Paul Joseph Watson breaks it down for you:
If you're too busy to read Roosh's original article, this is about as good a breakdown as you're going to get.
Neomasculinity, as a philosophy, is not just about Alpha/Beta dichotomies. It's not about pure hedonism. There is room in this philosophy for a Creator. The philosophy is focused on the ultimate aim of aggressively reclaiming our culture and our world.
Those who dislike the "red pill" crowd for its focus on hedonism will find much to agree with in this set of ideas. Those who aren't interested in turning their backs on sex and love, the way much of the MGTOW crowd does, can find much of value here. Those who find Men's Rights Activists to be a little soppy and weak-kneed will find the aggressive self-awareness of neomasculinity to be the perfect antidote for those problems.
One can argue about whether Roosh is right to claim "ownership" or originality of the intellectual property associated with neomasculinity. But what is very difficult to argue is whether or not the philosophy makes sense- it simply does.