Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own.

So you assume that "sexyness" is hardcoded, but general attractiveness is arbitrary (besides what other women find attractive)

Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer.

This section could've used some sources. This is a compelling theory and would explain very much but I'm not historically literate enough to confirm it. (edit: I see you are coming back to this later in the article with some more examples)

When it comes to economy competition usually increases the quality and decreases the price. But competition among men for women destroys trust, which makes men stab each other in the back and become scumbags. It's probably very hard to get good data on this since pre- and post omega societies would be so radically different so you can't just check for a correlation between promiscuity and wealth.

Great quote. Energy wasted on unnecessary competition besides giving results that better your environment is wasted.

I'm now 25% and so far it's an interesting read. It's a bit confusing that you redefined alpha,beta,omega, but after a bit of accustomization it's no problem. One question: Is this the essence of neoreactionary thinking? That things right now are not perfect, and that in some periods in the past they were better? I can't really find a good definition online except by people who already dislike reactionaries.