UPDATE: Rollo has responded to this post here. My response to Rollo here.
One of my greater Red-Pill-but-still-plugged-in moments was during the 90’s when I heard about some study that surveyed men and women on who was the greatest active athlete in the world (can’t find the source, you’ll have to take my word for it). Men chose Michael Jordan, a phenomenal athlete at the top of his game at the time. I was never his greatest fan, and a case could be made for some of his contemporaries (i.e. Deion or Barry Sanders), but the choice made sense.
Women chose Alberto Tomba.
Exactly. He’s a downhill skier, great at what he did, but nowhere close to Jordan in terms of talent or accomplishment. However, Tomba was cute, an international playboy who fit all the fantastical Italian stereotypes. While men grabbed another beer because they were interviewing some random skier dude from Italy, women stayed glued to their televisions and drooled. This somehow made him not only more attractive or desirable, but a better athlete than Michael Jordan.
This demonstrates an important point we emphasize routinely here in the androsphere. Women are solipsistic and irrational. They like what they like and don’t what they don’t and the Hamster will spit out any evidence he doesn’t find appetizing. Sometimes women will stumble on the truth, other times if they have a man pound it into their head they will eventually understand, others have been properly trained and aren’t quite as enslaved to the Hamster as others. Neverthlesss, the Hamster is always in the room with them. He can be trained or kept on a leash, but the little bastard will never ever die.
We also talk repeatedly about how the beta male is getting squeezed out of society, the “incels” who’ve done everything they thought they should but sleep alone every night. A veritable chasm is forming between the men who build and lead our society and those on whom women bestow their sexual favors. Corey Worthington, a total idiot who contributes nothing to society undoubtedly scores better pussy than most of those who actually create what he destroys. A “cute” guy with Game crashing on his buddy’s couch will have more and hotter women than the buddy with an actual job who bought and owns the couch.
In terms of tingle inspiration alone, this has always been the case. If you’re looking for actual value in a man, you can’t trust the tingle. Sure, sometimes a decent, productive, male will inspire it, but don’t count on it. What inspires the tingle is Alpha, Alpha good or Alpha bad. They don’t have to be in conflict, but if it’s cocky-funny versus engineering skills, cocky-funny wins every time.
In today’s world of almost entirely unfettered sexual liberation, this has consequences, not only for the mean who can’t get any, but for all of us. Female affection is, and has been, what inspires men more than anything else. If slaving away through medical school won’t get you any better pussy than the buff bartender who does nothing but drink and hit the gym, why learn all those fucking Latin terms? No, it won’t discourage all would-be physicians, but it sure as hell won’t help.
This is why the Feminine Imperative with no Masculine Imperative to counter it will destroy civilization. It’s also why I differ with some in the androsphere regarding their definition of “Alpha”.
I agree that those whom Rollo and Roissy are Alpha, but I disagree when they claim that the “contextual alpha” doesn’t deserve any such credit (for example Rollo’s responses in the comments here).
We can go around and around forever in how although certain men should be Alpha, they’re not, that men are only trying to project what they think should be onto what is. The Situation is an Alpha, Mark Zuckerberg isn’t, end of story.
Unfortunately, it’s also the end of civilization, and I won’t accept that.
When we define Alpha entirely based on female response, we define the most basic of hierarchies among males entirely according to the Feminine Imperative. Women’s opinions matter, but other things matter more. To define Alpha exclusively according to feminine desire is to linguistically render the proper masculine hierarchy irrelevant.
Alphas have always inspired women to want to sleep with them in ways that “leaders of men” may or may not have. Powerful men throughout history have been cuckolded by their gardeners and stable boys. Raw female desire has always had its say.
But it didn’t always have a monopoly, not even when it came to sex itself. If men respected you and you actually produced something, even if you sucked at Game you could breed. We had a male hierarchy as defined by the Masculine Imperative that actually competed with the feminine tingle. Women had incentives to pay attention to the opinions of men. Even if reliable beta-boy wasn’t as exciting as the greaser, there was a chance the reliable guy could get the girl. The tingle had to compete with her reputation, the chance of unwanted pregnancy, advice from her elders, her own moral code, and curfews.
She might want to bang the butler, but there was a chance she’d be faithful to her husband instead. There’s more at stake than women deciding who they want to boink, there’s also who they actually boink. In the wild, the female gorilla might have a massive urge to hook up with a male who’s not the traditional Alpha, but her opinion is of secondary importance because she’d probably get the snot beat out of her if she follows her feelings. Yes, there were plenty of Madame Bovary’s and Anna Karenina’s, but Mr. Tingle didn’t win every time like he does today.
I’m not saying that women should be prevented from sexing up the men they want, but I am saying that if their mystical little urges are the only deciding factor, we’re in for a world of hurt.
Hence, my definition of Alpha, which I will use on my site. It incorporates the reality that today women are almost entirely in charge of male hierarchies but refuses to surrender to the Feminine Imperative.
Alpha: The man that women want to sleep with; the sexual alpha.
alpha: Leaders of men, those who command respect from other men; the political alpha.
ALPHA: A leader of men who inspires female lust; the sexual AND political alpha.
Therefore, Corey Worthington is an Alpha, but he isn’t an alpha (and I doubt he ever will be). Likewise, General Petraeus is an alpha, but is by no means an Alpha. George Clooney is an ALPHA.
(These terms are value-neutral. Gang leaders and Navy SEALs are both Alphas, but one group benefits society, the other doesn’t. When I need to differentiate, I will use “Alpha+” and “alpha+” for those of moral worth and “Alpha-” and “alpha-” for those who aren’t.)
Single women are horrible judges of character, and they’re relegating a lot of decent men to the dredges of involuntary celibacy. We need to reach as many of these as possible, to train alphas (and betas) to be Alphas. However, we also need to regain societal “hand”, to promote the idea that developing the technologies that benefit all of us is a good thing, even if you can’t get laid. I therefore name the underappreciated motors of our civilization “alpha”, for they are leaders of men and will be no matter what women think. They may not be getting any, but they should, and that does count for something.
Alpha and alpha will always be distinct categories. Reliability may bore hot chicks, but it’s still a positive trait. Your revolutionary programming code may make no sense to her, so you should learn Game so that you can use them to help you frame yourself as an Alpha to her. Your SMV depends almost entirely on if you’re an Alpha and doesn’t give a damn if you’re merely an alpha.
However, I am a man, and I do care. I respect you if you deserve it, even if you supplicate when you see a hot chick. Masculine virtues once again should have some influence on the sexual marketplace, even in a world in which the Feminine Imperative controls nearly everything. I will accept the Hamster, but I will not acquiesce to him. He’s too fucking stupid to determine who our leaders should be, he doesn’t deserve a monopoly on “alpha”.
But don’t be a dumbass. Learn Game. Make yourself an Alpha no matter how we define it.
This post reminds me of Roosh’s story. He gave up a career in microbiology because he could pull a lot better ass as an unemployed bum sleeping on his dad’s couch than he ever could as a productive scientist with a promising career. Because science isn’t sexy and it doesn’t impress women.
Now just imagine if every brilliant STEM guy woke up one day and said, “To hell with this, I’m gonna go get laid…”
Pingback: House of Cards «
“If slaving away through medical school won’t get you any better pussy than the buff bartender who does nothing but drink and hit the gym, why learn all those fucking Latin terms? No, it won’t discourage all would-be physicians, but it sure as hell won’t help.”
Not the example that I would have chosen, my dear Martel. Doctors are known to score pussy…
Your example about athletes could just as easily have been about politicians. And it’s exactly why the founding fathers did not want women to vote. These men knew, instinctively, that woman are irrational.
Are men irrational? Yes. But in a different way. We might think Kate Upton is the hottest thing ever and risk our jobs downloading her sexy pics at work, but we wouldn’t vote for her because of that. We separate the attractiveness from her other qualities, even if the attractiveness itself drives us to irrational ends.
Women, most of them anyway, do not make such distinctions, why is why they’re usually poor leaders. I’d also venture to say our educational system is such a mess because women run classrooms this way.
We’re not going to change women’s biology but we should be aware of it as it relates to how we run our personal life and who we elect. Expecting women as a group to be rational is like buying a Taylor Swift record and expecting convincing hard rock. Ain’t gonna happen.
I work with Physicians all day. Surgeons to be exact. And I can tell you that the ‘alpha’ breakdown is the same in any population:
– 1% are cleaning up. As one Attending surgeon said to me, “OB/Gyn residents are always down to fuck.” In his reality yes. He’s also married to a hot blonde and banging a nurse on the side. He’s ALPHA. And ALL the women know who he is.
– 4% do better than most. They’re Alpha. They have high status and decent income. They don’t necessarily make the ‘gina tingle, but they don’t shut it down either.
– 85% are various shades of alpha or beta. They’re a doctor, but also have personality issues. I hear the nurses describe them as: creepy, gross, disgusting, slimy, ugh!
Don’t get me wrong, some of these guys still pick up good looking women, who make for a good wife. Women love the status of being married to a doctor.
But I’ve also said to myself many a time, “You are a doctor. A surgeon no less. And that’s what you go home to bang!?” That buck tooth, morbidly obese, cow? (Usually a lawyer).
I can clearly see hopes of a prestigious career or having lots of money would translate into them getting mountains of hot pussy, in the end is an illusion.
The access to mountains of hot pussy, is having it all. Being ALPHA. When you are ALPHA, the career and the money just naturally show up.
Pingback: Rollo-Playing | Alpha Is Assumed
Good post, but how is George Clooney a leader of men?
Clooney is a liberal darling. Clooney kow-tows to Hollywood’s idea of politically correct storylines and movies. But this does not make him a leader of men.
You also mention Tomba and Italian stereotypes. Yet Stereotypes are largely correct – that’s how they became “popular generalizations” to begin with
If Clooney wants to work on a movie project, hundreds of people, many of them male, hop to his commands. Even though he’s a lefty and I don’t usually like him, he is a leader of men and of women. This makes him ALPHA.
However, although I don’t dislike him nearly as much as Michael Moore, his negative attributes make him an overall ALPHA-.
They like what they like and don’t what they don’t and the Hamster will spit out any evidence he doesn’t find appetizing.
Ahh, coginitve dissonance at its finest for women
Pingback: Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Why Romance Died | Alpha Is Assumed
sorry to come up with a reaction this late, but I just came across the post yesterday and somehow I couldn´t but react. I have noticed a weaknes in your example and how you use it. In fact, I would say (no offense intended, just reasoning analysis) your performance is very close to what the manosphere so often criticises in female reactions and reasonings.
Let me get precise.
Problem 1: Saying that Alberto Tomba is “nowhere close to Jordan in terms of talent or accomplishment” is at the very best a doubtful statement. In fact the record of the athletes is quite similarly outstanding. Tomba 5 Olympic medals, of which 3 gold, Jordan 4 Olympic medals of which 2 gold. How is that for nowhere close? Funnily enough, from the Olympic perspective, women are right/more objective than men.
Now I can see two possibilities why you would claim what you claimed. Either you just prefer basketball to skiing and so you never understood the talent and accomplishement of Tomba (and you are to blame for not verifying and still using the example), either it just seemed to serve your case and so you used it regardless of external reality.
And so sadly enough, “They like what they like and don’t what they don’t and the Hamster will spit out any evidence he doesn’t find appetizing,” applies to your hamster in this case.
Problem 2: Even graver, not only did you disguise your opinion as a general truth, you go all the way to claim that you know the (only) reason why Tomba was chosen by women.
I don´t say that you are wrong. His looks may be a/the reason. The point is that there is no psychological or other evidence to back your position and many theories could be made with better founded presumptions in this particular case. How on Earth did you get there?
It would appear that you just liked the idea that Tomba is cute and a playboy and decided that this made him a better athlete in the eyes of women, end of story.
And this is where manosphere is at its weakest: how do you ever hope to be taken seriously in your calls for rationality and fairness if your own reasoning is unfair and irrational?
Meanwhile the example could have been a very interesting starting point that could have led you to the contrary conclusion: An alpha is an alpha, whatever other men want it to be (just like an attractive woman is an attractive woman, whether the other women like it or not, the market decides).
It could be argued that the women´s choice is very logical. Let´s play the game and admit that best athlete = best alpha (I am prone to subscribe to that). We´ve already proved that in terms of sports achievement, Jordan and Tomba are more or less equal. Let´s see whether the choice could not be motivated by the kind of the sport the two men practice (just to explore the possibility and see if there is some logic to be found). Is there anything that would make a skier more appealing to women (more alpha) than a basketball player? Because in terms of muscularity and primary testosterone signs Jordan has the upper hand(as far as can be seen at least). And yet…
I think that the reason is elsewhere. If you think of it for a while, as briliant as Jordan is, as talented and whatever-you-can-think-of, what he excells in is putting a ball through a ring. That´s what basketball is, a complicated form of collective movement with dribbling, where counting steps come into picture, you can´t get physical and all these limitations for what? To get a ball into a basket…
And why should that make you alpha? It is “merely” a demonstration skill, coordintaion, physical fitness. It is not, by itself, a demonstration of an alpha personality.
On the other hand Tomba excels in riding down an uneven slope at more than 130km/h (if you drive that fast, you get fined almost everywhere in the world). And doing so risks his life pretty much all the time. The fastest one wins, and there´s no higher speed without a higher risk. To win a skiing competition, you have to be at the same time smart, skilled and a risk taker. And as we know, one of the things that high levels of testosterone cause, is more willingness to take risks. And so if the women watch sports to look for/up to alpha males, they will sure look for them in downhill skiing and MMA(just check the number of girls showing off in the audience at any UFC event) rather than in basketball or baseball. And for a good reason. Because an Alpha is an Alpha.
What I cannot grasp though is how would what you call actual value come into play and especially how would this example be useful in that. As far as I can see there is little to none social utility in either basketball or professional skiing.
Ex post disclaimer: I didn´t mean to be rude. But since English is not my native language, I might not feel the full scope of expressivity of some words. If you feel harmed, feel free to erase the post.
1. In addition to the Olympic golds, Jordan has 6 NBA championships, 6 NBA Finals MVP awards, 5 NBA MVP awards for the regular season, an NCAA championship, and a bunch of other honors. And he played baseball. Tomba was a good skiier, granted, but as an athlete he’s simply not in Jordan’s league.
2. Granted, I wasn’t able to probe the women’s minds when they answered the poll, but I would bet every dollar I’ve ever come across that some sort of rational analysis comparing reaction times, agility, etc., had nothing to do with how they reached their conclusions. I’ve been to baseball games in the bleachers at Wrigley and the only thing they have to say after the left-fielder makes a diving catch is that he’s got a cute butt. Of course, there are exceptions, but the idea that women voting for Tomba did so because they rationally concluded that he was a better athlete is nonsense.
3. My thesis does not depend on the objective utility of either basketball or skiing, it’s only that women’s analysis is clouded by what turns them on. At the time, basketball was more likely to inspire “social status” tingles in that basketball was the most popular sport at the time.
Men are more likely to determine the best athlete, best salesman, best scientist, etc., based on some sort of objective measure. Women make such according to who’s cutest. We therefore can’t trust women to objectively decide who’s best at whatever. That’s my point.
I am not arguing against the idea but against the way of presentation. My point wasn´t to prove that women were objective but rather that if we require objectivity and rationality, we should be objective and rational, or we can get attacked for lack of consistence. That´s all.
1. What I say they´re both among the ever best worldwide in their respective sports as proved by numerous honors they both got (not going to name Tomba´s world cups and championships to top the national honors you cited). But “he’s simply not in Jordan’s league.” simply is not a valid rational argument, just your opinionprobably based on the higher popularity of bsketball. That´s my point.
2. Well, weren´t the baseball pants designed to do just that? Attract female spectators? Again, I don´t claim women are objective. On the other hand are men objective? I have seen many a good businessman getting fooled in a negotiation with a beautiful woman. They bought say 5-10% more expensive because, well, she was so cute. I mean hot. I work in wood processing industry and some companies use young female sales staff just because the purchasers are mostly men. It works pretty well, regardless of objective criteria.
3. I wasn´t talking about objective utility(unless we get into utility for women, but Rollo got that straight, I think) but about high testosterone marks. Which means that yes, women don´t necessarily choose the best athlete based on athleticism but no, that doesn´t mean the criteria is cuteness. It very well can be a very objective criteria like “the man with the highest risk willingness/probably the highest testosterone level”.
1. Jordan dominated basketball in his prime in a way that very few other athletes in any sport ever have in history. Furthermore, basketball is played by people of every race and is an incredibly popular sport on almost every continent–in the US it’s played by rich, middle class, and poor, urban, suburban and rural. Downhill skiing is reserved largely for rich kids in North America and Europe. Jordan had more competition and trounced that competition to a larger extent than Tomba.
But even if Tomba were in Jordan’s league, it would in no way distract from my thesis in that almost no women were capable of bringing up the types of arguments in favor of Tomba that you are. Chicks really thought he was hot, and that’s why they picked him. Period. Every once in a while, they’ll get it right and the hot guy WILL be objectively the best (some might argue that this could apply to Tom Brady or David Beckham), but my point is that their rationale simply can’t be trusted.
2. Men who fall for the type of stuff you’re describing are failing as men. Indeed, men aren’t always objective, but we’re not as likely to think that Jessica Alba is a better actress than Meryl Streep, even though she’s way hotter. We’d rather spend time with Alba and we might prefer her company to such an extent that we render acting ability meaningless in our own heads, but we’re not as likely to get our heads mixed up so much as to think that it some sort of travesty that Jessica Alba has never won an Academy Award.
3. I think it’s more a question of overall attraction (which incorporates all of Donal Graem’s LAMPS factors and Game ability) than just high T. I doubt many women really projected themselves into the badass aspects of Tomba’s athleticism, and if they did, they’re pretty subjective in how they completely fail to notice the vast majority of other downhill skiiers.
If high-T were much of a factor, they’d pick a boxer or an athlete who busts heads for a living.
I appreciate the comments, and I understand the value of not making blind pronouncements. However, I’m pretty sure that Jordan being a better athlete than Tomba is an assertion I can stand by, but even if I couldn’t, the logic required to get me to change my mind is the OPPOSITE of the logic most women used when they answered that survey.
Pingback: The House upon the Sand | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Le château de cartes. – Les trois étendards.