Why Do Self-Described “Alpha Males” Submit to What Other Men Tell Them to Think and Say?
by Kevin Reed
Nick Adams, a “Best-selling author endorsed by President Trump,” posted: “I go to Hooters. I eat rare steaks. I lift extremely heavy weights. I read the Bible every night. I am pursued by copious amounts of women. I am wildly successful. I have the physique of a Greek God. I have an IQ over 180. I am extremely charismatic.”
Oh! To behold the howl of the majestic self-described “alpha male”!
Sadly, he forgot to add, “I submit to what other men tell me.” And, “I’m worried about what other men think.” Because nobody cares what type of steak you eat in that context except another insecure man, and crowing about going to Hooters speaks for itself.
I kept wondering why self-described “alpha males” continuously submit to what other men tell them to say and think and get giddy if they can follow a man who they see as an “alpha.”
We’ve all heard these things, because these men are parroting the echo chamber talking points week to week, such as:
· “You’re clearly suffering from TDS”
· “The climate has always changed”
· “Don’t force it down my throat”
· “It’s just weather”
· “Stop the steal” or “It was rigged”
· “Common sense wins.”
· “RINOs are traitors”
· “We’re taking the country back”
· “Trump says it like it is”
· “Trust in President Trump”
· “Promises made, promises kept” (even in the context of Epstein files). “Thank you, President Trump, for fulfilling what you said you were going to do.”
And so on. You’ll notice these are all things that have nothing to do with actual evidence like “Climate change is real,” or “vaccines work.” The former list of statements follows what a self-described “alpha male” says or repeats in chorus. The latter statements are based on observable reality, evidence, and science that can be confirmed independently of any person. No need to grovel to an self-appointed “alpha.” You can just look up the information and see that yes, sea levels are rising, for example. Anyone can do it.
Regardless of politics, if you push back even just on evidence, then the predictable response is that you are a “triggered” “crying liberal snowflake” who “needs your safe space.” Men who differ might be “beta males” or “cucks” which is a bit ironic given that the “alphas” are submitting to other men for their talking points. Regardless of that reality, “Checkmate, libtard!”
But, if you’re a super-strong alpha, why are you not thinking for yourself based on independently verifiable evidence (“Epstein is a hoax,” “rigged elections,” “climate hoax,” “high immigrant crime rates” etc.)? Why is an “alpha male” repeating things other men are saying (that are not backed by evidence) and essentially doing another male’s bidding? Why empower one man over your entire nation that you’re flying the flag for? That’s essentially groveling to a man. Which is weak and obviously not an alpha in the context of those who claim the title. (Note: I’m using “alpha” throughout in the context of those who subscribe to the concept.)
This didn’t make sense to me, so I tried to dig into it a bit.
For a universal example, most of us have seen the 2000 movie Gladiator. One of my favorite parts (besides the opening wheatgrass/bird and fight scenes) is in the moments after the Battle of Germania, where the Roman army, led by Maximus, successfully fights against Germanic tribes and wins glory for Rome and emperor Marcus Aurelius. The aging Aurelius struggles for a second to mount a horse, and Maximas rushes over to steady the stirrup as Marcus climbs up into the saddle.
This moment is a demonstration of honorable obedient masculinity, a model of manhood defined by strength, loyalty, and dominance—expressed through unwavering submission to a higher male authority, such as a leader, god, or institution. The deeper principle behind "obedient masculinity" is not gender-specific; it’s a human behavioral pattern of submitting one's autonomy to a leader, cause, or ideology, often out of a sense of purpose, identity, protection, or belonging. So, any human can do it, but let’s focus on the masculinity part of it for the sake of them “alphas.”
We all know that in the right context this behavior is a good thing. It’s clearly beneficial. We want strong fighting forces on our side (whether all-male or not), we want our (in this context, male) sports teams to hammer their rivals (and yes fighting forces need not be all male and female sports are awesome…just sticking to the male stuff here). The key variable, as in many things, is the context.
To carry on the Gladiator idea for just a moment, Maximus is initially serving Marcus, who’s emperor as he expands the Roman empire. After this last battle, Marcus commands Maximus to restore Rome to the people as a Republic, under the Senate. So, the context changes from conquest under an emperor, to running the nation for the people as a republic. Maximus served a man initially as a form of obedient masculinity; he ended up serving the people as he strove to restore Rome as a republic under the power of the Senate. The context of his service changed. His dedication to Rome was unchanged.
The obedient masculinity dynamic works whether your army is “good” or “evil.” Hitler praised Joachim Peiper, a Waffen-SS commander involved in atrocities like the Malmedy massacre yet praised for his leadership and devotion within the context of what Nazis thought were great acts of courage. He was doing a great job – if you’re a Nazi and into Nazi stuff.
Rodolfo Graziani, AKA “The Butcher of Ethiopia” exhibited obedient masculinity to Italy’s authoritarian of the time, Mussolini.
Mussolini had Rodolfo Graziani – AKA "the Butcher of Ethiopia,” so named for his brutal suppression of Ethiopian resistance during Italy’s colonial war. Mussolini admired him for his ruthlessness. If you’re not a member of fascist Italy at the time, then Graziani is a douchebag – if you are part of fascist Italy, he’s a hero.
In both of those cases, for better or worse (obviously for worse), those governments were designed around a single male dictator. Obedient masculinity, though skewed towards negative outcomes, was a powerful tool to get results.
Does obedient masculinity work when positioned under the government structure of the United States?
If you could move Maximas into today’s USA after Marcus tasked him with restoration of the Republic, he would be clearly fighting for the US Constitution vs, say a President or an individual. He would not be fighting for Marcus’ son Commodus, who murders Marcus and takes power as a cruel emperor going against his father’s wishes to make Rome a republic.
The US Constitution defines a government with a division of power and support of free speech, all as an attempt to prevent one person from holding too much power.
As I learned more about obedient masculinity it became clear that, in the USA today, the obedient masculinity tool is being manipulated to benefit a single person – Trump – at the expense of the US Constitution.
Men within his support base are not rallying to protect a balance of power in the form of three branches of government, or the media which acts as a check on government. These are the things the Founders designed the government structure around. Instead, the men of the support Base and in the GOP are passionately and very emotionally supporting one man over everything else. They’re submitting to the will of a single man at the expense of US government structure, and at the expense of all those who disagree with the man they submit to.
If the USA’s government was based on a king or dictator as its foundational principle then submission to that individual would be honorable, strong, and respectable, at least in the eyes of the USA, just like it was in Rome, or fascist Italy, or Nazi Germany.
But the USA is not designed that way. The Founders designed US government structure in direct opposition to autocratic rule. That was the whole point of the United States Constitution. To not be an authoritarian government. So, when the men of the GOP MAGA Base submit to Trump, they are doing so at the expense of, and in direct opposition to, the US Constitution. Anyone can see this for themselves, you don’t need to take my word for it.
So now I can’t wait to dig more into obedient masculinity and learn more about why these men think it’s a good idea to grovel to a king while waving US flags and projecting stereotypes of perceived male strength, all while they completely submit to another man. And what the impacts are. Lots to unpack.
