To start the references to alpha males in Christianity and Islam. Mohammad being an alpha male? Like wot? Men deny their traits? Do you even know a single thing about Islam? As for Christianity, how does God himself personify any male traits whatsoever? God transcends gender in Christian doctrine.. referring to God as "He" does not = male.
And how is the state an alpha male exactly?
The alpha male is the supreme dominant male. It is he who all must submit to or face the consequences.
For the Christian, God is the alpha male. The follower must submit to his will or be damned to an eternity of suffering. For the Islamic man humiliation awaits if he refuses Muhammad, the prophet he fears so much that he can't even bring himself to draw. For the citizen the alpha male is the state, the institution, it is the state who controls all resources, who makes the laws. After all the institution does not adjust to the people's wishes, but the people adjust their beliefs to that of the institution.
In the natural world the alpha male is a biological one, it is visible. It is him who controls the resources, including females. All other males being his competition, possible usurpers that must be driven away. There can be only ONE alpha, only one dominant male. From here we get the concept of the singular.
For our species, our alpha, our ONE has been abstracted, again just as resources have been abstracted in to codified monetary units that can be bought and sold but representing nothing but stale air full mind farts.
So when masculinity has been abstracted, Irv, in to an institution all can be placed in the privileged position of being a representation of this abstraction. We get women, children, degenerate men, becoming its representations, or corporal symbols of abstracted masculinity.
The institution Irv, this alpha male, the state, has control of all resources, and access to these resources is designated among those who show the proper amounts of obedience and loyalty to it, as wealth and property. Currently material wealth has now come to display the total obedience and the compliance of the individual to this dominating entity.
For their submission the individual is rewarded with material riches, his economic independence is, in actual fact his dependence on the system and his submission to it. George Orwell -- "Slavery is freedom" springs to mind.
So Irving, you see, as long as you submit you can have any title you want in this world, and as submission is a trait that contradicts masculine character traits such as a rejection of all authority and a challenging spirit the system by design can flush out its competitors. Other Alphas. Only the most submissive, effete men may pass through the system, and females, who readily submit to an authority stronger then themselves flourish within the system.
The illusion of gender equality is achieved. When effete males and females stand side beside they rather do seem similar..
Here I may as well quickly just bring up the topic of feminism. NO female liberation occurred with this so called women's liberation. The movement served only to free the female from biological males and deliver her to the non-biological alpha male, The system. Under the system she is now totally submissive.
So, still following this Irv?
When the only true masculine power here is the institution, only the institution can use violence and kill and rape and pillage, here mindless soldiers and those in law enforcement act as representations of its will. They are it's arms and legs.
One of the points I often make to people is that the biggest pussies you will ever meet can be found in the forces for they have totally submitted to the will of the state. Like good bitches.
Any other male who displays his naturally evolved physicality, not for the benefit of the institution must be made a brute. He must be shunned, or shamed. He must be removed, physically incarcerated , or mentally castrated by using the human invention of morality. This is eugenics by "moral" method. His supreme traits must not pass on. They are a threat to the system. It's stability. It's survival.
So here's a question Irv. If the system favours submissive men, and these submissive men reproduce with females and the more demanding, rebellious alpha male is ostracised, what kind of offspring do you think such a union would produce?
One can assume, these submissive traits would be passed on to the offspring.
Another question, and these are rhetorical by the way, just how much further can we remove the species from natural selection before mother nature steps in to self-correct herself.
How much longer can we continue sell obedience as intelligence before stupidity takes over?
How much longer before tipping point?