There were some posts at a male non-Red-Pill sub about the notion of masculinity. I tried to sum it up for them. This is my briefest take.

Esther Vilar in The Manipulated Man defined man and woman in this simple way: Man is a human being who works. A woman, in contrast to man, is a human being who does not work. This was back in the '70s. Thirty years later, she acknowledged that this has changed, of course, since women entered the workforce. What hasn't changed, though, which brings us to the definition of masculinity, is that "only a few of these women would be prepared to offer a life of comfort not only to their children but also the children's fathers, supported by their often substantial salaries."

Psychologist Roy Baumeister, in Is There Anything Good about Men?, again defines masculinity as the capacity to work more than one's individual needs merit, i.e. to provide to others.

These views capture the crux of the matter. In simple terms:

Masculinity is the capacity to love.

Some more discussion to illustrate the point: (please understand it cannot be exhaustive).

As can be seen, the definition of masculinity relies on the definition of love. Love is consciously caring about someone. This ascribes the quality of consciousness to masculinity. If you are doing caring behavior instinctively, that's not bad, but that's neither love nor masculine per se. Every monkey can do that. (Literally). Our definition ascribes the quality of caring to masculinity. This basically means self-sacrifice: if you do "caring" behavior expecting future rewards, you are just being a good businesswoman, not a loving person.

Another example: in several (all?) cultures around the world, "faggot" is a word used for a swindler. People probably can't put their finger to it, why it is so (it isn't that the one who swindled you is having gay sex), but the gist of it is that a swindler diverts resources to himself, instead of caring about you by being honest. Therefore it's about a masculine quality that is subconsciously perceived as lacking about him. (Please note that I'm not necessarily endorsing this view of gay men, only discussing it as a social phenomenon.)

In this example above, we can also see the definition of femininity, which is the opposite of masculinity:

Femininity is the tendency to divert resources towards yourself.

More on that in a while.

Now, the other key word in the definition of masculinity is capacity. This has profound consequences.

For example, if you get incapacitated by disease, women perceive you as less masculine, and you yourself lose your sense of masculinity - unless you can maintain faith that you'll 100% get back on your feet.

Also, capacity is something you can build, consistent with the notion that masculinity is something you develop and cultivate throughout your life.

Confidence is a masculine trait, because it is the subliminal assertion that 1) you needn't count on others for your needs (that's feminine), and 2) you have an abundance on which others can count on.

These notions permeate all discussions around gender issues and men's personal dilemmas. Notably, by actually doing caring behavior as a man, i.e. by incurring the cost, you gradually diminish your capacity for further caring. Women expropriate that in order to branch swing, e.g. after they have depleted the first husbands providing capacity.

Note now that given a man and a woman, a man is generally more probable to be more masculine, but this does not exclude the possibility a woman being more masculine than a man. At the level of politics, however, averages count, not individuals. In most cases, women behaving masculine, i.e. caring for others, is a special case - and ever more rare in contemporary capitalism, despite the fact that women work and earn money themselves.

Now, where did masculinity and femininity come from?

They are neither moral judgments neither "social constructions". They flow quite straightforwardly from the biology of the sexes, from even before humans existed. Females in species, being the only certain parents and the most probable to stick around, had to divert resources to themselves (rather than their children!) since if they perished, their children would perish too. Sadly, women play that biological script even today. Males, on the other hand, evolved displays of abundance as a female attraction trait. Love is a wondrous nature's creation in the male soul.

A practical implication of the above discussion is that men must personally safeguard their capacity to love, since society is build around the tendency (of the system and of women) to exploit that capacity, and in today's society there are no limits to that kind of exploitation.

There is a resurgence of nazism worldwide. Yup, it's a "clown world" indeed, and far from being an answer, nazism is its most characteristic symptom.

Loud and "macho" as they may present themselves, the nazis always had a very feminine soul. At its center is not masculinity, but rather a burning *desire* for masculinity. It is no coincidence that what preceded the current nazi trend was a sharp increase and legitimization of single mothers. Their offspring, those lost boys that grew up missing a positive father figure, or any father figure at all for that matter, some of them got really fucked up: They got fixated on their need for a father, something that forever wrecked their souls.

When that lost boy grows and the sexual urge begins to settle, there is a very specific and distinct procedure that takes place: Fixated as he is on his desire for a father, he experiences a merging of his two great desires: Sex and Father. Call me politically incorrect, but this merging is the fundamental psychological background for many (most?) male homosexuals. And, call me politically correct... it's fine. We all have our strange fixations, bigger or smaller. I like blonds with big tits. On an individual level, if taking a penis up his ass relieves his sexual angst, no problem. His ass, his business.

The big problem, though, is when this merging of the sexual desire with the desire of a father goes unacknowledged, and diverts itself to the symbolic level. Then this angst never gets relieved and you have a zombie, a total slave to his omnipresent needs. The typical nazist worshiping of a leader is precisely the result of this procedure. The nazi literally experiences his butt-hole pulsating invitingly in the presence of male authority.

You can understand how difficult it is for those kids to break out of their vicious cycle. Most of them are lost causes. Their hypnotic submission to authority makes them unwitting victims of the elite, willing servants to be called upon to do the dirty work when bourgeois democracy falters. They are the first to take up every bullshit scapegoating ideology that relieves "daddy" of his blame. Isn't it great that daddy needs my help? Look, daddy, I'm a grown up man! Love me daddy, see what I've done for you! I'm being a good boy

Btw, "Daddy" is a word routinely used to describe the fuhrer in these circles. From Hitler to Stalin and to more recent wackos, it's no coincidence that followers use the word "Daddy" to express their adoration.

All that infantilism comes hand in hand with a verbal radicalism: Authority is denounced on the grounds that it is not authoritarian enough. This is such an obvious analogue with the feminist predicament, where little girl denounces male authority because daddy was never a man enough for unorgasmic mommy, that I really wonder how people can miss it. Feminists and nazis have the same Borderline Personality Disorder stance against, essentially, masculinity: They both desire it profoundly, and resent if for not being offered to them when they needed it.

Now nazis, of course, are very conscious of the tribe. Ready to defend it, (at least when they have the numbers), ready to differentiate it from others, etc etc. Isn't that, at least, a masculine tendency?

As it turns out, sorry, no.

In a fascinating research about, essentially, the nature of femininity, some pretty cool researchers have managed to talk about it without ever mentioning the world "female", thus avoiding the censorship: They "only" talk about oxytocin - which we know is female, "cuddle" hormone. (See The Dark Side of Oxytocin)

As it turns out, "the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. [Since it] also facilitates within-group trust, co-operation, and co-ordination, we conjecture that [this tndency] may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote co-operation among in-group members. … Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence."

Cute huh? All the macho talk about "my" in-group, actually being fueled by girl hormones. Makes total sense of course, once you know the way women operate. Consistent with their subliminal need to be anally penetrated by a father figure, these lost boys are bathed in oxytocin.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of direct parallels between femaleness and nazism: Both have an inflated sense of self-importance. They have the Lebensraum - "living space" ideology. In other words, entitlement. Women view the average man as beneath them - by biology. Nazis, the "ubermensch", view the average man as beneath them - by psychological disorder. Both will lie, deceive, attack the weaker, bully anyone they can. Machiavelian, will lay low and bid their time, instead of accepting an honest compromise. You can't level with them. There's no point in engaging in rational discussion. Total lack of a sense of honor. Lack of generosity, lack of abundance. Nazi mysticism is a direct reflection of the females attraction to all sorts of wacho metaphysics (zodiacs, chakras, etc). That's another typical oxytocin symptom. Will maintain plausible deniability at all costs. "I'm not a nazi, I just happen to like short men with short mustaches".

The list goes on.

What is the most striking part is the pronounced contrast between TRP and nazism. TRP is the living acknowledgment that women is the most valuable resource of all, while nazis have this really stupid idea that it is worthy to go to war abroad for "resources" - all the while consolidating local women's gatekeeper role on sex.

Now, is there anything good about nazis?

Well... I'll concede to one point. Being women themselves, nazis are good at discerning the true nature of women - and, generally, all *petty* behavior. They can have some profound insights about female nature.

It takes one to know one, as the saying goes.

For those that have eyes to see it, nazi authoritarianism has nothing to do with true masculinity. It's just its ridiculous travesty.