Alt Left: Individualistic Societies Tend to Be Beta Because Most of the Men are Class-cucked

RL: “Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). ”

Clavdius Americanvs: The U.S. Military, really all modern standing militaries, are effectively Alpha-dominated Communist centrally-planned societies. I’ll mull over why.

If you notice, the only societies these days that have sustainable at all rightwing economics tend to be pretty Beta. Singapore is one of the only neoliberal societies on Earth, and the men live with their parents til they’re 40 because they can’t afford to move out. If they can’t afford to move out, they can’t get married, so you have a city-state full of Chinese incels who are sitting there and taking it like a bunch of Beta cuckboys.

The US is Beta.

The UK is Beta.

Canada is Beta.

Individualist societies are probably Beta because they’re class-cucked. Only a Beta would let himself get cucked like that. An Alpha wouldn’t stand for any kind of cucking. You try it and he’ll kick your ass.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

2 thoughts on “Alt Left: Individualistic Societies Tend to Be Beta Because Most of the Men are Class-cucked”

  1. Yes, the West is Beta as fuck on average. However, if you notice, the White, Hispanic, and East Asian Alpha males all tend to be right-wingers, Republicans, Libertarians, weight-lifting racists. Blacks can go either way but their situation is complex since right-wing practically means anti-Black/Brown in many parts of the West. It’s your typical liberal who is a Beta bitch that treats women kindly. Alpha males will always reject Cultural Leftism. Whether in a neoliberal society or a conservative communist one like East Europe or China.

    Now, why do Alpha dudes so well in centrally planned bureaucracies like the military or a large corporation, which is effectively a communist microcosm within a large capitalist cosmos? My conjecture is that maybe socialist-style systems reduce variance and therefore expected outcome.

    In other words, they neutralize random chance. The free market does not get rid of the luck factor so sometimes perfectly capable men get burned badly in a capitalist system via legal issues, a failed venture, bankruptcy, or an economic recession or depression etc. since there is no safety net.

    If a system levels the playing field from the beginning and allows participants to survive many rounds, ultimately the expected outcome is that only the Alphas make it. It’s the same rational for having multiple rounds in a martial arts tournament because otherwise by pure luck, a lesser fighter can win the first round.

    I really believe the long-term outcome of ANY society is entrenched old money and stagnation. Hence the need for periodic revolutions. Socialism isn’t magic. And capitalism is merely the absence of government interference in the market. But so long as a you have an market, that is, an economy, the long-term outcome will always be the same.

    Socialistesque systems can only stave the feudalism for a bit longer. This is its advantage. Capitalism’s advantage is how quickly it can establish a productive economy, which only means it reaches social equilibrium faster, e.g. feudalism.

    So is feudalism collectivist or individualistic? That may be an invalid question. If feudalism is social equilibrium, then the individual biology of the populace will most likely determine what mixture of the two traits their brand of feudalism will have.

    How is this even possible? It has to do with the nature of money. Look at the societal achievements of high-IQ Europe and North East Asia despite being in a feudal/imperial/monarchic/class system for millennia.

    In a society at equilibrium, money is only of value to the rich because money is both a store of value or a medium of exchange. The poor then produce wealth without money. They can think, make art, build beautiful little cottages, temples, and all sorts of other shit when they aren’t busy dying from the plague, typhoid or dysentery.

    When all the money is with one small group, the remainder of society compensates to the point where the money of the rich stops working because the production of things that humans hold near and dear to their heart is with the people.

    I can’t prove this but revolutions probably only occur way after the ruling class has totally lost touch with the reality on the ground a la Louis the XVI or the Cult Left neoliberal/neocon Hilary Clinton campaign getting smashed by populist victory of Trump. These are related phenomena.

    How does a tiny ruling class pay a military to protect it when the prices of items are so high that meager soldier salaries can’t afford to partake in the aristocratic society, such as buying fine art, an apartment in Manhattan, or caviar.

    While at the same time, the shit the soldiers care about — sex, love, song & dance — all comes from the peasantry? The ruling class can’t unless it debases its own currency making it even more worthless. The system therefore has to be overthrown by a revolution at that point.

    1. I’m using the term revolution very loosely here. The system simply has to become so rotten any occupying force can overtake it. In fact, it most likely happens in the form of a foreign invasion. Think Theodoric the Great, a Gothic king, marching on Rome and restoring order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)