maintain and develop alpha.

  • xsplat

    Men are supposed to aspire to being Alpha? I missed that memo.

    IF you want to attract women THEN there are traits you can highlight.

    That is how the world function. Is that an accurate description of reality?

    I don’t hear anyone saying you SHOULD aspire to attracting women.

    I’ve noticed that some people experience mental strain when given the task of holding two concepts in mind at the same time. There is the concept of attractive traits, then there is the concept of being admirable. Some people experience great stress when these two concepts do not overlap perfectly.

  • Jeremiah

    Recently, I read a post on the Manoshpere that allowed a reader to calculate his sexual market value. Apparently, if your IQ resides in the normal to high/average range, this is a + 1 for your SMV score. However, a person possessing a very high/genius level IQ must subtract a point from their SMV. This fascinates me.

    This particular question of the Sexual Market Value quiz had me thinking about different categories of intelligence and how each is pertinent to game. For example, a man with a highly developed social intelligence will pull exponentially more ass than guy with a predilection for arithmetic (obviously). I’m currently reading a book called Emotional Intelligence 2.0. I was very disappointed with my EI score (an Emotional Intelligence quiz came with the book and I did not do well).There are creative geniuses and there are linguistic geniuses. I do wonder; are there emotional geniuses among us? Surly, they would be the most accomplished cock-smiths in the country.

    One last thing. If you have never been arrested, subtract a point from your SMV score, according to the post I am currently unable to locate (was it on Rooshes blog?). That made me laugh/ponder, as well.

    Enjoy the weekend –

    Jeremiah.

  • King A (Matthew King)

    The point is to eventually make it, rather than engaging in the perpetual fake it. Men qua men aren’t much into play-pretend. (Gays, actors, comic book guys, and DnD enthusiasts notwithstanding.)

  • King A (Matthew King)

    It’s overreaching by over-intellectualizing betas who’ve spent their whole lives in the dark and (laughably) think they can translate their blogosphere-begotten enlightenment into some kind of grand philosophy.

    How pat. Now what about those of us who haven’t spent our “whole lives in the dark” — despite the fill-in-the-blank presumptuousness that makes you dismiss us? The “blogosphere” did not provide me “enlightenment,” it provided me a common language and connection to like-thinking men.

    … there are so many inherent contradictions in trying to turn what women want into a model of what men should be.

    Where does “what women want” fit into this calculus? I won’t quibble with the fact that women think they want the cad. But is being pumped, dumped, and left debased really a part of their desire — or is it just one of the many consequences a woman fails to calculate into her “wants” until she is broken and abandoned in the morning?

    The larger point is: fuck what women want, and moreover, fuck what they think they want. Their addled lurches of hormonal behavior send them places they never imagined they would be, and the most honest woman understands that what she needs is a man’s strength (which is, first, her daddy’s) to keep her clear of naturally occurring, self-destructive impulses.

    Yes, simple game-boys obsess like beta-nerds over female attraction triggers, what a girl wants, and what a girl thinks she wants. It ruins their formulae to factor what a girl needs into the mix, so they conveniently ignore that complication. Meanwhile there are men like us who concentrate primarily on being men and suffer no lack of attention or sexual opportunity for it. In fact, I’d argue women can sniff out the fraudulence peddled by the typical PUA.com jagoff. (Whether it affects her attraction, and therefore the success percentage of trickery and flim-flam, is another matter. Between an alpha-fraud and a patent beta, it’s not much choice at all — until she happens to meet the genuine alpha.)

    There is no easy “maxim” that explains the needful things in PUA-speak, no quippy “poon commandment” that addresses “what a girl needs” over and against even her own, confused will; other than to simply ignore her general well-being as not the man’s problem or concern. So what if you smashed the figurine into a hundred pieces? You took what you wanted. Move onto the next one.

    I am not stupid enough to appeal to a PUA’s conscience, and that’s not what I am doing. In fact, I join them in compartmentalizing the conscience when it comes to dealing with today’s woman. What I’m saying is, if a man doesn’t factor in a woman’s needs beyond her unsustainable, hypergamous wants, then nobody does. And everybody pays.

    So, if you want to apply game beyond ONS, P&D, STR, and find-em-fuck-em-flee — as all but the dullest sociopath-wannabe PUA-puds do — it’s not enough to take her momentary tingles at face value.

    The reason why game hasn’t been “translate[d] … into some kind of grand philosophy” about “what men should be” is because pick-up scientists think under the same hypergamous restrictions as women do: she wants what she wants, and the rest of the world, including players, must adjust around her desires. That yields selfish short-term gains (trick her temporarily through mimicry to snatch some snatch, and ruin her) while losing the war (overthrowing the queens who placed the feminist imperative über alles and gave even fat old women an implacable, unlimited sense of entitlement).

    The “grand philosophy” doesn’t strive for grandiosity. It strives for realism. Women simply cannot provision for themselves against hypergamy, and if they can’t do that, they eventually cease to be feminine. Hence, say, Roissy’s contradiction between his caustic disparagement of today’s unfeminine woman and his exploitation of the circumstances that lead to their unfemininity. In the short term, no problem. But eventually every girl will be used up by 20, drowning their neuroses in the Häagen-Dazs that he likes to make fun of them for. When even teenage girls are chubby, fatmageddon is at hand. Now go to the mall and divine The Seventh Sign.

    It’s not “beta” to think two steps ahead of your dick and wonder what today’s pollution will do to stagnate the fresh supply of girls the day after tomorrow.

    Matt

  • King A (Matthew King)

    Hell yes. I credit a great deal of my “unplugging” to an early but brief foray into martial arts. It doesn’t take much to learn the basics of respect, discipline, efficiency, and physicality in a good MA class. (But do avoid Rex Kwon Do.)

    Most important of all, MA annihilates the soft gnosticism of today’s civic religion, which presumes a Platonic separation between mental, physical, and spiritual, turning the typical man into a blubber mound with brain attached or Jersey Shore’s The Situation. Separation of body, mind, and soul just encourages the average boy to specialize in only one.

    Matt

  • King A (Matthew King)

    Anyone who draws anything but the most general conclusions from Cosmo-style magazine quizzes is a dupe. The hook that drives the most web traffic (besides bikini pics) is the one that promises to quantify a phenomenon. “10 ESSENTIAL Things A Man Must Consider Before Depilating”; “50 Best Anime Pornos of All Time”; “The 6 Things You Thought You Knew About Gilligan’s Island But Are COMPLETELY FALSE.”

    Sure, the “-1″ observation has a point: gaudy displays of superior intellect turn off women. Now what about dominating displays of secret knowledge that drill through a girl’s eyes into her id? Is that a turn off? Not in my experience. Both require an intellectual facility. That most men bungle it makes the observation a generally solid principle, although NAMALT.

    The problem is in the appearance of quantification. It gives off a patina of authority and exactitude, erroneously presuming to make a science out of one of the most artistic of arts. The only accurate rendering of the point system in regard to male brains is “-1, +/-10,” which is like saying nothing at all. But aspie quants have to be spoken to with numbers, I suppose, to break them out of their dogmatism and cowardice about the art of seduction.

    Matt

  • Jack

    Alot to respond to, especially from Mathew King.

    * For me, alpha orients around dominance. That is its sine qua non. No dominance/leadership, no alpha.

    * Alpha in the sexual realm is psycho-sexual dominance or “Frame Control”. Natural or synthetic alphas who are masters at this get pretty girls. Lots of them.

    * Women respond to alphas because they are hard wired to. They have to be. Evolution revolves around sustaining life. Humans are animals; ie hairless apes. What good would it do for a female animal to be attracted to a weak male?

    * Women by their nature must be attracted to a strong male. In the ancestral environment that would have been largely physical strength. Today, it is psychological/personality strength. Game teaches men to mimic that psychological strength. With naturals it is real. With most PUAs, it is faked. Yes, many women will see through this but not until all their holes have been filled and it is too late.

    * While biology is important it is not all their is. There is culture/environment and volition/free will. The last almost totally ignored by the manoshphere (especially by Roissy who is largely a determinist).

    * Today’s culture has been shaped by the Left; ie modern liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism). The Left has been in the ascendency since the 1880s and the rise of the Progressive movement. Leftism (Communism, socialism, Progressivism, modern liberalism, etc) is an egalitarian collectivist movement that aims at destroying all non-egalitarian elements. It is totalitarian by nature. Masculinity is a threat to Leftism and thus the Left wants it destroyed.

    * The “femcentric schemas” that Rollo talks about are the inevitable consequence of Leftist egalitarian ideology which is itself the consequence of post-modern philosophy. Yes, it is post-Kantian skepticism drenched philosophy that is the cause of all this.

    * Leftism is the application of post-modern subjectivism to culture. Feminism is but one sub-ideology. Some others are multiculturalism (war against white Europeans), Environmentalism (war against industrial civilization), pacifism (war against self-defense), etc..

    * Game, or a social technology for personality conveyance designed to trigger women’s attraction cues, will manifest itself differently depending on the culture it finds itself in. In a healthy culture where masculinity was respected and people were trained to be virtuous, Game would be about building better relationships. In today’s post-modern Leftist cesspool of a culture, Game is about turning yourself into a nihilistic cad in order to attract women who have been destroyed by Progressive education and Leftist culture.

    * Understand that women will always be attracted to psychological strength. But it is the form that takes that is wholly dependent on culture. A healthy culture will link male psychological strength with moral virtue. Think George Washington. A sick culture will link male psychological strength with “bad boy” nihilism. Think Corey Worthington.

    * We are living through history. We can only respond to the world we find ourselves in. This raises a conflict because we know a better world is possible but we wont live long enough to see it. So what to do? Master Game as best you can and use it either to drown yourself in low-self-esteem but nevertheless hot pussy ala Roissy. Or master Game and try to find yourself the healthiest female you can. That’s really all you can do.

    That’s how I see the whole thing. I think I get more right than I get wrong.

  • The Alpha Men « On the Rock

    [...] in the woman department to a man who is simply dominant.  There are also a lot of people asking where the Alpha comes from.  For the sake of this post, I am more interested in Alpha itself (and I think Rollo is mostly [...]

  • Stingray

    Jeremiah laments, “It is hard to believe there are still naturals out there when feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth” and of course this is a negative example of an environment (deliberately) averse to nurturing an Alpha mindset. There’s no shortage of examples, but feminization from a behavioral psychology perspective, is nothing less than a socialized effort in deliberate behavioral modification of men’s natural drives and predilections to better fit the feminine imperative.

    I have long thought that the feminine imperative must cause some sort of cognitive dissonance in men in varying degrees. For those men who feel it most keenly (or maybe not the feminine imperative, but simply women’s behaviors themselves) they may fight against it and therefore not give much credence to women at all. It doesn’t mean they don’t like women, only that they don’t give credit where it is not due. This attitude, which I believe would be a mixture of genetics and environment as Rollo says, would most definitely form natural Alphas in in today’s feminist culture.

  • Jeremiah

    Animals: Why does every women I know have a fervent, undying love for the endangered Chilean Armadillo? The plight of the Spanish Mule brings forth tears and sincere outrage, but every broad I know views male homo sapiens as a disposable commodity.

    Why, Lord Tomassi, why? I’m well aware of the evolutionary benefits that come from women seeing men as the superfluous gender,but why the animals?

    Sincerely,

    Jeremiah.

  • Linkage Is Good For You: 7.1.12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

    [...] The Rational Male – Think Like A Woman, Filibuster, The Origin Of Alpha [...]

  • xsplat

    Among the many traits that women find attractive is dominance. In the manosphere we term all confidence, frame control, and dominance related traits as alpha traits. It is well acknowledged that alpha traits are often not admirable, and that they can even at times be socially harmful. Nobody is saying what you should do to be a better man. What is discussed is an option of what you could do to be a more attractive man.

    There is no should in game. Game is goal oriented. It isn’t a philosophy of being the best man you can be, it is a toolbox of skill-sets that you can apply for a purpose. Nobody is implying that you should use the tools. I doubt many people care what you do. But if you want certain results, there are tools to help you get them.

  • Kevin Anon

    If Rollo is right, then we’re all faking it. True alphas aren’t on any of these blogs: Why would they? They roll their eyes at this stuff, and look down on us.

  • Kevin Anon

    Eh, I think by “what women want” he means the female id: Alpha being the sort of guy who naturally attracts women, who doesn’t need game because, in a sense, he is game.

    I think this corresponds with the principle that Rollo wrote somewhere, that men collectively define femininity, and vice-versa.

    Your whole post is just social-political gender angst triggered at the thought of man creating himself in the ideal created by women, which wasn’t what was meant.

  • Marellus

    KingA.

    The war cannot be won by the men.

    But the women will loose it.

    It’s like a pendulum : You’ll see an ever greater increase in the structures that facilitates unbridled hypergamy.

    And then an apex is reached, and maybe if we’re lucky, we’ll see a slow decline back to a state of rest, with maybe a sortie in the opposite direction of Hyper-Sexuality, but not nearly as bad is the Hypergamy the preceded it.

    A pendulum loses its momentum after all.

    But there is something else that might happen : Catastrophe. The rod of the pendulum breaks. The weight on the pendulum falls off.

    And what could possibly be responsible for this ? What could shift the balance of power so dramatically, that no amount of hypergamous ideology can compensate for it ?

    What could render society in such upheaval, that the core tenets of feminism will be jeered at ?

    A shortage of men.

    It’s as simple as that.

    And what could possibly bring about a catastrophic shortage of men ? Surely you should know the answer to that one. History has shown just how effective it has been :

    War.

    It’s nice to quote the classics at the women, but it’s Murphy’s Law that’s gunning for them.

    In that day seven women
    will take hold of one man
    and say, “We will eat our own food
    and provide our own clothes;
    only let us be called by your name.
    Take away our disgrace!”

    Isaiah 4 verse 1

    And the price for this will be lives of six other men, KingA.

    I’m sorry, but in this I am a pessimist.

  • King A (Matthew King)

    You lose me when you start getting into biology and evo-psych, but what else is new.

    In today’s post-modern Leftist cesspool of a culture, Game is about turning yourself into a nihilistic cad in order to attract women who have been destroyed by Progressive education and Leftist culture.

    Agreed. But the question is whether game as presently advertised is an adequate reaction or sustainable counterattack to destructive “Progressive education and Leftist culture.” Even PUAs will agree it’s inadequate, but only because their fucks are not to be given about the culture at large except insofar as it stifles their mojo.

    We know game is an effective reply in narrow circumstances. But how effective and for how long? Are there more effective and more reliable ways besides pandering to the least common denominator? Especially considering that the LCD-chump was fashioned deliberately by feminist policy and successfully transformed the greater portion of the male population into castrated beta-omega sycophants?

    I won’t quibble with those who believe game is comprehensive and adequate and applicable to all matters of importance. I will only say that those with such a stunted belief, who cannot think past the day after tomorrow or about anything beyond the zipper, are not the oracles we should rely upon when defining alpha in all times or all places. In your distinguishing of “realm[s],” you seem to get that point, my original point.

    Leftism is the application of post-modern subjectivism to culture. Feminism is but one sub-ideology.

    Very true. It’s all gotta go.

    But where to begin? That’s where game becomes more than game. It is the camel’s nose under the tent. We attack the leviathan at its weakest point (feminism), with a surgical strike at feminism’s weakest point (sexuality). Feminists will blab ideologically all day about how Girls Can Dunk and Women Fly — “anything you can do I can do better” childishness — and as long as we are fat, rich, and at peace, we can indulge such nonsense. But there is no escaping the sexual difference in the sexual act. We are exposed to unavoidable honesty in our caves of nakedness, and the very act of sex is primal, nerve-electrifying proof that man dominates woman.

    This is why the left constricts our freedom in every way but sexually. IT HAS NO CHANCE in the bedroom. Their nostrums do not/cannot apply to coitus properly understood. They can only use their idiocies on 1% perversions like same-sex sodomy and female dominatrices. The fact that the normal sexual act requires male performance and female surrender means they must ignore what they call “vanilla” as just another boring kink while normalizing all ideologically compliant fringe activities as perfectly healthy. Women tribbing in; rape fetish out. “Empowering” prostitution in; pimp “exploitation” out. Etc. Ideology controls.

    The left made sex into a political act. Men are now using sex to depoliticize the act, and thereby begin the left’s great unraveling. How long will it take? The long march through the institutions only really began in earnest fifty years ago, and now those institutions are on the brink of complete, systematic failure. They will crumble to with relative quickness. But replacing them with institutions grounded in our true natures may take just as long as it took them to pervert them.

    Feminists have left us with a roadmap, what Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (and Kay Hymowitz) calls “The Girl Project” begun in the 1970s:

    Middle-class parents who came of age during this period had bigger plans for their girl children than just a nine-to-five job and a steady income. Starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, these aspirations led to what Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her book Why There Are No Good Men Left, calls the Girl Project. Boomer mothers and fathers poured their considerable energies into preparing their daughters for the world that their own generation had created. The girls would be powerful, confident, ambitious, and strong. No more “future wives and mothers” talk. No more relying on husbands as breadwinners. The gung-ho spirit of the Girl Project was captured by the Girl Scouts’ new motto: “It’s a girl’s life. Lead it.”

    The Girl Project got its first boost a good decade before today’s young women were born, when in 1972 Congress passed Title IX….

    http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2011/features/new-girl.html

    For all of Hymowitz’s ultimate failure of nerve (The Tide of History Cannot Be Turned Back, so men must “man up” into slightly-less-than-total bitchitude), she diagnoses the problem and traces its origins accurately. It remains for men — as usual — to provide the nerve. It will be relatively painless, considering we are not constricting and mutating nature but rather returning it to a place where it can be cultivated.

    Matt

  • King A (Matthew King)

    There is no keeping life from growing up through the asphalt. There will always be naturals, no matter what the official attempts at denaturing, and there will always be women naturally responding. The left’s end-state is predicated on the fantasy that human nature can be altered at will. They murdered 100,000,000 people last century in an experiment to prove themselves right, and they are now choking off the most advanced civilization in history at its peak. But the cocky smile still moistens.

    Now that articulate naturals are getting together to share the samizdat with their forlorn chump brothers, forget about it. The only chance the feminists had was to keep men and their secret knowledge isolated, and in another era the Southern Poverty Law Center might have succeeded. But You Can’t Stop The Signal. Especially when there is pussy at stake.

    True enough, “feminism is being rammed up the anus of every man before he sprouts his first tooth.” But so what? Where truth naturally flourishes, lies must be force fed to the most credulous — little children. The problem is, those little boys and girls grow up, they grow into their nature and feel in their bones something amiss, something untrue.

    Which leads to the further problem with females ramming things up the anus: they are simply not built for it. They are terrible at it. It’s our job to penetrate and to force. So let’s see how long their artificial pegging campaign of rape lasts in the open while we’re doing what we do best in the shadows. Men fuck. Women get fucked. Now that an underground cohort of elite men have been authorized to fire at will, it will be shocking even to us cynics how quickly girls will capitulate and “assume the position,” as it were.

    Matt

  • ImmoralGables

    Jack I don’t believe Roissy is a determinist at least based off his writings.

    He has written a few times about the idea of faking it til you’re making it. Think and you shall become. He seems to be a believer of this school of thought.

    Roissy has seemed to have put in a fair amount of work and dedication into becoming his persona. Once he commented and gave a plethora of game resources one should consume if your goal is to go on that path. He spouted some evo psych books (sperm wars, selfish gene, etc) as well as puas and some of their lectures (Dave DeAngelo) If I recall correctly.

    Just chiming in because my experience following Roissy seems that he has out in considerable effort into improving his SMV vis-a-vis learning game. He would side with nurture vs nature it seems.

    Also, just wanted to say thank you to KingA, Jack, Kevin, xsplat and all the other Insightful commenters this truly was a great discussion.

    -I.G.

  • Kevin Anon

    I definitely agree. I think dominance is more essential to being alpha than being laid a lot. Women’s sexuality is characteristically submissive, and there is ample evidence of this. This is why the alphas get laid a lot.

    But what is dominance? Careful with the term, women universally misunderstand the word, as if the word itself is masculine, and women just can’t hit on a moderate understanding of it.

    The best description of dominance I’ve seen, with respect to sexuality/romance, is trust. You are dominant over a woman when she trusts you, has faith in you. Then you’re understand why, when a woman likes you, she’ll walk right beside you, in perfect parallel, as an instinct. You go where you want, and she will be there right beside you.

    But dominance over a woman is contingent, you need to express a degree of dominance over the wider world as well: You need to have a proper eye for the power structures in society, a male instinct (women seem to us as frivolous because they lack this instinct), and make use of it. She’ll grow unsure of you once you become unsure of yourself: This is how women fall our of love.

    Framing and frame control is important. You’ll learn that power is really an illusion, you can buy power with nothing, if your frame is strong enough. You have to learn to be immoral when you need to be. At the highest levels of power it is well understood: Nothing is true, all is permitted. Everything else is just framing.

    BTW, one thing I hate about these blogs in the so called “manosphere” is the incessant politiking. Yeah, blah blah, feminism; blah blah, liberalism. You guys still confuse cause with effect, and take ideologies seriously. As if the opposing ideologies are really any better. Politics is a mind-killer, it is just making you guys stupid, angry and stupid. Then you’ll end up killing most of your time being angry about shit that never really mattered in the first place.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Try not to take this as a flame, but,..

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/the-unbearable-triteness-of-hating/

    6. Unironic Internet Smear Hate

    Hater: Alphas don’t blog. They’re too busy meeting women.

    Because, you know, alphas don’t have hobbies. *alpha eye roll*

    ps feel free to log off the internet any time.

  • Factory

    It’s also why the bad guys get all the best lines in movies.

  • King A (Matthew King)

    Roissy is a situational determinist. There is a deep inconsistency in his bedrock philosophy beneath game. His game theories are rock-solid in context, but not undergirded by a sustainable foundation. A boulder on sand.

    This is the hazard of treating a thought project like a hobby and being apprehensive about applying principles beyond their most immediate application (pick-up), i.e., the most common and familiar one. The PUA becomes easy prey for slipshod technospeak that sounds authoritative, like evo psych and “Laws of Power.” There is no ignoring the foundational principles just as there is no ignoring the ground beneath one’s feet. There is only pretending to be disaffected, unconcerned, and independent.

    Either the PUA becomes conversant in first principles or he becomes a dead thinker’s unwitting puppet. And down that easy path picking a reliable puppetmaster becomes a matter of randomness. The PUA fears loss of his independence and identity if he acknowledges superiors in any realm, and he therefore is consigned to randomly latching onto the first fundamental philosophy that feels right and seems to fit his experiences. (The awesome power of humility. Meek inherit earth.) He doesn’t have the skill set to choose between the good puppeteer and the charlatan — pride blinds a self-assessment. And the real, tangible results of game make him all the less likely to acknowledge his accidental dependency on higher-order thinking: “Real alphas don’t care!” “Only nerds think this deeply!” “Intelligence is a DLV!” etc.

    Or, “Game works. I leave it to the nerds to think about why it works.” Great, except that now makes the PUA the philosopher’s bitch in ways the former actively discards the skill-set to recognize. Why a method works allows a man the ability to make it work better, and makes it translatable to other arenas. If you only know what you can personally confirm out in the field, you reduce your knowledge base to an infinitesimal fraction — a lone wolf blog blabber with no capacity to apply others’ trial & error and/or deep observation to your own isolated, solipsistic theorizing.

    Matt

  • Jeremiah.

    LOL! Thank you, and forgive my stale questions. Only recently have I discovered TRM. I have yet to absorb all of your teachings. Your blog is verbose.

  • YaReally

    “all of those efforts’ latent purpose is to return a man back to that primal Alpha energy the five-year-old you had in spades.”

    Very important point that guys who don’t study PUA shit beyond the surface but make judgements about it (there’s a couple in this very comment thread lol) and newbies-intermediates to pickup don’t understand is that while it looks like we’re teaching guys to do new things we’re actually just removing restrictions society placed on them. We give them routines to make this easier but most advanced PUAs hit a point years in after lots of success where they go “wait a sec, this isn’t building up its tearing down…holy shit!” and actually fully understand what that means.

    Go further back than 5 years old. When you were a month old, when you were hungry you cried to get food, you didn’t give a shit who was around or how appropriate it was to be doing. Down the road you were taught not to cause a scene in public or demand what you want until you’re in the appropriate conditions.

    When you were a month old, you calmed down and enjoyed it when you were comforted and touched by other human beings. Down the road you were taught not to invade people’s personal space and about sexual harassment and lawsuits and boys and girls have separate change rooms etc.

    When you were a month old, you’d talk to (or attempt to interact with) anyone interesting around you. You’d stare them in the eyes curious and wanting to figure them out. Down the road you were taught not to talk to strangers and that eye contact is rude and can lead to violence.

    When you were able to finally speak, if someone was ugly you had no problem letting them know your honest opinion. If you liked or didn’t like something (people, vegetables, ice cream, cartoons) you made sure people knew it. Down the road you were taught to hold back your opinions to not offend anyone and to be open minded to things you knew you didnt like and to not be rude etc.

    People don’t realize how far back social conditioning goes. It wasn’t just watching a few Disney movies that made a beta who he is. All that alpha shit is still in guys, but the social conditioning for some guys is way deeper than for other guys. The alpha Buddhas were never really conditioned. The natural alphas were partly conditioned. The learned alphas overcame and eliminate their conditioning. The beta nerds dont know they’re conditioned. The feminist-guys and lame emo weiner guys dive head first into conditioning lol

  • Randy

    I’d love to hear what you have to say about this article, considering you just wrote a whole article about Alpha males and this one hates all over the concept of alpha males http://postmasculine.com/butchering-the-alpha-male

  • The 5 Stages of Unplugging «

    [...] to jump through all these hoops for women? I just want to be myself. Why couldn’t I have been a Natural Alpha®? I blame my parents/siblings/teachers/God/liberals/feminists/media/society, maybe George [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,337 other followers

%d bloggers like this: