In a hierarchy, the leadership usually occupies the alpha position in part or in whole. Marc MacYoung wrote some interesting social descriptions of what that entails, although he gets into too much playing his own role with the violence vs prison debate.
A leader usually has to have someone who obeys them, male or female. The group can consist of 2 people or more. In exchange for fealty and loyalty, protection and resources are offered, along with civic virtues or social harmony. Similar to feudalism in that respect.
Most of MacYoung’s social descriptions can be found at no non sense self defense dot com.
Principally, an alpha would be at the top of one hierarchy, so would command obedience and loyalty from their group. If there is evidence of contested issues, or there are rebels there, and basically if people in the group don’t look like they obey one leader, then the alpha’s position is eroded in the views of others. This often incites verbal or physical violence, in order to discipline members. Which is often why people part of gangs cannot backdown when they are in sight of their women or their male subordinates, it is a loss of face or respect. People who might normally backdown if they were alone, would refuse to in a group, because they are thinking of the future social status they would lose.
Cockney humour, being crazy, or escalating violence to a point where it pressures the entire mob, may be used as justifications for the group backing off. If everyone in a group is scared or doesn’t find it offensive, then they are just waiting for the leader to tell them all to go, there will be less reasons to contest that decision later on.
There’s usually that one guy, the lieutenant (beta or gamma), who might find certain things offensive, whether to himself, his group, or his leader. So to defend his leader’s honor, he often picks or starts fights with people. That’s because in a sense, the lieutenant’s social status is dependent upon his leader and group’s social status in the urban jungle. If it there is insult or decline in it, then his own status also declines. For someone lower on the totem pole, that’s not really a concern, but for someone near the top of his own social hierarchy, it is a concern.
The ideal of an alpha is one that has hidden resources, talents, powers, or non physical traits like ruthlessness backing it up. That makes em like a superhero or masked ally of justice, to his own team. But only to his own team. This resource may be political or alliance connections. It may be economic wealth. It may be physical prowess or mastery of arcane or lethal force.
In modern society, people follow orders because their Authority told them to, but their Authority is generally the Law or some nebulous, arcane, or abstract figure who they don’t know. I think people are usually somewhat dissatisfied with that. Women used to subordinate themselves to the authority of their father, mother, older brother, older sister, etc. Which seemed to work fine, mostly. Now they are told they are equal to everybody else, except the Omnipotent Abstract Authority on the throne of political and legal power. And they don’t feel comfortable with that position of equality. They don’t feel confident, they rebel at any hint of disrespect, questioning, or challenge from their significant other. There is no hierarchy, and that usually means war and conflict. It was one thing for their ancestors to rebel, they knew what they were getting into with feminism and lobbying for equal voting or work opportunities. They had a chance at motherhood and even tried it out, but wanted something more. These days, the modern “normals” are on the path because somebody told them to get on that path. Which is little different from the patrician authority the feminist first wave ancestors fought against, refusing to do as they were told.
[Transition to the writing about the South before and after Civil War I]
The legions still loyal to the Democrat culture and cause, must paint Lincoln and Sherman in one fashion because of how they defeated their enemies, even though Grant killed a lot more on both sides. Much in the same way Pinochet is feared and reviled for killing Leftists. It’s because he actually killed Leftists, too many of them, and the majority weren’t just innocents, which the Left would prefer in the case of Ted Kennedy at least.
The Democrat cause became aligned with the Leftist cause soon after they joined into an alliance. Never were they for civil rights, state’s rights, or anything else that the propaganda claimed. It was mostly to support the Democrat aristocracy’s base of power, economic or political.
As a result, most of America’s recent wars have been literally sabotaged by Democrats for one reason or another. Even in the countries that America’s military was not told to go to, such as Cuba, Iran, Rhodesia, etc, the Democrats still helped them to be destroyed. The war thing is mostly a distraction or an unintended consequence of two different factions fighting in the US, and when one loses the fight, the allies overseas is lost as well. It’s not just a proxy war between the Taliban and America in Afghanistan, or the Soviets and the US in Vietnam, those conflicts are also proxy wars between Democrat traitors and every other faction in the US.
Democrats own blacks as slaves because blacks were always told that the Man was keeping them down and only white Democrat politicians could give them jobs and freedom from tyranny. Ironically, that’s what was told to white Southerners to get them to die for the Democrat power base in Civil War I. Somebody had to be a villain back there.
Reconstruction failed mostly because Sherman didn’t kill nearly enough of the Southern aristocracy. That was intentional. All the starvation, looting, and economic collapse was mostly the result of Democrats hoarding all the money and wealth in order to gain absolute control over the people, by conveniently finding a scapegoat while controlling the economic handouts. The KKK was ordered back then to lynch white Republicans, black Republicans, and anybody else that opposed Democrat political control. Any money that might have flowed in from Northern investors were killed off by assassinations and then Democrats took it over. But it was never going to be enough to actually feed the people or fix the broken Southern economy.
The Southern economy wasn’t fixed until people admitted openly to voting in Republicans and breaking the Democrat stranglehold. To the point where even now, Democrats have never forgiven the betrayal of the “Bible and gun clinging” Southerners. But that doesn’t mean the propaganda from 1820-1880 was merely forgotten by descendants of propagandized and manipulated families. Black families often believe Lincoln was a Democrat, thus giving their fealty to an enemy of their race, the Democrat machine. It is easy for them to justify, and that was only a few decades under Democrat rule. The Southern families have been under Democrat rot for a lot longer than that.