Friday, May 03, 2013

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.

32 comments:

asdf said...

The ultimate problem is this idea that "collectivism" = socialism. I think most of us would agree that the "left" is a supporter of radical individualism. Oz Conservative has done a great job of showing this. Even its identity politics tool is just a tool. In the end we will all be generic cosmopolitan international consumers. The endgame for leftism is Brave New World. A world state whose ideological purpose is hedonistic individualism via the annihilation of the individual difference. The BNW highest enemy is the "family", the original "collectivist" unit. And in truth everyone in the BNW is "free". Most people like the BNW. The tiny minority that don't get to be free on special islands just for them.

Collectivism is an inherently "right wing" ideology. It champions family, community, nation, etc. These are collectives.

Retrenched said...

"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."

Well put.

Anonymous said...

"socialist fetishism is rare or non existant"

Except for Che Guevarra. Which has immense alpha apeal.

Matt Forney said...

Except for Che Guevarra. Which has immense alpha apeal.

Che Guevara isn't idolized for being a communist, he's idolized for being a rebel who died young; pure Romanticism. None of the kids wearing Che shirts probably know who he was or what he stood for; all they know is he's a dashing guy who died fighting an evil regime. In fact, most authentic socialists shun the cult of Che for its capitalistic origins.

Nazi fetishism specifically revolves around the Nazi aspect. For example, decades ago in Israel (might still be around, not sure), there was a sub-genre of BDSM erotic literature that revolved around Nazi officers brutalizing Jewish women. Think Fifty Shades of Grey; Israeli women ate it up and begged for more.

Anonymous said...

Salon has an article about Nazi Porn.

http://www.salon.com/2008/04/11/stalags/

Johnycomelately said...

Smirk?

Hitler was clearly a homosexual.

Single mother, no father figure, 'artist', persecution complex, no known girlfriends prior to Eva, no children, vegetarian, anti smoking, idealized the perfect man, was into sorcery and divination and a megalomaniac.

The only difference between communism and national socialism was the structure of the two different societies, one agrarian and the other semi industrial. I can't see how one can be conflated with an alpha tendency over the other.

As for Nazi sex fantasies, it falls into the realm of sadism and homosexual fantasies.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon and Matt

Wow!

I feel like I'm going deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole.

I just can't believe the Stalag genre of soft porn in Israel.

I mean WTF?

I mean the Israelis have the greatest reason to find the Nazi's repulsive, but for them to use the Third Reich as a source of sexual titillation blows my mind away.

No seriously.

I need a drink!

The Social Pathologist said...

@johnycomelately

Hitler was clearly a homosexual.

Proof?

There is a lot of innuendo around Hitler and he does appear to have been awkward around women, but I don't think anyone who is objective about things thinks Hitler was homo.

The only difference between communism and national socialism was the structure of the two different societies,

There were a lot of differences. Gender polarity, economic organisation, delegation of power, so on.

As for Nazi sex fantasies, it falls into the realm of sadism and homosexual fantasies.

See above. Funny though, how there is very little soviet inspired erotica.

asdf

Radical individualism stops dead in its tracks if the state is not there to stop the more stupider variants of it. Darwinian selection is quite efficient.

I think the problem with Mark's analysis is the it's not individualism that is the problem as much as stupid individualism is.







asdf said...

"Radical individualism stops dead in its tracks if the state is not there to stop the more stupider variants of it."

And your point is?

If the people have decided that what they want is radical individualism then in a democracy they will vote for a state that supports it.

It all reeks of the despair porn of the right. "Once the economy collapses, that'll show those bitches."

1) Economy collapses
2) ???
3) Traditional society

Hint: When Germany went into an economic depression we got Hitler.

"Darwinian selection is quite efficient."

Darwin is a eunuch without his brother Malthus, and Malthus is has been dead for awhile and will be dead for awhile more.

KK said...

Are you sure you're not overthinking it? The simplest explanation is that women started flocking to NSDAP when NSDAP started to become a winner.

Women are the civilizational inertia.

The Social Pathologist said...

@KK

Are you sure you're not overthinking it?

No not really, though your point about women voting for a winner probably has a point.

The thing is though, it's been very difficult to catergorise Nazism within the standard Left Right dichotomy. From the Socialist point of view it is right wing, but from the right wing point of view it definitely belongs to the left. But once you look at the ideology of Nazism through the prism of sexual polarity its position on the political spectrum falls into place.

Nazism is an abhorrent ideology but there an overlap in some of the values of the two. Lefty's can recognise this and whenever a right wing politician purses any type of sensible nationalistic policy he is immediately labelled a Nazi. The politician, in order to avoid being labelled a fascist, immediately backs down.


The other problem for the right is that fascist are drawn to it, and crypto Nazi's are always lurking in the shadows. Those arseholes need to be expelled in order to stop the right from being corrupted by their socialist philosophy. The Nazi's are no friend of the Christian right.

Seeing Fascism as alpha socialism clearly separates the bastards from the mainstream right and returns them to the ideological camp from where they came from.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Asdf

My point, asdf, is libertarianism is no guarantee of a happy society. Democracy was the midwife of Hitler. He would never of been able to come to power under the Kaiser.

Mark has the problem upside down.

The Right is for individualism, however, the right recognises that individualism needs to be checked in some spheres for the common good. The right recgnises that a man has rights and thus claims for restricting people's behaviour on common good ground is limited. The left, on the other hand, sees no such limitation and thus pushes for a radical sameness. Remember, the left is quite happy for you to be a cosmopolitan individual provided you share their vision of what a cosmopolitan individual is. They're quite intolerant of religious individualism.

The left is for homogeneity not the right.

asdf said...

SP,

I think we get into trouble when we say that certain groups are for or against "individuality". For or against "freedom". That's what Bruce Charlton calls "legalistic" thinking. It asks us to support vague objectives regardless of context.

"The Right is for individualism, however, the right recognizes that individualism needs to be checked in some spheres for the common good."

If the right believes individualism must be checked in some spheres, then there are instances in which the right is "against" individualism. Now if your autistic about the right being "for individualism" then this statement can't make any sense. You have to abandon whatever spheres you wish to have constricted (like a libertarian).

However, if you believe that individualism and charity are all appropriate within the correct contexts and those contexts are laid down by longstanding traditions that have stood the test of time, no problem.

P.S. Nazism is abhorrent because Hitler was a paranoid loser surrounded by psychopaths and he started a bunch of wars based on delusions. He got power, wrongly, because some of the ideas in National Socialism did have merit. People don't win elections if what they are saying is completely nonsensical, it has to be some twisted and mangled version of something that makes sense, even if the link is very tenous.

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

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue23/Locke23.htm

Fascism Without the Fascism

If the use of non-economic incentives sounds familiar, it is because the last time this issue was seriously addressed in the West in the context of a modern economy was by Peter F. Drucker in his 1940 book The End of Economic Man, which discussed how the Nazi system was based on creating a non-economic power structure to resolve the social conflicts that had been irresolvable within capitalist European society. This, in his view, was the sick genius of Nazism and the reason it had been able to come within a hair’s breadth of creating a world-conquering social system.

The political economy described above is the product of thinking that originated among Japan’s colonial bureaucrats entrusted with the industrialization of Japan’s colony of Manchuria in the 1930’s. They published their Economic New Structure Manifesto in 1940 as a result of their experience of the inefficiency of traditional capitalism as a development strategy. In the short run, the elite Zaibatsu capitalists of Japan vetoed their ideas, but in the long run, partly as a result of the American occupation’s assault on the big property owners, a product of their New Dealers’ conviction that industrial concentration was an abettor of fascism, they were able to triumph.

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.

GK Chesterton said...

@asdf,

I never thought of Japan that way until you said so...then it made an amazing amount of sense. The North Koreans really should stop irritating them.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ asdf

I think we get into trouble when we say that certain groups are for or against "individuality".

That's what you were doing.

Quote:

I think we get into trouble when we say that certain groups are for or against "individuality".

Now,

However, if you believe that individualism and charity are all appropriate within the correct contexts and those contexts are laid down by longstanding traditions that have stood the test of time, no problem.

Umm No. I recognise that there is a tension between individualism and collective interest. It is not so much a matter of tradition as it is of prudential judgement when it comes to the balance between the two at any particular time. However, I do recognise that there are moral limits to the power of the state, so at least in that regard I'm individualistic.

But the Christian Right recognises that man can only fully gain his individuality in the context of a society of men to whom he has obligations. In other words, individuation is only possible when a person chooses actions which are mindful of their effects on others.

Nazism is abhorrent because Hitler was a paranoid loser surrounded by psychopaths and he started a bunch of wars based on delusions.

Standard anti-Nazi boilerplate. Though not true. Hitler was highly intelligent and successful very early on. Had he stopped after annexing Austria and the Czechoslovakia he probably would have been remembered a Germanay's greatest man. Had he won the Slavs over to his cause instead of slaughtering them he probably would have defeated Russia. His ideology was a more potent toxin to his ambitions rather than his mental state which only seems to have really deteriorated at the very end.

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

The first thing to recognise is that Willhemite Germans regarded the Nazi's as rabble and a national disgrace. Rhopke saw Hitler for what he was straight away. Friedrich Percival Reck-Malleczewen (author of Diary of a Man in Despair) was appalled by the rise of Hitler and even Ernst Junger wouldn't join the party. Evola whilst sympathetic also kept them at arms length.

When you say Japan is a Fascist society you really are operating from a Leftist "Frame".

Japan is not a Christian nation so its notions of right and wrong are not ours. It's not going to be contrite for its actions because it is a society that does not operate on the principle of do unto others as you would have done unto you. It looks at life in a purely materialistic manner and looks for calculated advantage.

Saying that Japan is fascistic automatically undercuts the conservative position. Japan has taken a sensible and self-interested social policy and to say its policy is thus fascistic is then to conceded that anyone who doesn't support multiculturalism and open borders is automatically a fascist. Some days I don't know who is more the enemy, the Left in front of me or the Trads behind me.





asdf said...

SP,

You've quoted the same line twice, I'm not sure what your trying to say.


Umm No. I recognise that there is a tension between individualism and collective interest. It is not so much a matter of tradition as it is of prudential judgement when it comes to the balance between the two at any particular time. However, I do recognise that there are moral limits to the power of the state, so at least in that regard I'm individualistic.

But the Christian Right recognises that man can only fully gain his individuality in the context of a society of men to whom he has obligations. In other words, individuation is only possible when a person chooses actions which are mindful of their effects on others.


You've just restated what I said. How can you say no to yourself?


Hitler was highly intelligent and successful very early on. Had he stopped after annexing Austria and the Czechoslovakia he probably would have been remembered a Germanay's greatest man.


And yet he did not because he was a psychopath surrounded by psychopaths. His "ideology" is the ideology of a psychopath. And I wouldn't call the guy brilliant. All he had to do to win in Russia was not constantly undercut his own generals.

Willhemite Germans regarded the Nazi's as rabble and a national disgrace

Of course, as would anyone who saw of bunch of psychopaths who were total failures before they took power. One look at Hitler and his inner circle shows a bunch of very disturbed men.

Fascism is the believe that there is such a thing as the nation state and that it matters and people within it have obligations to it just as the state has obligations to them. Pre-WWI Germany was nationalistic, patriotic, and even invented the welfare state. And it wasn't very democratic. Nazism may have turned that all up for 1,000, but the seeds were there.

conceded that anyone who doesn't support multiculturalism and open borders is automatically a fascist.

Would such a person not be called a fascist today for such things?

Anonymous said...

World War Two and it's outcomes were the result of an enormous amount of complicated factors, which are too numerous to analyze here, and Hitler was a complicated man. Let's leave it at that.

What we can say though, is that this is a retarded theory that sheds light on nothing. Fascism is the alpha socialism? What the hell is that supposed to mean. In that fascism upheld authoritarianism and fetishized power, and women like power and the display of power, sure it's "alpha" compared to the socialist ideal of equality. What the fuck is that supposed to help us with? Is fascism therefore better than communism, because women like what it fetishizes? Women like dirtbag club djs as well. Are techno beats the "alpha" music and classical the "beta"? How old are you?

Jason said...

Asdf, there is no reason to believe that Hitler was a psychopath who did not know what he was doing. Indeed, all the evidence indicates the contrary, that he was cold and calculating and knew how to use his tantrums for his own purposes. The reason why you can't find any written or spoken directive of Hitler's ordering of the Holocaust, for instance, is a very good example of this: he knew exaxtly what he was doing, and didn't want anybody to know about it.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ Jason

Correct. A lot of people simply can't grasp that fact that some people, like Hitler, are perfectly sane but evil. The materialistic crowd still have a hard time understanding that evil is not a product of insanity.


@Anon.

How old are you?

My wife says I act like a two year old at times.


What the fuck is that supposed to help us with? Is fascism therefore better than communism, because women like what it fetishizes?

Rude and stupid. How typical.
But hang around smart arse, all will be revealed.

asdf said...

Jason & SP,

Hitler's actions during the war make little sense. Let's leave aside the entire idea of invading Russia (I'll be neutral on whether that was a good strategic objective vs going after Africa/Middle East). Certainly Hitler's constant meddling with his generals was not smart. They would have taken Moscow in 1941 if he hadn't diverted Army Group Center halfway through the campaign (his best general flew back to Berlin to beg him not to be so stupid, but he ignored him). He then decides in 1942 to through his soldiers away in operation Blue thinking they could march all the way to through the caucuses (and they somehow capture and start using oil fields even though it was obvious the Russians would have sabotaged them as they did everywhere else). He was warned by his generals what a bad idea it was. It was doomed from the start, even if he hadn't engaged in that little feud with Stalin over Stalingrad and got the 6th army encircled. I don't even want to go into the errors after that.

Hitler made idiotic decisions due to his own ego and his own desire to achieve political objectives over military objectives (he wanted to kill lots of Slavs during the war because afterwards it would be a genocide, and he diverted troops to this purpose knowing that it could cost him the war). He silenced and punished generals he knew were telling him the truth but it was just truth he didn't want to hear. That is the sign of an egomaniacal psychopath.

In the end, when it was obvious they had lost, did he surrender? Did he try to get a better deal for either the German people or himself? No, he was lost in some delusional world from Stalingrad on.

There's also good evidence that Hitler (and many of the other high ranking Nazi's) where addicted to amphetamines throughout much of their time in power.

David Foster said...

Reck-Malleczewen said that a lot of the support for Naziism came from low-level bureaucrats...people who worked for the Post Office and the like...and from teachers. He also described the reaction of many women toward Hitler...eating dirt that he had walked on, for example...somewhat like we might expect from a particularly obsessed and deranged fan of a particular rock star.

On the broader issues of Socialism and Fascism, I think the following from Aldous Huxley is useful:

"In the field of politics the equivalent of a theorem is a perfectly disciplined army; of a sonnet or picture, a police state under a dictatorship. The Marxist calls himself scientific and to this claim the Fascist adds another: he is the poet--the scientific poet--of a new mythology. Both are justified in their pretensions; for each applies to human situations the procedures which have proved effective in the laboratory and the ivory tower. They simplify, they abstract, they eliminate all that, for their purposes, is irrelevant and ignore whatever they choose to regard an inessential; they impose a style, they compel the facts to verify a favorite hypothesis, they consign to the waste paper basket all that, to their mind, falls short of perfection...the dream of Order begets tyranny, the dream of Beauty, monsters and violence. "

The Social Pathologist said...

@David

Good quote.

ggesstt Khan

David Foster said...

Huxley's distinction between the "scientist" of Marxism and the "scientific poet" of Fascism is entirely consistent with your point about sexual fetishes being linked to Fascism more than to Marxism.

The Social Pathologist said...

@David

Huxley's distinction between the "scientist" of Marxism and the "scientific poet" of Fascism is entirely consistent with your point about sexual fetishes being linked to Fascism more than to Marxism.

Agreed. But what I think is more important is that the qualatative difference in ideologies will result in different types of people being attracted to them.

More masculine and pragmatic men are going to be attracted to fascism, whilst the dreamers, utopians and conniving will be attracted to non-fascist variants of it.

In other words, the split between the two may be on temperamental rather than ideological lines.

It's interesting to note that there were multiple attempts to assassinate Hitler in Germany by Germans and yet I can't seem to find any similar activity against Stalin. Could it be that the German men had more "mojo" than the Russians. It's an interesting speculation.

The Social Pathologist said...

@David

More masculine and pragmatic men are going to be attracted to fascism, whilst the dreamers, utopians and conniving will be attracted to non-fascist variants of it.

Should of been...

More masculine and pragmatic men are going to be attracted to fascist variant of socialism, whilst the dreamers, utopians and conniving will be attracted to non-fascist variants of it.

David Foster said...

Need to also look at what kind of *women* were attracted to the two ideologies...the sometimes-stated idea that women were against Naziism because of its views on gender roles is overstated, to say the least. I haven't yet found a good quantitative breakdown of German attitudes by gender, circa 1933, but various quotes suggest that there were quite a few women in the Nazi camp.

Re the assassination attempts, remember that the Soviet state had more practice at dictatorship than the Nazi state, and had likely learned the tricks of self-protection.

The Social Pathologist said...

@David.

Reck's book is simply amazing. Personally, I think it is more powerful book than 1984 and hope to do a post on it later on. I've just got to find time to re read it again.

Reck was an interesting fellow and an example of Wilhelmine Germany. From recollection, he really did think Southern Germany was different from the north of it. His description of female refugees coming from northern Germany to escape the allied bombing was not complimentary. I think he thought a lot of them "easy" to put it nicely.

I don't think he really specifies what type of woman was drawn to Hitler except that female sexual morality crumbled under the Third Reich. He genuinely seemed to be at the "rock star" treatment Hitler got from the women of Germany. I guess he wasn't aware of the concept of hypergamy.

The Social Pathologist said...

@ David

dyslexia bad again

He genuinely seemed to be at the "rock star" treatment Hitler got from the women of Germany. I guess he wasn't aware of the concept of hypergamy.

Should be;

He genuinely seemed to be perplexed at the "rock star" treatment Hitler got from the women of Germany. I guess he wasn't aware of the concept of hypergamy

Bob Wallace said...

Hitler said all ex-Communists were to be immediately admitted into the Nazi Party because he knew there was only a hair's breadth difference between a Communist and a Nazi. Both are socialists.

The late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who first alerted me to the fact Nazis and Communists were the same, also pointed out that both are feminine, which means, he claimed, were committed to what he called "the overthrow of the Father." Feminism, being leftist, wants to overthrow the "rightist" Father.

Anonymous said...

@ASDF

The problem with leftist collectivism is that it is a FORCED collectivism, which tells you which collective you must belong to and contribute to: the state. It sees itself as "liberating" individuals from the voluntary collectives of family, religion, and patriarchy. The voluntary collectives can only use withholding of resources, shaming, and other peaceful means to acheive their goals. Leftists use violence (or the threat of violence), to achieve loyalty to their collective.

I'm writing from the US, so I hope my terms are correct.

-Hendrick

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the author realizes how much he sounds like a Crit Theory deconstructionist? All of this "analysis" is so riddled with confirmation bias that I find it amazing he would present it to us.

If second wave feminism, and its prgenyt are corrupt, it's been Crit Theory that's gotten us here. Lumping people into classes to to detect patterns that map onto abstract ideas about male and female behavior is the intellectual rot that got us here.

I'm not saying this isn't interesting. I just detect the same kind of overreach as the feminists, and for that matter and Crit Theory infected field of study.

I don't need someone to tell me what "women" are up to. I do appreciate the help in understanding the woman in front of me (sister, daughter, lover) - but reducing the rise of Nazism to "alpahness" as a way of denigrating women is the kind of slimy pseudo-intellectual crap i expect from the left.

The Social Pathologist said...

Anon @10:54

but reducing the rise of Nazism to "alpahness" as a way of denigrating women is the kind of slimy pseudo-intellectual crap i expect from the left.

Clearly your superior intellect missed the whole point of this post. Fascism was a different variant of socialism; the question being how was it different.

Unlike standard Critical theory approaches, I try to back up my assertions with some scientific fact.

I just detect the same kind of overreach as the feminists

One of the most tiresome things that comes with blogging is dealing with bloggers who have no idea of nuance. German Nazism was different to Spanish fascism due to a host of cultural and temporal contingencies. No one here was claiming that Nazism was solely a product of the alpha metric but I thought I'd qualified this and most of my readership were not so stupid to read that into my post.

but reducing the rise of Nazism to "alpaness" as a way of denigrating women is the kind of slimy pseudo-intellectual crap i expect from the left.

I don't mind criticism, but arrogance and stupidity do earn my contempt.