has been going on since the field studies of primates gave us the
term. But more recent work on the biochemistry of the mind and the
FMRI brainscans of structure have dramatically expanded our
understanding of why the alphas act as they do.

One main reason is that they clearly have no clue. After all, it was
threats and violence that forced others to do what they wanted that
evolutionarily resulted in the fact that they dont care why others act
as they do. And failing to understand why others behave as they do,
they fail to understand themselves.

But now, after 5000 years of rule by the alpha males with the brave
heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, that just dont cut it any
more. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for smart women. There
aint a goddamn thing the alpha males can do about the process of
disempowerment that is going on all over the world. The result is
seething anger, seen in all the ad hominum on the net, but also, as
Nietzsche put it, the "rancor of the impotent".

The Jihadim epitomize the result which the vast majority of alpha
males feel, of wanting to destroy a system they cannot dominate. That
system still has large numbers of alpha males among the power elites,
and their corruption and incompetence may well result in that yearned
for destruction.

But even if so, the alpha males will be losers anyway. There are far
too many assault weapons around that smart women will be able to use
to defend their prerogatives. the alpha males will only be able to
breed with the airheads. and since intelligence is handed down mostly
on the mtDNA, each generation will be stupider than they are already.

"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:8504bde2-b296-4dfc-a546-43c798c0f5e2@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
has been going on since the field studies of primates gave us the
term. But more recent work on the biochemistry of the mind and the
FMRI brainscans of structure have dramatically expanded our
understanding of why the alphas act as they do.

One main reason is that they clearly have no clue. After all, it was
threats and violence that forced others to do what they wanted that
evolutionarily resulted in the fact that they dont care why others act
as they do. And failing to understand why others behave as they do,
they fail to understand themselves.

But now, after 5000 years of rule by the alpha males with the brave
heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, that just dont cut it any
more. Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for smart women. There
aint a goddamn thing the alpha males can do about the process of
disempowerment that is going on all over the world. The result is
seething anger, seen in all the ad hominum on the net, but also, as
Nietzsche put it, the "rancor of the impotent".

The Jihadim epitomize the result which the vast majority of alpha
males feel, of wanting to destroy a system they cannot dominate. That
system still has large numbers of alpha males among the power elites,
and their corruption and incompetence may well result in that yearned
for destruction.

But even if so, the alpha males will be losers anyway. There are far
too many assault weapons around that smart women will be able to use
to defend their prerogatives. the alpha males will only be able to
breed with the airheads. and since intelligence is handed down mostly
on the mtDNA, each generation will be stupider than they are already.

I could not snip a bit of this. Perfectly brilliant analysis. I am in the
process of dismantling the
imagined power if just such a male, slowly, methodically, permanently. I
consider
it a public service.




The analysis is flawed and based on the assumption that the alpha-male

The analysis is flawed and based on the assumption that the alpha-male
in human societies is a simple brute (the layman's understanding of the
word).
I admit that alpha males endowed with intelligence and social skill have

While this may have been a possibility in prehistory, when humans
were more similar to their simian ancestors, the first quality of the
alpha in any society is that he is a leader.
You have a different definition than that which we have received from

For wolves, this means
being physically dominant, for modern humans one cannot be a leader
without intelligence (and many other things). Politicians and high
ranking business men are the top alphas of the modern world. By
definition, anyone who can take and keep leadership in a social circle,
through charm, charisma, etc. is the alpha of that circle. In modern
societies, violence is no longer tolerated and the violent are
incarcerated; such individuals may be leaders in their own underworlds
of crime or in the prisons, but they are a "dying" type of alphas, with
the wrong skillsets, without the necessary attributes to lead in modern
societies (often they create societies which they can control).
So far so good. Now, what about the alphas in those societies that are

Jihadism may reflect something of what this last group of disaffected
feel (...the narcissistic rage), but it is different on several levels.
Firstly, Jihadism is often not about the individual at all and many of
the suicide bombers were selfless pawns at the service of a cleric, or
they had been brainwashed since birth. These people are similar to the
"loser" students who gun people down in schools in America; there is
nothing dominant about them at all, physically or intellectually, they
know it, they know they can't chang it, and they cannot accept it. In
prehistory people like these students would have ended up being killed
off by one of the alphas.
This also redefines the term. Since alphas dominate, they rely on force

People with some capacity for leadership are unlikely to take orders to
kill themselves unless something exceptional is at stake (faith for the
religious, the flag for soldiers, etc.)... A beta male is one who
follows or competes with the alpha (like you *appear* to be competing in
order to establish "your kind", perhaps an aspiring alpha of a more
intellectual kind) until he takes the alpha's place as alpha. Most
social animals are betas, some are more passive and happy with their
status quo, others are not and either fall away from the group or
compete. Politics is a good example of this power play. The next
President of the US will have succeeded thanks to an aggressive drive,
manifested through anything but brute force (at least not in public!).

It is not so much men that are changing in our societies, it is actually
women having, through femminism, won the right to play at these power
games. Should Hillary Clinton win the election, she will have proven
herself to be as aggressive and competitive as her male rivals, and she
will be the top alpha ...reluctantly, as always, there will be a group
of defeated men and alpha-like women and there will be a group of
faithful beta followers.

The most important thing to note is that this whole alpha-beta thing can
only continue as long as people accept these roles. As soon as people no
longer accept these roles, society will have changed fundamentally into
something very new and in fact society is changing. People no longer
depend so much on others - if your boss is a bstrd, you change your job,
if your husband is a bstrd, you divorce and find another, if your
friends are bstrds you find new ones, etc... The alpha-beta model is
tied to societies (animal and human) where dependence was necessary for
survival and the alpha was the guy who ensured the group was "safe".
The alpha beta thing is largely driven by the DNA which determines the

vince wrote:
The analysis is flawed and based on the assumption that the alpha-male
in human societies is a simple brute (the layman's understanding of
the word).
I admit that alpha males endowed with intelligence and social skill have
produced great progress; but its the brutes you refer to that not even
the most talented alpha males can control, that is risking the welfare
of both the alpha male leadership, and everyone else.


While this may have been a possibility in prehistory, when humans were
more similar to their simian ancestors, the first quality of the alpha
in any society is that he is a leader.
You have a different definition than that which we have received from
the field studies of primates. The alpha *wants* to dominate. Whether he
has what is needed to actually succeed at it, is moot. The failure, that
arises out of the desire to dominate but the lack of talent to succeed
at it results in what Nietzsche called "the rancor of the impotent."

For wolves, this means being physically dominant, for modern humans
one cannot be a leader without intelligence (and many other things).
Politicians and high ranking business men are the top alphas of the
modern world. By definition, anyone who can take and keep leadership
in a social circle, through charm, charisma, etc. is the alpha of that
circle. In modern societies, violence is no longer tolerated and the
violent are incarcerated; such individuals may be leaders in their own
underworlds of crime or in the prisons, but they are a "dying" type of
alphas, with the wrong skillsets, without the necessary attributes to
lead in modern societies (often they create societies which they can
control).
So far so good. Now, what about the alphas in those societies that are
not modern?

Jihadism may reflect something of what this last group of disaffected
feel (...the narcissistic rage), but it is different on several
levels. Firstly, Jihadism is often not about the individual at all and
many of the suicide bombers were selfless pawns at the service of a
cleric, or they had been brainwashed since birth. These people are
similar to the "loser" students who gun people down in schools in
America; there is nothing dominant about them at all, physically or
intellectually, they know it, they know they can't chang it, and they
cannot accept it. In prehistory people like these students would have
ended up being killed off by one of the alphas.
This also redefines the term. Since alphas dominate, they rely on force
and threats to control what others do. Betas, who dont, need to watch
the alphas to be able to brace themselves for the blow, and both betas
and the females develop the intuition from reading the body language to
know when an alpha will strike out.

Consider what kind of psyche you need to follow a prophet with a 9 year
old wife, and then believe him when he tells the Jihadim that they get
to spend eternity fucking 12 year old virgins. Granted that these
loosers know they have nothing in this world, but hope for all their
desires to be filled in the next. The psychos you refer to are not
thinking of the next world, but acting out of psychotic anger in this
one, with only possibly the notion of having a name go down in history
for having murdered the most people.

People with some capacity for leadership are unlikely to take orders
to kill themselves unless something exceptional is at stake (faith for
the religious, the flag for soldiers, etc.)... A beta male is one who
follows or competes with the alpha (like you *appear* to be competing
in order to establish "your kind", perhaps an aspiring alpha of a more
intellectual kind) until he takes the alpha's place as alpha. Most
social animals are betas, some are more passive and happy with their
status quo, others are not and either fall away from the group or
compete. Politics is a good example of this power play. The next
President of the US will have succeeded thanks to an aggressive drive,
manifested through anything but brute force (at least not in public!).

It is not so much men that are changing in our societies, it is
actually women having, through femminism, won the right to play at
these power games. Should Hillary Clinton win the election, she will
have proven herself to be as aggressive and competitive as her male
rivals, and she will be the top alpha ...reluctantly, as always, there
will be a group of defeated men and alpha-like women and there will be
a group of faithful beta followers.

The most important thing to note is that this whole alpha-beta thing
can only continue as long as people accept these roles. As soon as
people no longer accept these roles, society will have changed
fundamentally into something very new and in fact society is changing.
People no longer depend so much on others - if your boss is a bstrd,
you change your job, if your husband is a bstrd, you divorce and find
another, if your friends are bstrds you find new ones, etc... The
alpha-beta model is tied to societies (animal and human) where
dependence was necessary for survival and the alpha was the guy who
ensured the group was "safe".
The alpha beta thing is largely driven by the DNA which determines the
level of various hormones like adrenalin, seratonin, & dopamine that
affect behavior. From the blood work alone you can tell an alpha from a
beta. However, severe trauma can affect the alpha effect on hormones.

This is why Bouchard's studies of identical twins adopted out at birth
to different families had to have those who suffered severe trauma from
the longitudinal testing. And of course the analysis is flawed from the
stand point that we are discussing a continuum and not a binary state.
An individual may be dom alpha in some situations, sub beta in others.

European history, in particular, is rich with examples of alpha females,
a trait they inherit from fathers, from Maggie Thatcher all the way back
to Theodora. But in all these cases, its women near the top of alpha
male power structures trying to use the methods developed by men.

The Minoans show us the alternative, a matriarchy where whatever men
there are adapt to power systems designed by women. And in this case,
military might was in the form of the trireme, which was powered by
strong men at the oars, whose bravery, or lack thereof, didnt matter.

Like women today at the helm of choppers or bombers, the Minoan ships
were the biggest & fastest things on the water that could, and did, sink
all challenges to their dominance of the sea. But what was required was
a large crew of strong rowers who could get along with each other, pay
attention to commands, and cooperate.

the problem that has always plagued alpha male power structures is too
many chiefs, but not enuf indians. Minoans didnt breed more chiefs than
they needed. Chiefs in charge of the power system cannot keep it in
their pants, and keep screwing airhead bimobs. Who produce sons who also
think they should be chief, but are too stupid to succeed. There were
lotsa mistakes matriarchice made, but that was not one of them.

Because they didnt breed airheads, the Minoan capital Knossus, did NOT
have any slums like virtually every other alpha male capital.