In which direction that is

Well, it depends

Eoppa, it's against the state

1) France crumbled and eventually Napoleon restored civil order because the incumbent revolutionary government was extremely unstable and practiced tyranny by the majority.

2) The Congressional Convention adopted a nationalistic interpretation of the Constitution, providing additional provisions to the federal government over state, including the supremacy clause.

You don't seperate state from governance, that's cringe

The point I'm getting at is that these revolutionaries fought against the state in the first place

They aren't loyal to the state

Hell, look at Ukraine's anarchists

Yes they are

Happy now?

I have to go, but you are so bluepilled in how you view ideology

Its painful

Makhno was a clown who fell apart at the first sign of an organized power going against him.

He lost a 10,000 man peak military body to both Bolsheviks and Whites.

What's that? Men were fighting for the lack of a state?

- and lost.

To organized government.

Sure, I'm not an anarchist

I'm not defending that

The point I'm trying to get across is that men aren't loyal to the state

Masculinity doesn't induce loyalty to the state

You can argue that rebellions constitute another "state", but that "state" is in contrast with the original state

So what?

That's the point

No anarchist opposes government ironically

You'll get an opposition to a monopoly on arbitration or force, but that doesn't change anything

Okay?

I was trying to emphasize that masculinity is just merely aggression, not really... "loyalty"

Well higher masculinity exhibit a disproportionate intolerance for submission to the state.

Men compose the ranks of authoritarian armies and police forces

Well, generally

The exceptions don't make rules when generalizing

Really only the CNT FAI's zones of control were true revolutions

.

That sounds like a feminist depiction of masculinity and is therefore wrong because it is feminist.

Though, I do agree that masculinity is not defined as loyalty towards one's authority. That's just silly.

Equating masculinity to being pro-state is just as correct as stating that masculinity is simply more violent.

I will say that masculinity is generally more driven and authoritative than femininity and usually renders less agreeableness

And yes, this could mean that men would be more driven to power

And that men can be more aggressive, but that isn't always the case.

You have Hilary Clinton for example.