The problem I see is that conservatism (as any ideology) is partially true. I agree with your assessment how these facts are twisted into sham, but we also have to give credit where credit is due (plus I'll add some other comments).

1) There's nothing wrong with social Darwinism and it seems that it is how things operate, but being fittest does not mean "crude contests for dominance". Quite to the contrary--it seems that it's the peaceful ones who, in the long run, are more adaptable and thus fit for survival.

2) No argument here--religions are built on "revolutionary potentials" as you say.

3) Your use of analogies from animal kingdom is rather unfortunate ("alpha-male dominators", etc.) because that's not how it works in nature. Then again, no transactional relationship can be fair. The regulated ones are prone to corruption, the Laissez-Faire are prone to power struggles. Only "gift economy" based on mutual respect is immune to these problems. As for inherited wealth--just look at interbreeding in order to preserve wealth, or selection of partners who put wealth as their priority (or sole concern), and you will see that it's not an evolutionary advantage (the gene pool degenerates). Btw. did you know that e.g. Caesar's direct bloodline vanished c. 100 years after his (violent) death?

4) Again, you seem to live in a world where animals just abuse themselves mindlessly day-in-day-out, which is so detached from reality that I don't even want to elaborate on it. You are an animal, whether you like it or not. Period. Thus, liberalism with its "better than animal" proposition is a sham too--philosophizing is merely fulfilling one's animal potential.

Otherwise, I agree ;)