You might have freedom, but you lack purpose. I love how the first thing that comes to you mind is materialistic. Does it get any more socially conditioned to that? Of course, I'm not opposed to having money. Money
can buy options--but its only liberating to the extent that you aren't owned by money or the pursuit of it.
In view of that, how much freedom do most men really have? They go to college (or work, depending on their situation) because it's what they're 'supposed to do.' They work a 9-5 job in a field that they might not have any real interest in (but society's told them it's a good field to work in) because it's what they're 'supposed to do.' They get a girlfriend, probably not their ideal girlfriend, but who they decide is their ideal because she chose him--or they choose her out of a limited pool because they've never cultivated their options and are still bound by fear of rejection. Slowly, they begins to prioritize their life, which, if they really face it, was pretty boring and empty without her, around her due to fear of loss (because she's so 'special,' remember
). They marry her (if they make it that far) because it's what they're 'supposed to do.' They have kids and the men support her for the rest of her days--possibly while remaining married, but equally likely she divorces them and leaves for another man who didn't make her his life purpose. Cool story, right?
Even if the hypothetical man has options, at no point in this story is he willing to exercise them. And where he does have choice, his choices are still limited by societal narrative that doesn't necessarily have his best interests at heart. Freedom? He wouldn't know what to do with it.
A purpose that is self defined.* I should've clarified. But I chose my own purpose. It wasn't what society tells me I should strive for. It isn't something that my parents would want for me. But I get to decide my own meaning (which is the ultimate freedom, no?).
So yes, I have direction. Yes, certain options will get me closer to my life goals than others. And, yes, certain options (like becoming a drug addict or robbing the nearest bank) should be avoided. My purpose necessarily restricts those options, but those options are there--and they're only limited because I choose to limit them. Certain people will take me further from my life goals, some might want to support me along the way; but since I have options I get to select for the type of people I let into my life and to what extent they get to stay there. I get to structure my relationships with women so that if they fit into the former category, I can find new women who don't--and I'm not bound to any of them out of a sense of obligation or propriety or because I might not be able to meet a new girl just as easily.
The happiness of a beta is like a drug. It allows them to refute their responsibility for their own happiness by prioritizing the happiness of women, of their family, of society as a whole, over their own. They don't have to make any real choices--society has chosen for them. But it's illusory. They can't even genuinely enjoy the company of a real woman--they have to create an
illusion of a woman to fit their rationalizations for their own lack of agency.
They're happy when she's happy. They're sad when she's sad. They lack self-love and the closest proximity they can get to that love is to have it reflected to them by a woman--and losing that woman sends them into total alienation from their faulty self-love feedback loop. Genuine...uh, yeah, lol.
Being alpha isn't about never experiencing negative emotions (though some here have taken the path of pain avoidance). But it's about being responsible for your own emotional state and for the decisions you make. And, naturally, when you have options and you are able to make
choices, you're not compulsively bound to any given source of negative emotions.
It's also not about never allowing yourself to experience love--but it requires you to create your own definition for what love is. For me, I love myself; and I'm able to love everyone else unconditionally--there's nothing they can do to threaten my sense of self and I can find admirable qualities in anybody I meet. But love, for me, is separate from investment and attachment--I only invest in people who are worthy of that investment. While a girl is submissive, pleasant, loyal to me, I'll look out for her. I'll invest emotionally to the extent that she remains those things for me--I'll experience 'love,' but that 'love' is conditional. It's predicated on her performance--just as I would expect her to leave me if I'm not providing whatever it is she needs out of that relationship (and women, even if you commit to them unconditionally,
will leave you the minute you stop performing). Even so, I don't attach my ego or sense of self to any girl ever; if she leaves, yeah I might be sad for a day or two, but there'll be other girls.