(Triplets!)
This. Five star post!
This somewhat reminds me of reading from Nietzsche lately. Think of morality as not one absolute law but two different adaptive strategies: slave morality and master morality.
The one who seeks self-mastery and to instruct society have a master morality, and I think this describes K selective people most accurately - we seek to constantly improve ourselves to compete with others. They're not so much concern with the "good" and "bad" morality but instead what virtues are good and what is disgusting, and of course this naturally benefits society which are led by these virtues. Normally they'd be the aristocratic group or the top of a society and be the reason as to why man has elevated so much, but due to our shift from feudalism and any other natural order that is no longer true.
The other adaptive strategy is slave-morality, which keeps people held down to a singular belief of what is good and bad; usually it keeps people disciplined and from acting out.
One group of people are suppose to dominate and ascribe virtues, the other group is suppose to just follow whatever has been established already; you have the perfect adaptation of what a stabilized society should be.
Now imagine if the K dominant type was under the same slave morality as everyone else, keeping his will to power from ever coming into fruition. So instead of ever realizing his natural desire to master himself and others, to realize the full-potential in himself and in others, he is told by modern society that he shouldn't because he is a straight-white-male, and he should always feel guilty for having the natural drive to advance himself because all those women who can't compete, all those subhumans who can't compete, all those weak flaccid males who can't compete. In fact he is also told today that it is wrong for him to impose his standards on others, to raise the benchmark, to call out degeneracy when he sees it. We're seeing a doctrine built on pity that immediately stigmatizes the master morality and K dominant types from their will to power, a natural force in all life. It is no wonder many men today find themselves depressed - they're cut from their natural ambition. It makes the slave morality of Christianity seem far more decent.
Before any Christians here accuse me for taking a piss on them, Nietzsche conceded that Christianity, despite it being a slave-morality, it acted as a beneficiary tool of discipline for people, as a source of self-constraint that prevented people from being prone to their lower functions (like lust and gluttony). I rather have a Christian society at large again compare to this garbage of today. In a way it could have been a good master morality if it didn't preach pity and resent all suffering of the physical world
Now think of this slave-morality as an adaptive strategy for weak r-selective types; they can't compete intelligently, they can't muscle their way into power, and a lot of them are downright unattractive and soft-looking to inspire leadership. So what's the best strategy for them to get power? Simple: you make the big person on top feel bad for having the advantage - privilege even - for dominating everyone else, so that way he feels bad enough to lean on one knee and let whatever degenerate climb over him to the top. That's why unattractive feminists attack the presentation of beautiful women, why betas attack "toxic masculinity" and why politicians attack competent men and why cuckservatives and liberal-cucks fear Trump: it's to control the competition in their favor.
