Rudderless men with little career prospects realizing they’ll never get to a comfortable lifestyle without a major change.
They can either change themselves for the better or join a movement that aims to change society and hope that it propels them upward.
Better education, empathy, and economic conditions can turn the tide, but it’s a big job.
That’s literally all there is to it. Even in the olden days it was a well known fact that a generation of young men without (economic, social, romantic) perspective is a generation who will radicalize to either side. If the system isn’t working for them they will seek to change the system.
If politicians were serious about curbing extremism they would make sure everyone simply lives a decent standard of living, with prospects for their future.
This 💯
Its also why I believe most modern governments try REALLY hard not to go to war. Not because of the death and destruction but because they dont want a combat trained populace.
Also because shared adversity unites, the differences between people get really unimportant when they are trying to keep each other alive in combat.
The idea of a significant percentage of “us” coming back and being united and trained well enough to actually threaten the system scares the piss out of them.
It’s the same logic as lotto players. Spend this little bit of money/effort while expecting life changing results.
Couple of things:
-
Social justice influencers acridly piling blame for social problems onto cis white males without nuance. This makes a lot of cis white males feel targeted for factors outside their control, and so they flock to ideologies that venerate them.
-
General dissatisfaction with career and other life prospects, in the shadow of an idyllic bygone status-quo propped up by exploitative short term policies. They saw their parents and grandparents thrive in that trad-coded utopia, and they’re noticing the inadequacies of their own prospects.
So mostly those two things, exacerbated by fascist propagandists who have taken advantage of them to promote the facade of a return-to-roots. Also good old fashioned cult of personality.
I feel that point 1 is actually a fascist in disguise psyop in the first place.
-
There is no overlap … they are the same thing. It’s not new, it’s a continuation.
This isn’t a new movement, its the same idea that was forwarded by fascists that started the second world war.
One: because fascist would ensure their place at the top of the social/political/financial pyramid.
Two: because the world’s economic system lied to them. Being a morally good, hard working human guaranteed a comfortable life. In fact being morally good and/or hard working may actually be a hindrance to living a comfortable life.
Three: poor education and exploitation. Ever book that is banned or text book that says, “slavery was understandable in fact slavers are benevolent leaders saving the ‘others’ from themselves.” and you know, being used by those that actually hold power. Donald Trump would pretend to be the next Joseph Stalin if it ment he would be protected by those willing to do violence in his name. Just the fact that governments have" heads of state" means those that want to be president, king, prime minister probably should be allowed to be leaders.
Not sure point One is fully correct. I think they often realize things is going to be shitty for everyone, but they think it will be less shitty for them if it gets more shitty for others. They know they will be an exploited working class (even if it is not phrased that way for them) as long as there is a part of the working class (immigrant workers, women workers, …) that is beneath them it makes them feel more ‘on top’.
Ya but making everyone else’s life more shitty ensures they are still “on top” in their eyes. It’s the same reason most confederate men fought in the civil war even though they didn’t own slaves. Ya their life sucked but at least they weren’t slaves. The moment more human beings get emancipated, be that from slavery, wage slavery, women suffrage, segregation, etc that means they have more competition in the flawed economic, social, and political systems designed around capitalism.
Because they are immersed in an ecosystem that pretends that respect for human dignity and unearned respect for authority are identical because they use the same word.
They believe that others should respect the innate authority they feel they should hold as men. Simultaneously, since they don’t get that, they don’t feel like they need to respect other people’s right to exist.
And then a group promises them everything they’ve ever wanted, if they are willing to do fascist shit. Of course they’re into it.
I highly doubt any language is more correlated with authoritarianism, particularly the English language. There is a cultural aspect to collective action over individualism, but I think authoritarianism is a base human personality trait.
You might change your view about that if you ever read “Mutual Aid” by Peter Kropotkin. I used to think the same, but it appears things like authoritarianism and hierarchies actually run contrary to evolution. Not that the trait doesn’t exist, but it appears to be something that has been exacerbated in cultures that deliberately adopt a hierarchical system vs. something that’s just natural to all humans.
Evolutionary biologist here.
I am someone who believes that multilevel selection is a primary driver of evolutionary dynamics and works at levels ranging from the organism to the ecosystem (at various levels of effectiveness). Kropotkin is nice philosophically, although he is read about far more often than he is read. That’s entirely reasonable, because his theories provide a foundation for lines of investigation we still pursue today but are obviously outdated, as are the ideas of everyone whose work predated discoveries like genes.
If you want a more modern view on the evolutionary benefits of cooperation, I would suggest starting with Harvard biology professor EO Wilson, who specialized in ants and ended up concluding that humans were in fact a eusocial species - unique among primates and one of very few on earth. He invented the field (or at least added additional formalization to the study) of sociobiology - the evolution of social behaviors. It’s the same category as ants and bees. For an anthropological and cross-cultural perspective I’d suggest Graeber. For a mathematical and economic perspective, I’d start with Sam Bowles. For the foundations of pro-social behavior in primates, I’d recommend Frans de Waal.
I’d be happy to try to answer any questions on the subject.
I’m not qualified to engage in your discussion, nor do I have a good experience trusting random internet strangers who say they’re certain things, but here’s Kropotkin’s book for anyone who wants to read it: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
Might tell the rest of the story.
