It seems I’m not the only person who wants to choke slam the giants behind the keyboard running around yammering on about alphas and betas and cuckolds. before we dive into the depths of their idiocy, I’ll just suggest to anyone who uses those words on a regular basis that 1) you’re a goddamn moron, 2) I have no idea why an intellectual midget like yourself would even bother trying to absorb the torrent of knowledge pouring forth from this site on a daily basis, and 3) before you kill yourself out of shame, maybe give this article a look-see so you can correctly formulate your suicide letter before you hang yourself in your parents’ attic or basement or whatever, in a beta-baiting auto asphyxiation suicide worthy of the late, great david carridine, only without any of his greatness.]
The Internet has ruined a great many things, not the least of which being the English language. Words that used to have massive import, like “beast,” “brutal,” “savage,” “Spartan,” etc., are now watered due to the point that they’re essentially ironic. Whenever someone self-identifies as one of these terms, they’re simply mocking themselves and further diminishing the meaning of the words they’ve used improperly. Abuse of members of our collective lexicon should be a capital offense, but since it’s not legal to enforce intellectualism with my fists, I’ll just have to educate the world instead.
Let’s begin by attempting to define a simple word that is more often misused than “ironic,” which though an irony in and of itself doesn’t hold a candle to the fact that “alpha” should be in a shelter for battered words due to the beating the sundry weak sauce ass hats of the world hang upon it. The most common conception of an “alpha” in nature is that which exists within a wolf pack, where you have the dominant male and female who rule over their fellow packmates. For the dip shits and halfwits that comprise Reddit and 4Chan, I will reiterate that- “alpha-ness” is not a masculine trait. It is a trait shared by both sexes, and the female wolf is often the alpha of a pack because she can tear up her male counterpart. The primary study that lead to this idea was back in 1930 and 1940, by Rudolph Schenkel, an animal behaviorist who, in 1947, published the then-groundbreaking paper “Expressions Studies on Wolves.” Schenkel says:
“A BITCH AND A DOG AS TOP ANIMALS CARRY THROUGH THEIR RANK ORDER AND AS SINGLE INDIVIDUALS OF THE SOCIETY; THEY FORM A PAIR. BETWEEN THEM THERE IS NO QUESTION OF STATUS AND ARGUMENT CONCERNING RANK, EVEN THOUGH SMALL FICTIONS OF ANOTHER TYPE (JEALOUSY) ARE NOT UNCOMMON. BY INCESSANT CONTROL AND REPRESSION OF ALL TYPES OF COMPETITION (WITHIN THE SAME SEX), BOTH OF THESE “Α ANIMALS” DEFEND THEIR SOCIAL POSITION.”
Throughout the paper Schenkel draws comparisons to domestic canines. “The implication is clear: wolves live in packs in which individual members vie for dominance and dogs, their domestic brethren, must be very similar indeed.” Seems logical on its face, but the study had some pretty major flaws. First is the sample selection:
THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THIS WORK BEGAN IN 1934. AT FIRST THEY CONCERNED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY, AND LATER ALWAYS BY PREFERENCE, THE WOLF PACKS WHICH WERE LODGED IN THE BASLE ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN UNTIL 1942. THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE BEHAVIOR – IN PARTICULAR SOCIAL BEHAVIOR – OF THESE WOLVES EXTEND OVER SEVERAL YEARS. IN ORDER TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ESTABLISHED BEHAVIOR AND ACCIDENTAL BEHAVIOR, AND THOSE BEHAVIORS CAUSED BY THE SPECIAL CAPTIVITY CONDITIONS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO ENLARGE THE OBSERVATIONS. IN 1939, THEREFORE, ATTENTION WAS PAID TO WOLVES AND A PAIR OF DINGOS IN THE ZURICH ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN, IN BASLE TO THE JACKAL, FOX, AND RACCOON DOG GROUPS, FURTHER AT THE EIGER GLACIAL STATION TO A LITTER OF POLAR DOGS AND FINALLY TO DOMESTIC DOGS IN THE GREATEST VARIETY OF LIVING CONDITIONS. OTHER MAMMALS KEPT IN SPECIAL GROUPS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY FOR VALUABLE COMPARISON, ESPECIALLY LARGE BEASTS OF PREY AND MONKEYS (RIMM-KAUFMAN).
If we learn nothing else from this article, we have learned that raccoon dogs are just about the cutest goddamn things ever to exist. They, however, are apparently a fuzzy plague and make the worst imaginable pets. The TLDR of that is that the behavior of the animals studied seems to differ greatly between the wild and captivity, and then again between species in the wild. For instance, raccoon dogs form mated pairs in the wild and don’t interact with other mated pairs, but polygamy has been recorded between raccoon dogs in captivity. As such, the behavior observed in these captive animals very likely is not indicative of their behavior in the wild, or vice versa… and just because raccoon dogs are doing it does not mean the thought has ever even crossed the mind of the golden retriever in your backyard. In short- whatever you think you know about animal hierarchies, you don’t. And if you use the terms “alpha,” “beta,” and “omega” in terms of human social order, you literally know nothing, and your parents should have aborted you. I’m going to assume you’ll persist in living, so for the love of all that’s unholy, take note of what follows. Unconvinced that you’re wildly uninformed and have been bandying about those words with the impunity of a Goats impersonator flashing his asshole in a locked room full of sex-addicted, HIV-positive men? Here is the second major flaw is the basis of the societal behavior of the wolf:
THOROUGH STUDIES OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE WOLF OUTSIDE CAPTIVITY DO NOT EXIST, HOWEVER, THE ANIMAL NOVELS OF THOMPSON-SETON, JACK LONDON, ASLAGSSON, ET AL PROVIDE AN APPROXIMATE PICTURE. IN THE DETAILED WORKS OF YOUNG AND GOLDMAN (1944) AN EXACT TREATMENT OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE WOLF CANNOT BE FOUND. IN VIEW OF THE PARTLY CONTROVERSIAL ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS ZOOKEEPERS, THIS GAP IS ESPECIALLY EVIDENT (SCHENKEL).
A more recent study went even further, stating that the social dominance hierarchy all you nut sacks jerk off about when you’re “beta-bating” or whatever the hell you call it no more applies to wild dogs and wolves than human prisoner population hierarchies do for civilian social structure.
“THE STRONG DOMINANCE HIERARCHY THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED FOR WOLVES MAY BE A BY-PRODUCT OF CAPTIVITY. IF TRUE, IT IMPLIES THAT SOCIAL BEHAVIOR–EVEN IN WOLVES–MAY BE A PRODUCT MORE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONTINGENCIES THAN AN INSTINCTIVE DIRECTIVE. SECOND, BECAUSE FERAL DOGS DO NOT EXHIBIT THE CLASSIC WOLF-PACK STRUCTURE, THE VALIDITY OF THE CANID, SOCIAL DOMINANCE HIERARCHY AGAIN COMES INTO QUESTION” (VAN KERKHOVE).
I would go on about the original study’s flaws (not the least of which are a heavy reliance on fictional accounts of wolves for their behavior in the wild) but it’s about as pointless as sharing this article with that pack of vagina-hating, closeted, faux-tough, faux-anti-authoritarian (they love Evola but hate authority. Yep. Logic) pussies on Reddit and 4Chan- the long story short is the current scientifically held belief on the pack hierarchy of wolves is this: the oldest, most experienced wolves are the leaders of the pack, and there is no constant battle for the top spots. There are plenty of animals in the wild, lions and African dogs are the first that come to mind where there is a primary (alpha) male or female, but generally they are not the social hierarchy one usually reads about, nor is it a static structure, nor is it a single dominant creature browbeating and abusing a ragtag bunch of pussies for the entirety of their lives. Where we live:
“CALLING A WOLF AN ALPHA IS USUALLY NO MORE APPROPRIATE THAN REFERRING TO A HUMAN PARENT OR A DOE DEER AS AN ALPHA. ANY PARENT IS DOMINANT TO ITS YOUNG OFFSPRING, SO “ALPHA” ADDS NO INFORMATION. WHY NOT REFER TO AN ALPHA FEMALE AS THE FEMALE PARENT, THE BREEDING FEMALE, THE MATRIARCH, OR SIMPLY THE MOTHER? SUCH A DESIGNATION EMPHASIZES NOT THE ANIMAL’S DOMINANT STATUS, WHICH IS TRIVIAL INFORMATION, BUT ITS ROLE AS PACK PROGENITOR, WHICH IS CRITICAL INFORMATION” (SNOPES).
And while we’re at it… the stereotypical idea of a pride of lions being led by one male, with multiple females is unequivocally false. Prides of lions are matriarchal societies that generally have one to four males. The males associated with a pride tend to stay on the fringes, patrolling their territory, like bouncers trying to bang the boss lady who runs the club.
Ever a favorite topic among the unbanged and unbangable, the unlifted and unliftable, and the uneducated and uneducatable, is that of the pecking order. Based on the social hierarchy of animals that have nothing whatsoever to do with humans, domesticated chickens raised for goddamn food, these Cheetos-dust ensconced tubby sacks of unwashed failure hold this system aloft as the reason why they will never see a vagina up close- the fact that women preferentially (or exclusively) bang alphas over betas and omegas. This just in- WE ARE NOT TINY DINOSAURS WHO WERE DOMESTICATED IN SOUTHEAST ASIA OVER 5000 YEARS AGO. WE DON’T LAY EGGS, HAVE BEAKS OR GIZZARDS, OR HAD A GODDAMN MATING SEASON. Holy hell, people are catastrophically stupid. How anyone could draw a parallel between the behavior of those creatures and humans, I could not possibly begin to guess, and why any other thinking person would agree to that parallel is a true testament to the devolution of our species. Human social order is far too complex for it to remain static, and what is a dominant trait in one social order will almost certainly not be in another. Ergo, if I walk into a trailer park, I will find preferential treatment far less common than a man with no teeth, no muscle, no intelligence, and a pocketful of Oxycontin. Conversely, that man would be shunned in Harvard’s gym, as would a good looking yet functionally retarded athlete from a division II school in the same gym.
Fun fact- having a static social structure is how you set yourself up for conquest by a half-assed foreign invasion. All of that “traditional values” shit is nothing but pussies trying to cling to a system they lack the physical and mental strength to dominate on their own merit.
This, of course, changes in shitpile societies with artificial divisions of social stratification, but those exist because weak and fearful people abhor competition. Thus, once they achieve some form of limited success, they seek to entrench themselves by force in the position they’ve attained. This is how you end up with the fascism that weak bitches love so much- they figure if enough weak, scared people band together like sheep wielding guns and screeching a creed of imagined superiority, they can just terrorize the populace into giving them a margin of authority.Forget about dominance hierarchies and pecking orders- they do not apply to human behavior in any significant way, beyond finding your goddamn niche, which should be apparent even to the autists on the aforementioned repositories of antisocial ignorance justified by poorly written Eastern European political philosophy.
Having discussed alphas in the animal kingdom, it would behoove us to find out what, if anything, alpha means among humans. The term is used in “denoting a person who has a dominant role or position within a particular sphere,” i.e. “take turns cooking for each other if one of you is too much of an alpha chef,” but it seems to actually arise out of power dynamics in BDSM relationships, which makes it pretty hilarious for the “traditionalist” pussies to use, as they find any paraphilias to be “unnatural perversions” that upset the corpse god they profess to hate. Feel free to look it up- I have, at great length. The application of animal kingdom pecking order, beyond caste systems, economic class, and racial divisions, is an extremely new concept. Prior to 1950 there were very few mentions of the term “alpha” in scholarly literature, and from 1950 to 2000 most of the mentions of the concept related entirely to lesser primates. At the same time, power play in BDSM flourished, and the concept of submissives and dominants expanded in the internet age to “alphas,” “betas,” and “omegas,” and the term “alpha male” entered the public zeitgeist in the late 1990s. Since then, as psychologists have been struggling with the “dogfuck rape world” culture in BDSM, mainstream media picked up on the use of those terms on the internet as they expanded from fanfic about weird power dynamics that usually involved dog or werewolf sex (or random one an ex sent me years ago– I had no idea it was this dynamic or what a/b/o was, but it’s set in the world of Halo) into the wonderful world of Reddit and 4chan, where the virulent little racist limp dicks turned forced bestiality into having the hot girl who rejects you bang black dudes while they watch. That’s god-tier racism, right there, but since that’s where the terms originate, let’s use their definitions. FUN SIDEBAR: Research for this article has taught me a valuable lesson I will now impart to you- if you happen across a person who uses “cuck” in a pejorative sense, that person: 1) is a grade A, dyed in the wool, baby back bitch, 2) has horrific ED, and 3) if they can get hard, it is only watching a black man bang a white woman. That is not conjecture- that is a goddamn fact. Got a friend who says it? Next time you’re on a Tinder date and need a blue boy, hit that dude up.
If the Alpha and Beta descriptions don’t look incredibly familiar, you’re a lucky sonofabitch who’s never met one of these Gen Z/Millennial bitch made, natty un-bangables propagating this stupid horseshit.
An interesting power dynamic, to be sure, and obviously since omegas don’t exist in the real world, it just gets pared down to alphas and betas when discussing humanity at large (though some weird little limp dicked pussies claim to be omegas, which is a topic I don’t have the time or inclination to touch), which leads us to the basic dichotomy, which is hilariously still based in BDSM- alphas are dominant males, and betas are submissive males. Frankly, I’m not interested in living a 24/7 BDSM lifestyle- that shit is exhausting, involves a lot of posturing and role play, and ultimately is not terrifically fun. If that’s your bag, have at it- just don’t get carried away with that Gorean lifestyle, lest you end up like Graham Dwyer and Elaine O’Hara. If you’ve bought hook, line and sinker into what is ultimately a marketing ploy for idiots to sell shit to other idiots and you truly believe in the alpha-beta dynamic, forget all of the bullshit you see on Reddit and 4Chan about facial symmetry and height and the like, because those pussies are so goddamn autistic, they can barely conceive of the concept of personality playing a role in social dynamics. Boiled down to the very essence of the issue, one factor, and one factor only, is at play- testosterone, and even that allegedly intelligent halfwit autist on Big Bang Theory could recognize that Before I elucidate that point, recall that pecking orders in humans are entirely specific to the environment. There are various traits that will play into the development of a dominant position in any given scenario, but irrespective of the situation, high testosterone levels should aid in attaining higher status in the pecking order… though even then, if you’re in a roomful of nursing women, being a very high T man or women is likely going to set those women’s’ teeth on edge.
High testosterone confers a variety of valuable traits- physical strength, aggression, confidence, muscularity. The list goes on and on. One trait people with low T feigning high T fail to realize, however, is that high T also confers greater altruism and pro-social behavior. There is no need for a man confident in his abilities to bully another person, because his swagger and self-assuredness have already established his position. It is this combination that makes a persona dominant in a given situation- a combination of charisma, confidence, self-assuredness, and capableness (yeah, it’s a word… just an ugly one).
“THE DOMINANT MALE WHO IS DEMANDING, VIOLENT, AND SELF-CENTERED IS NOTCONSIDERED ATTRACTIVE TO MOST WOMEN, WHEREAS THE DOMINANT MALE WHO IS ASSERTIVE AND CONFIDENT IS CONSIDERED ATTRACTIVE. AS THE RESEARCHERS SUGGEST, ‘MEN WHO DOMINATE OTHERS BECAUSE OF LEADERSHIP QUALITIES AND OTHER SUPERIOR ABILITIES AND WHO THEREFORE ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FAMILIES QUITE POSSIBLY WILL BE PREFERRED TO POTENTIAL PARTNERS WHO LACK THESE ATTRIBUTES.’ THEIR RESULTS ALSO SUGGEST THAT SENSITIVITY AND ASSERTIVENESS ARE NOT OPPOSITES. IN FACT, FURTHER RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT THE COMBINATION OF KINDNESS AND ASSERTIVENESS MIGHT JUST BE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE PAIRING. ACROSS THREE STUDIES, LAURI JENSEN-CAMPBELL AND COLLEAGUES FOUND THAT IT WASN’T DOMINANCE ALONE, BUT RATHER THE INTERACTION OF DOMINANCE AND PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIORS, THAT WOMEN REPORTED WERE PARTICULARLY SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, DOMINANCE ONLY INCREASED SEXUAL ATTRACTION WHEN THE PERSON WAS ALREADY HIGH IN AGREEABLENESS AND ALTRUISM” (SINGAL).
Hopefully, that lays to rest the entire concept of alpha in the minds of the lot of you. If you post on 4Chan on Reddit, that likely just sent you into limp-dicked rage but given the fact that I truly look forward to a physical confrontation with a large group of either at some point, know that I look forward to hospitalizing a bunch of you over this article… and however much you might screech to the contrary, I am very much correct.
And thanks to Tara Chaos for getting this thing started- we sat on it unfinished for over a year and she did a ton of the legwork on it.
Sources: Dubreuil B. Chapter 29 – Human Diversity at the Individual and Population Levels, and Societal Hierarchies. On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion. 2017: 475-493. A history and overview of the A/B/O trope. EROS Magazine. 4 Sep 2014. Web. 30 Jul 2019. http://erosmag.blogspot.com/2014/09/whos-leader-of-pack-history-and.html Hosie, Rachel. The myth of the alpha male. The Independent. 9 May 2017. Web. 1 Aug 2019. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male-a7724971.html Reimers L, Diekhof EK. Testosterone is associated with cooperation during intergroup competition by enhancing parochial altruism. Front Neurosci. 2015 Jun 12;9:183. Rimm-Kaufman SE, Curby TW, Grimm KJ, Nathanson L, Brock LL. The contribution of children’s self-regulation and classroom quality to children’s adaptive behaviors in the kindergarten classroom. Dev Psychol. 2009 Jul;45(4):958-72. Schenkel, Rudolf. Expression studies on wolves: captivity observations. 1947. Singal, Jesse. How America became infatuated with a cartoonish idea of “Alpha Males.” New York Magazine. 18 May 2016. Web. 1 Aug 2019. http://nymag.com/article/2016/05/the-rise-of-the-alpha-beta-male.html van Kerkhove W. A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2004;7(4):279-85; discussion 299-300. Wolf pack behavior. Snopes. Web. 9 Wed 2018. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wolf-pack-photo/