Where Were the Men?

Interesting story in the local paper.

Sometimes there really aren't any marriagble guys out there.

From this article.

"I said: 'Right, now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?' He said: 'I would like to stay and fight.' "

The terrorist in the black hat then went to speak to someone else and Mrs Loyau-Kennett tried to engage with the other man in the light coat. She said: "The other one was much shyer and I went to him and I said: 'Well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?'
"I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there. Children were starting to leave school as well."

Mrs Loyau-Kennett was not the only woman to show extraordinary courage in the Woolwich street.
Others shielded the soldier's body as the killers stood over them.

Joe Tallant, 20, a van loader who lives near the scene, said a friend and her mother went over to help the soldier as he lay dying in the street.

"Her mother was so brave, she didn't care what happened to her," he said. "She knelt by his side and comforted him. She held his hand and put her other hand on his chest. I think she might have been praying." MPs last night praised the "extraordinary bravery" of the women and raised concerns about why it took armed police 20 minutes to arrive at the scene while people's lives were at risk.

Cue this post by Roissy.

And this one by myself.

Update from the Daily Telegraph. It appears that the murderers allowed women to tend to the victim and not men. Still, there was a whole bunch of guys standing in the background there that could have rushed them.

Alpha Socialism II: Swole Hitler

 
Ray Sawhill has linked to an interesting research paper showing a strong link between physical strength and the propensity for right-wing views. Now the study itself seems reasonably good except that the authors conflate right-wing with self-interested. Nothing like a subtle bit of frame shifting.

The study demonstrated that physically stronger men will favour social policies which gain them advantage whilst physically weaker men do not show this affect. Strong men of high socioeconomic status (SES) will oppose social policies which redistribute wealth, whilst men of low SES will support policies that do. The important point is that the effect is not observed amongst physically weak men and women. Strong men are assertive.

It is with these findings in mind that we now turn to the subject of Fascism, and the type of men it would appeal to.

As the study above demonstrated, strong men of low SES will favour social policies which favour wealth distribution. i.e Socialism. The question then is which type of Socialism which such men favour?

Now, anyone who has spent even the slightest amount of time studying fascism will see that it was an outgrowth of early socialism. Goebbels, in this interesting pamphlet outlining the Nazi position, claimed that Nazism was true socialism and that the other variants of it were corrupt. 

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.....

The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive. ......

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.

 Dr Goebbels.

 
Nazism was tribal socialism. It viewed life as Darwinian struggle granting victory to only those who will assert themselves. When it came to matters of economics the Fascists were socialists as well, but with a difference,...... they were not stupid. Under the Fascist scheme, the state still controlled everything but permitted some private ownership only because it benefited it:

     Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals then the state could nationalize it. Although the Nazis privatised public properties and public services, they also increased economic state control.

So while both systems were socialist there were differences. The Fascists or National Socialists, believed in some private property, some inequality, assertion and tribalism. The Marxist Socialists, on the other hand, believed in strict equality, equal outcomes and universal identity.

Now, imagine you're a young man growing up in late 1920's Germany. The Depression has wiped out the old order and Socialism is the new thing. Which variant of it are you going to pick. Fascism or Marxist socialism?

This study by Price et al may help. 

Price demonstrated a medium negative correlation between muscularity and egalitarianism. In other words, muscular people don't seem too enthusiastic on strict equality. (A similar correlation was observed for attractiveness). So given a choice between an equal socialism and unequal socialism the muscular would be more likely to favour the latter. It's not stretching things too much to say that an ideology of force, self assertion, tribalism and worship of the healthy body would be tempting to those who are muscular and attractive. Life's losers, either economic or physiognomic would find a haven in Marxism.

It's interesting when one reads about the rise of fascism how the contemporary observers described them as thugs whilst the communists were thought of as rabble.  Reck describes the Nazi's most ardent supporters being those of the lower middle class; Germany's modern yeomanry. Men who would have had a minor degree of social rank and a degree of personal autonomy but who were totally destroyed by the economic calamity of the Depression. The factory drones and flabby intellectuals embraced Marx.

( Disclaimer. I repeat again, There is no crypto support for the Fascists or Socialists here, both can go to Hell.)

The Right Left

 In my previous post, commentator asdf made the following comment.

Fascism is a version of what Germany was under the Kaiser. Even Japan today is fascist.......

One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn’t, largely of course because they were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics. Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted. It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.

Of course, it would be unfair to describe contemporary Japan as Nazi-like in any of the senses that are notorious (though one cannot help observing that she has never been contrite about her WWII actions the way Germany has.) More correctly, the architects of the Japanese system learned from their disastrous experience in WWII that the kind of society they wanted could not be achieved through a totalitarian predator-state and they calculated that it could be achieved through the forms, though not the content, of liberal democracy, which is how Japan presents itself.

I'm not sure if commentator asdf is a trad or not, but his comments illustrate just how much contemporary right wing thinking is done through a left wing controlled frame.

Japan was utterly beaten at the end of the Second World War. It's military class was stripped of its power and a democracy was forced onto the people of Japan. ( Under the watchful eyes of the U.S. military). Japan's domestic and social policies were thus a product endogenous genuine democratic process and thus to describe the Japanese state as fascistic is disingenuous. What asdf means, I suppose, is that the values that the Japanese have chosen, through the mechanism of democracy, are inherently fascistic.

Under this leftist reframe, fascism ceases being about a system of government but a slur on a set of cultural beliefs, belief's which share a strong overlap with conservatism.  Sensible conservative policies are thus stymied because of the guilt by association with Fascism. Because the fascists worshiped masculinity, therefore masculinity is fascist. Because the fascists were nationalist, nationalism is fascism and so on. Once again, it's guilt by association.

Wilhelmine Germany did have many values which overlapped with the ideals of Nazism but,  as system of government, it never set up concentration camps, practiced eugenics and totally stripped away the rights of an individual. Wilhelmine Germany was conservative but it wasn't evil.  To imply then that Nazi Germany was a fulfillment of Wilhelmine ideals is then to imply that the Nazism is the fulfillment of Conservative ideals. i.e Conservatism and Nazism are the same. It's standard low-brow left wing boilerplate.

But is strange how only certain associations are considered fascistic and other not. When Nazi Germany wasn't fighting wars or killing Jews it was busy implementing other social engineering policies on its people. It was one first societies to recognise the dangers of smoking and enforced anti-smoking bans. It subsidised holidays for the working class. It slashed unemployment through deficit spending. It promoted breast cancer screening,  promoted an  effective national policy of physical fitness, promoted animal welfare and  pushed environmental clean up laws;  all the standard feel good policies of the Left. Yet, even though Hitler enthusiastically implemented them, these social policies are not considered fascistic. Why so?

The answer to this puzzle is best explained by scholars such as David Ramsay Steele* ( a former socialist) and  James A Gregor.  Quite plausibly, they argue that the mainstream orthodox understanding of the phenomenon has been heavily influenced by the preponderance of left wing writers on the subject.  These left winger thinkers downplayed the Socialist origins of fascism and instead  exaggerated the differences between the two strains of revolutionary thought, in the same way that an Ulsterman would emphatically deny that he has anything in common with an Irish Catholic. The Hindu looks on, amused.

Thus, left wing thinkers, wishing to distinguish themselves from their "right wing" co-socialists saw the origins of fascism in the things such as racial theory, militarism and nationalism downplaying the underlying metaphysics of socialism, which justified merciless total war against any opponent of the socialist vision. The reason why Whilhelmite Germany did not set up the gas chambers, even though possessing all the cultural prerequisites for the Final Solution, is because Whilhelmite Germany was Christian; Nazi Germany, Socialist. What unites Auschwitz with Katyn is the metaphysics of Socialism.

And it is within this left "frame" that Modern Japan gets called a "fascistic" country. National policies, which a century ago would of been considered mainstream and sensible, are now prime examples of latent fascism. Japan's economic and social policies are nothing new, they were pretty stock standard throughout the Western World before WW2.  Most nations wanted to maintain their own internal cultural homogeneity, pursue their own economic interests, maintain their religions, and were quite supportive of science and technology. The fact that what was once considered basic common sense conservative social policy is now considered fascistic shows just how leftward the culture has lurched. Today's right is in someways yesterday's less radical left.

The failure of the Right to combat this understanding of fascism has worked towards the Left's favour. Society, wishing to avoid a recurrence of the Nazi experience  and yet understanding that experience through the prism of left wing influenced thought, suppresses the window dressing of Fascism whilst keeping its poison intact. The West wages war against "militarism" (i.e sensible national defence), Xenophobia (i.e an aversion to multiculturalism), Sexism (i.e sexual polarity), Nationalism (i.e national self interest) with an aim to prevent the resurgence of fascism. Thus the social policies which are currently corroding the West are enabled and any attempt to stymie them becomes a battle against the extreme right. i.e the Fascists. The Left's success in conflating fascism with conservatism means that any type of straight out disagreement with the Left is immediately labelled as fascistic. Thus the Right must respond to the Left in degrees, not outright opposition.

But a far greater problem for the Right is the type of conservatism that tends to exist when a country like modern Japan is thought of fascistic. It will a conservatism that is relatively docile, reactionary and concessionary. It will try to be an "all inclusive" conservatism instead of specific militant one. It follow rather than leads, it reacts rather than acts. It defends rather than attacks. It becomes a rearguard action conservatism.

The problem then for contemporary conservatism is how to appear virile without being accused of being fascistic  And this problem is best exemplified by the case of Ernst Junger.

The writer of Storm of Steel(autobiography) was widely praised by the Nazi's. Junger, who saw war as a formative experience and a test of manhood did not tow the All Quiet on the Western Front (work of fiction. G.K Chesterton hated the book) line. He saw the positive aspect of war and battle for the man who was able to withstand it horrors intact.  He was fiercely Nationalistic and hostile to liberalism. The Nazi's lapped up his writings which synched so well with their ideology. So great was his prestige amongst the goose steppers that even when he criticised the regime and was peripherally involved the assassination attempt of Hitler he was left relatively untouched. Yet from the Wiki article.

In the 1920s Jünger published articles in several right-wing nationalist journals, and further novels. As in Storm of Steel, in the book Feuer und Blut (1925, Fire and Blood), Jünger glorified war as an internal event. According to Jünger, war elevates the soldier's life, isolated from normal humanity, into a mystical experience. The extremities of modern military techniques tested the capacity of the human senses. He criticized the fragile and unstable democracy of the Weimar Republic, stating that he "hated democracy like the plague."^] Although never a member of the National Socialist movement around Adolf Hitler, Jünger never publicly criticized the regime before the war. Jünger, however, refused a chair offered to him in the Reichstag following the Nazi Party's ascension to power in 1933, and he refused the invitation to head the German Academy of Literature (Die deutsche Akademie der Dichtung). Even though he never endorsed the Nazi Party, and indeed kept them at a careful distance, Jünger's Storm of Steel sold well into the six-figure range by the end of the 1930s. In the essay On Pain,^[8] written and published in 1934, Jünger rejects the liberal values of liberty, security, ease, and comfort, and seeks instead the measure of man in the capacity to withstand pain and sacrifice.

The Nazi's loved him because they worshiped the masculism of Junger yet he thought them vile rabble. So was he a Nazi?

Well, for many people he was, so intertwined was his philosophy of war with Nazi ideals yet he emphatically denied being so. Junger was a Wilhelmine conservative, but so much has the cultural ground shifted to the Left that even Wilhelmine Conservatives are now thought of as Nazi's. As for himself, Junger thought himself old school. Asked what he thought of the new post war Germany Junger said:

My wife and I are loyal citizens of the Federal Republic, but not particularly enthusiastic ones—our reality is the German Empire

I suppose the point that I'm trying to make is that the Left has been able to conflate a vigorous masculine conservatism with Nazism.  Any resurgence of a virile conservatism has to tackle this problem.

*The essay by David Ramsay Steele is a must read.

Alpha Socialism.

In my previous post, commentator James felt that my view of Fascism, as a man's socialism, was not quite correct.

 I don't buy it— Nazi voters seem to have split almost equally between men and women, but communist voters in Germany skewed heavily male. Going just by voting patters, communism was the more masculine ideology. Maybe the Nazis voters were alphas and the commies were betas, but that would be impossible to prove and it seems like other factors (urban vs. rural, employed vs. unemployed, etc.) were more important.

James then proceeded to provide a fascinating link into the demographic characteristics of those who voted for Nazism.

There can be no doubt that the NSDAP recruited across a broad social spectrum. However, its support was not random. We have already noted the over-representation of Protestants, rural areas and small provincial towns, as well as of the Mittelstand, in Nazi support and there was a similar structure to the movement's working-class constituency. The working class, however, was under-represented in the Nazi ranks when compared to the German population as a whole.

The working-class presence among those who voted for Hitler can be made to correlate positively with the proportion of working classes in the electorate as a whole only when foremen, daily helps, workers in domestic industry and, significantly, agricultural labourers are included in the definition of working class. When rural labourers (who inhabited a world quite different to that of the city dweller and factory employee, often paid in kind or subject to landlord pressure) are removed from the equation, a slight negative correlation arises between Nazi support and working-class presence. And if workers in craft (as distinct from factory) sectors are also removed from the equation, the correlation becomes even more negative. It is negative, too, in the large cities where, the closer we look at the factory working class, the lower the percentage support for the NSDAP becomes.

Nazism and Socialism appealed to different professions and different types of people. City office drones and industrial workers did not vote for Hitler, rather it was the small businessman, the rural worker and professional classes which voted for Hitler. The characteristics of such people are that they are relatively autonomous and socially conservative. On the other hand, the the more a man was an office drone or factory fodder the more likely he was to vote for the socialists/communists. Being a worker did not matter as much as the type.

It is clear that some groups of workers were much more prone to support the NSDAP than others. This applies above all to rural labourers, to workers in rural areas and small provincial towns, and to craft workers in small units of production. Also to former agricultural workers; workers for whom industrial employment was only an ancillary activity; commuters who lived in the countryside but worked in town; workers in domestic industry, (often non-unionised, without socialist traditions and often female)

Furthermore, only 13 per cent of the unemployed -- who comprised some 30 per cent of the manual working class in the middle of 1932 and who were overwhelmingly concentrated in the big cities and in large-scale manufacture -- supported the National Socialists. It therefore is clear that, although large numbers of workers did vote Nazi, these were not in the main from the classic socialist or communist milieux, rooted as these were in the large cities and in employees in the secondary sector of the economy. If the number of workers in this sector plus the unemployed is correlated with electoral support for the NSDAP, the result is clearly even more negative.

But it is the contention of my post that the Nazi party was a party which would appeal to alpha males who had embraced socialism. This does not mean all alpha males were Nazi's, rather, alpha males who thought socialism was a good idea would embrace Nazism.  Alpha in this instance is alpha in the traditional Roissyian sense;  i.e the ability to attract women.  Therefore a party which expressed "alpha" the most would be the party which gave the the frauleins the greatest amount of tingles and consequently their vote.

Now remember, in 1930's Germany,  if a woman decided to vote socialist, she had three main choices: National Socialism, Communism or Democratic Socialist.

Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas. Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi, many of them probably with few or no previous political ties. Where they came from the working class, they were likely to be non-unionised textile operatives or domestic workers.

A further difference resides in the gender of support. The NSDAP, at least in the Depression of the early 1930s, was much more attractive to female voters than the German Left in general, and the KPD in particular. For most of the Weimar Republic women voted less frequently than men, especially in rural areas. When they did vote, wives often followed their husbands; and daughters and sisters, the head of the household; or so many have claimed. It is also not unreasonable to believe that the female vote divided along the same lines of class, confession and region as that of men. Yet there existed significant differences between male and female voting patterns

The relative unattractiveness of the Left to female voters was compensated by a propensity to support those parties close to the churches, such as the nationalist DNVP in the case of Protestants and, to a much greater extent, the Centre Party or BVP in the case of Catholics. In Cologne-Aachen in 1930, 18.9 per cent of male and 33.1 per cent of females voted for the Centre Party. In Augsburg in the same year, 24.8 per cent of men and 39 per cent of women 

If we had to rank the appeal of socialists to the German female on the basis of socialist voting patterns it would be Nazi first (Alpha), Social Democrat Second(Beta), Commie third(Omega).

Do I detect a smirk?

Nazism gets labelled a right wing ideology because it is a variant of socialism that has strongly embraced Paternalism, authority and sexual polarity. It's right wingedness is only relative to the sexual ambiguity and kumbaya social philosphy of the rest of the Left, otherwise it is the same. Great leader, society controlling the means of production, everything for the people, crush the opponents of the people, utopianism etc.  It's the "bad boy" child of the Left.

Finally, the alpha" bad-boyness "of Nazism still to this day serves as a source of sexual stimulation. Nazi fetishism is alarmingly common on the internet. But communist or socialist fetishism is rare or non existant. The reason why, is that the latter two ideologist are pregnant with sexual amorphism and their ideology or kumbaya sexuality is incompatible with the nature of sexual desire.

* Once again, for the retarded, this is not a crypto endorsement of Nazism or Fascism. The ideology deserves to burn in Hell in my opinion.

**The images are from Life Magazine and used without permission. Use is solely for the purpose of public debate and therefore of fair and legal use.

A Man's Socialism.

Hostile to any comparison between Nazism and communism, some authors have sought to find differences in motivation or behavior, beyond the supposed differences in inspiration. “A young man moving in the direction of communism,” writes Jean Daniel, “is at least living with a desire for communion. A young fascist is only fascinated by domination. That is the essential difference.

(Nazism and Communism: Evil Twins. Alain de Benoist. The Black Book of Communism)

Left wing writers like to point out that Fascism is a right wing phenomenon. Never mind the fact that a study of of the origin of Fascism shows a remarkable overlap in both ideology and participants with Socialism.  Even the term Nazi is an abbreviation of the term National Socialist, so it somewhat of a mystery to me why Fascism is considered right wing.

It is the position of this blog that the social conditions in Europe in the late 19th Century gave rise to a situation which traditionalist thinking was unable to solve. The enormous increase in population, industrialisation and lassiez faire capitalism produced a disaffected populace which sought some redress from the resultant social inequities. Most people thought the existing order wrong and there was a need to change it. Traditionalist attempts were made but  ideology which gained the most traction amongst the masses was the socialistic one.  Amongst the socialists themselves, three main streams of thought emerged on how to address the social injustices. Firstly, Parliamentary Socialism, which sought to change society through democratic takeover  of state power, and secondly, Communism and Fascism, which sought to change it through violent struggle. So, just as Protestantism and Catholicism can be thought of as two different strains of Christian thought, both Communism and Fascism need to be seen as two sects of a common underlying ideology; an ideology of the left.

The two ideologies had a lot of similarities. Both saw the group as more important than the individual, with the state being supreme. Both hated the bourgeois. Both sought the destruction of class enemies. Both saw violence as a legitimate means of social engineering and both seemed to revel in the cult of the leader. Both claimed their legitimacy as arising from acting in the interests of the people and both seemed to revel in the cult of the all powerful leader.

However, it's the differences which have always caused the most confusion,  and it's a confusion  which may lay in the fact that it is difficult to separate the two along the traditional right/left axis because of the common ideology of origin.  But the perhaps the best way to explain the differences is not along a spectrum of "Right and Left" but along the lines of sexual hierarchy; "Alpha and Beta". While I'm not the type of man to see everything through the prism of sexual biomechanics, once you start looking at things this way a lot of the pieces seem to fit quite nicely.

The Fascists were outright thugs and saw a glory in violence. They were concerned not about saving the world but about saving their own tribe. They worshiped military valour, manly struggle, competition and emphasised sexual polarity. They didn't mind a bit of inequality if it bought out the best in the tribe. Think of it like being a member in a football team. Each member wants to be a star player but the group psychology is it's us against them. We train hard, elimate the weaklings and conquer the field as brothers. It's a tailor made ideology for jocks. It's no surprise then that businessmen, soldiers, farmers and others with a strong degree of masculine autonomy would find sympathy with the cause.

 
Communism, on the other hand, wanted to save the world. It wanted to include everyone into the project. It tended to avoided  the direct conflict of the thug. Instead it chose the methods of "the bitch" working to sneakily undermine it opponents through the tried techniques of rumor, misinformation and innuendo, directly attacking them when they were isolated and weak.  It valued co-operation, equality and demphasised sexual polarity. It hated competition since no one was allowed any superiority over the other. It promised a utopian future where society would ensure that everyone is a winner.  It was an escape from the the Darwinian struggle of life and the natural pecking order. One can quite easily imagine writers, artists, public servants and others who lacked a large degree of autonomy choosing the communism/socialism cause.

And it appears that there is some scientific data showing a correlation with social conservatism and the dark triad. Though the study has its faults, I think it has a large degree of intuitive credibility. Interestingly the study study shows a far weaker link between the dark triad and economic conservatism which also fits nicely with our hypothesis*. The fact that economic values are poorly correlated with the dark triad will mean that the individuals who possess the dark triad are not necessarily to be associated with any economic position.

Therefore, if an man is an alpha male but an economic idiot, and sees the socialistic worldview as the solution to society's problems, he will find Fascism an appealing ideology. The lower down the sexual hierarchy he goes the more Communism, and then Socialism appeal. Even today the Neo Nazi's tend to be tough skinheads whilst the socialist men...... well....... you know what I mean.

In other words. Fascism is alpha socialism.  Whilst communist/parliamentary socialism is the ideology that appeals to the beta male economic illiterate.

Manboobz of the world unite!

*Arvan did a follow up study and found that liberalism is associated with antisocial personality traits on issues such as climate change and environmentalism.  With Fascism now being totally discredited perhaps those alpha individuals who would have naturally drifted to Nazism are now finding a home in the environmental movement.

** Note for those who are totally retarded and think this post is some crypto support for the Fascists, you can go to Hell.  I regard Nazism and Communism as evils and a pox a both their houses.