Is Alpha essentially just Master morality and Beta is another way of describing Slave morality?

Is Alpha essentially just Master morality and Beta is another way of describing Slave morality?

Other urls found in this thread:

pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph56a6b0af33b4c
scribd.com/doc/243094751/Existentialism-pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I want to sniff her saddle.

THICC *HNNNNNNGGGGGG*
H
I
C
C

There's a difference between thought (morals) and action(alpha/beta) they dont need to fit together

> Post a bait sexy pic with a comparatively uninteresting thread topic
You brought this on yourself, OP

You are right.

thats the best way I've heard it put

Yes.

But as someone already said, being Alpha is acting upon a Master morality, it is not just having it but holding yourself back. Same for betas and Slave morality.

honestly thought it was pretty well put too.

honestly I think that

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

posting is a clear sign of an alpha male

I'm not even a fan of Nietsczhe but comparing his shit to the lizard brain pecking order mechanic is pretty insulting

sauce?

pff

The shot is at 4:54.

pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph56a6b0af33b4c

>PFFFFFFFFFFFTBRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPP

But master morality is literally just the law of nature, might makes right. Before Christianity meekness and humility were not virtues, it was the age of Chad.

The genealogy of morals is what you want to read if you 'd like to know what he said about morality, it's not too long either.

> The Age of Chad
kek

I have a masculine face and a very deep voice does that mean I have high test

checked

Thank you.

you can't have a society where younger people are always trying to outdo older people. there needs to be some submission to authority for a nation to be strong.

nay you nigger. if a beta wants to keep the herd as is, then that nigga a slave for life. however, me and fellow companions are about that action boss; we about that will power.

That's a pretty good model. Consider the beta trying to impress a girl with specific sex acts: he's negotiating an unsolicited offer. Like a slave, he is totally dependent on someone else.

That's actually a pretty good description, OP.

No it's leader / follower mentality. A slavemaster and slave is a leader/follow dynamic, but to say that's all there is is limiting the scope.

sorry OP, there is some overlapping, but the Nietzschean concept is quite different from what is essentially crude biology applied to sexuality/society

Might makes right doesn't mean literal muscular strength.

But even if you do submit to authority like a good beta (and betas are the bread and butter of civilization admittedly) then you will be pushed around by those who don't, and in a dysgenic society like ours playing by the rules of civilization, whether that's from upbringing, genetic weakness or the tribal instinct; the passion for a strong nation, then you will be used and abused.

I read into it and found this extract:

>Masters are creators of morality; slaves respond to master-morality with their slave-morality. Unlike master morality which is sentiment, slave morality is based on re-sentiment—devaluing that which the master values and the slave does not have.

Which perfectly sums up how betas become hostile to attractive women that overlook them in favor of alphas, or how poor people get angry as fuck over wealthy people having the things they desires.

For some reason, people still think the shittiest parts of Hegel are the controlling ones.

alls I'm saying is there is no domain in which any of us will ever be the true alpha. we always have a master.

whose the gilf?

Not really, many psychopaths and serial killers are extremely beta, but they develop a Master morality.

Many "alpha" Chads who fuck women, have an stable 8-5 Mon-Fri. job and the is the absolute peak of slave morality.

>Wanting to see the ass of a woman who is cheating on her boyfriend at a porn shoot while he's deployed in the middle east

You elucidated my henid very well there friendo.

...

Objectively speaking that's true, but you can still be mentally in charge, almost regardless of circumstances, that may appear delusional to some, but if you're Alpha then that delusion is forgiven, especially by women.

>but if you're Alpha then that delusion is forgiven, especially by women.
better to not be delusional if one can help it

Probably
> Thinking he cares about anything other than a great ass
> Putting this much stock in females' moral decisions
Are you a woman, user?

Women adore delusional men, men do too, or admire it secretly, by most people's estimation Trump was delusional for thinking he could be president.

Being a criminal is in itself a form of master-morality. It is a refusal of the morals and values imposed by the slave morality in pursuit of the will to power.

Alpha = master = eugenic
Beta = slave = dysgenic.

The Kali Yuga is the culmination and terminus of the dysgenic end of the cycle. We are there now, where the dysgenic trend ends and the eugenic submits itself.

Iff alpha/beta is true, then people who think about it are beta by definition.

Luckily for you it's bullshit

I think it's more of a paradox like this, alphas more be genetically superior, but you can't have a society running on master morality, it would be anarchy. Civilization needs betas, it needs boring, average men to keep things going.

But the alphas which women want, are often of below average intelligence, which is why they're impulsive, and think with their dicks, not saying alphas are dumb, and many are smart as fuck, but to women it really doesn't matter, and if women breed with low iq alphas like Chad (or Tyrone) in a greater quantity than the meat and potatoes beta then it is truly a dysgenic society we live in.

*more of a paradox than this, alphas may be

I really fucked that up

I don't get everyone saying that's the best way they've heard it put. It's literally the dictionary definition of what those roles are.

Serves that faggot right for being such a good goyim for his ((((overlords))))

slave morality confusing them to go along with the herd

I've read Nietzsche for a while, and obviously familiar with the alpha/beta dichotomy which has been floating around for the past 5 years or so (and now seems to have entered popular consciousness), but it never really clicked before that they are essentially the same thing, guess I'm slow or something.

You are seeing history wrong. Alphas were tough as nails and whip smart. Even the peasants were tougher than the beta/omega slugs today. The aristocracy was anything but static. The top was in constant danger of replacement from within and without if they weren't strong enough to maintain their position. There was a clearly defined hierarchy and it was a lot more upwardly mobile than your victim saluting Marxist-Leninist professors want to admit. William the Conqueror, the supreme ruler of England was born a bastard to some lowly peasant wench.

Now a days its social justice and the biggest victim gets the most hugs. There was no reward back then for being a loser. If you were a guy victim back then you died, if you were a girl you were the town pincushion.

That's a perfect body.

Back then life was harder for all classes, which necessitated intelligence, cunning and toughness. Those things aren't necessary for survival and reproduction anymore, and anything a species doesn't absolutely need falls by the wayside.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are two different (though by no means mutually exclusive) types of alpha, those that are dominant through their Intellect, and in playing the game of civilization, and those who dominate physically and are just Will, with little intellect - your Chads, Tyrones, rockstars, drug dealers etc.

We used to idolize the former type more, even quintessential examples of Alphas like James Bond were incredibly smart, now our heroes have fallen away from that type, the bodybuilder slughead is our hero, Chad.

it's actually the other way around: a healthy society is one in which the younger are always fighting to usurp the older and established

a society where the older men can consolidate too much power is one that is weak, stagnates, and eventually collapses. it is in fact what we're seeing in the west right now: the baby boomer generation has entrenched themselves in far too great a share of society's wealth, and it's causing huge socioeconomic problems. when younger men are unable to properly acquire the resources to build their own homes, families, and communities, society starts to break down.

hmm point taken. I still don't think we can have a society where the young men (20s) run anything except things they create. Maybe 40s is the optimal age to have power over a group.

society *does* run on master morality, though. you need to do more reading on master and slave morality. not flaming just a suggestion.

human society will always conform to the morals of its masters, because those are the men who create those morals, as well as do all of the work of actually running the society.

underrated post

I also think there's no reason to be fighting amongst each other. Typically to get power don't you have to either make it for yourself or join a group where somewhere down the road you'll be important, but realize that your current place is not leadership? I can't stand upstarts.

I've read most of Nietzsche, on the Will to Power right now.

Society bends to the will of master morality but it doesn't RUN on it, slave morality is the glue that holds society together, that is the primary function of religion, to stop you form becoming your own master, putting yourself first.

Civilization needs most people to put something other than themselves first. But for those men with greater gifts, of intelligence and will, it would be a tragedy for them to hold themselves back by the same slave morality. Nietzsche really liked the Indian caste system you know, he knew you couldn't have everyone an alpha, he thought it was a bad idea for the masses to even be literate.

scribd.com/doc/243094751/Existentialism-pdf

I don't like to read stuff by academics, most philosophers (well, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer certainly) despised them.

ok, see what you're saying now. but i think that you're using unclear semantics when you say things like "society doesn't run on master morality". we can both see that it very clearly does: remove the alphas, and society falls apart. remove the betas, and society will continue without them in a condensed and altered form.

i also think that you are misrepresenting the mind of betas - the beta in fact does not put something other than himself first, in fact what makes a beta is his inability to envision something greater than himself. all the beta wants is to go to his 9-5 and make enough for him and his family to survive. it's the alphas who create all of the larger extensions of the human condition - religion, art, honor, beauty, etc. left to their own devices, betas will just sit around and live a subsistence existence, devoid of greater meaning or aspirations.

real master morality isn't some kind of max stirner-ayn rand cartoonish hyper-individualism. it's the recognition and acceptance of the worthy man's struggle to become the greatest version of himself, and that is accomplished by the creation of these aforementioned extensions of his human condition.

Alpha doesnt seek followers.

In what kind of functioning society can there only be alphas? Alphas/Master Morality is strong willed, a society of alphas would literally be too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Betas, as you say, have humble aspirations, they usually don't care much about the big picture, and they may well be selfish but they are controlled by fear to do what society dictates. Lack of fear, is perhaps the most defining trait of an Alpha/Master morality.

I would say both alphas and betas contributed to art, science, literature etc, many artists were beta as fuck like Van Gogh, Dali, others were stone cold alphas like Michelangelo.

I'm aware my last part may appear contradictory, about betas mostly having humble aspiration then saying betas have a role in the creation of civilization fruits.

But while the vast majority of people are beta, that doesn't mean they can't be talented, Charles Darwin was a nervous wreck agoraphobe who married his sister, beta as fuck, but one of western civilization's brightest stars.

a society with only alphas is still a society, with labor and responsibilities being divided in the best ways that it can be. you don't actually need slaves (betas) for human society. there have just always been a lot of them, so naturally human societies have formed in ways that accommodate this large majority of people.

my social circle is all pretty alpha and strong-willed, but we all get along just fine. in fact it seems to me that groups like this function much better than ones with betas. everyone knows and respects each other's person and role, and there is none of the creeping resentment present that inevitably results from the presence of slave morality.

having shit social skills and being bad with women is not what makes someone "beta" as opposed to "alpha". nietzsche was "beta" as fuck too in this regard.

if you transported these guys into the present day and taught them evolutionary psychology and how to game women correctly, they would probably do just fine. honestly i've known guys like this that are *still* reasonably successful with women despite being utterly autistic and clueless. contrary to what high school virgins on Sup Forums will tell you, there are lots of women who are very attracted to the intellectual mastery, creativity, and status exhibited by guys like darwin and nietzsche.

>having shit social skills and being bad with women is not what makes someone "beta" as opposed to "alpha".

To us men it isn't, but like I said in my previous posts that isn't primarily what women value, many geniuses did terribly with women, while many idiots and degenerates succeed (it's a fact that people with lower IQ have less sex, in top university a 3rd of students are virgins), intelligence is only valued by women if it can be leveraged into dominance, which it certainly can if given the right input as you say. But "game" then has to be understood intellectually, something which would come naturally to those of a more willful, even stupid, nature.

I meant higher IQ, fuck, I need to proofread twice.

>evolutionary psychology

Making a tangent here, but how does reading something like the Selfish Gene help a guy with women, just understanding that they're operating with the same software as animals?

I want to lick her saddle.

Wtf is wrong with me?

to the simple mind, perhaps

BBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Yes

BBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

BRAPposters are truly the solution to modern day degeneracy.