REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A recent example of an RWA/Social Dominant leader...guess who?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 19:19
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1434
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Again from Bob Altemeyer of Manitoba University's book "The Authoritarians", at the end he offers a couple of examples of what he's been writing about. One of them interested me. You don't need to have read the book for this one, but knowing the definition of "right-wing authoritarian" and "social dominator" helps, and that Double High refers to a leader with both characteristics. Anyway, for your "amusement?":

Want another example of an apparent Double High in a position of power, who is also being destroyed because he went too far? When George W. Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election by the five Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, I remember some commentators saying that he had less of a mandate to carry out his policies than any president in American history. But I also thought, because I knew what was turning up in the research on social dominance, “Mandate-schmandate!” I could easily imagine the Bush team saying. “We’ve got the power now. Let’s do what we want! Who’s going to stop us?”

With eagerly subservient Republican majorities controlling both houses of Congress, Bush and his vice-president could do anything they wanted. And so they did. Greed ruled, the rich got big, big tax cuts, the environment took one body blow after another, religious opinions decided scientific issues, the country went to war, and so on. Bush and his allies had the political and military power to impose their will at home and abroad, it seemed, and they most decidedly used it.

A stunning, and widely overlooked example of the arrogance that followed streaked across the sky in 2002 when the administration refused to sign onto the International Criminal Court. This court was established by over a hundred nations, including virtually all of the United States’ allies, to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and so on when the country for whom they acted would not or could not do the prosecuting itself. It is a “court of last resort” in the human race’s defense against brutality.

Why on earth would the United States, as one of the conveners of the Nuremberg Trials and conceivers of the charge, “crimes against humanity,” want nothing to do with this agreement? The motivation did not become clear until later. But not only did America refuse to ratify the treaty, in 2002 Congress passed an act that allowed the United States to punish nations that did join in the international effort to prosecute the worst crimes anyone could commit! Talk about throwing your weight around, and in a way that insulted almost every friend you had on the planet.

But the social dominators classically overreached. Using military power in Iraq to “get Saddam” produced, not a shining democracy, but a lot of dead Americans, at least fifty times as many dead Iraqis, and the predicted civil war. The “war on terrorism” backfired considerably, as enraged Muslims around the world, with little or no connection to al-Qaida, formed their own “home-grown” terrorist cells bent on suicide attacks--especially after news of American atrocities in Iraq raced around the globe. Occupying Iraq tied down most of America’s mobile ground forces, preventing their use against the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan which had supported the 9/11 attacks, and making American troops easy targets in the kind of guerilla warfare that produces revenge-driven massacres within even elite units.

But the president, showing the usual dogmatism of Double Highs, seemingly refused to learn the lesson of his four-year adventure in Iraq, and that of the 2006 election, and compromise. Instead he moved unilaterally to increase troop strength.

The national debt, which was being paid down, will now burden Americans for generations as traditional conservative economic policy has been obliterated. Savaging human rights in the torture chambers Bush set up overseas has cost America its moral leadership in the world, when just a few years ago, after September 11th 2001, nation after nation, people after people, were its compassionate friends. Laws passed by Congress have been ignored through executive reinterpretation. The Constitution itself has been cast aside. The list goes on and on.

With corruption in Congress adding to their revulsion, independent and moderate voters gullied the Republican Party in the 2006 midterm election. How did the GOP fall so far so fast?

Power, the Holy Grail of social dominators, remains an almost uncontrollable two-headed monster. It can be used to destroy the holder’s most hated enemies, such as Saddam. But it often destroys the dominator in the process. Lord Acton put it succinctly with his famous statement that “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

When your life is a long power trip, it’s hard to get enough because it’s hard to get it all. And when a dominator does get power, we can’t be surprised if it is badly used. Social dominators do not use a moral compass to plot their plots--which is particularly ironic because in the case of Double Highs such as George W. Bush they seem to be so religious. But as we have seen, hypocrisy is practically their middle name. And the more power they have, the more disastrously they can hurt their country, their party, and themselves. It’s remarkable how often they do precisely that. ________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello,

I am no fan of the former President, but that write-up seems outrageously biased. I hope it's not part of any text that attempts a dispassionate study of social structures and psychology.

I wonder if there are any examples of successful leaders who do not exhibit these traits. It would be interesting to identify leaders presumed to be free from single or double 'highs' and study their practices to determine the accuracy of the presumption.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Really? I thought he chronicled what happened pretty well. Personally, I'm not so sure Bush wasn't an RWA, but Cheney the Social Dominant part of the twosome, letting Bush be the public face of the administration and wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. But we'll probably never know.

Exactly what did he write that is wrong? It's decidedly negative, and was written before Obama was elected, but I don't see any FACTS there which aren't by now accepted.

The book IS a study of a particular psychological mentality, but it's certainly not dispassionate. He's quite clear that he's worried about the rise of both the religious right and the hard-core right wing influence in our society. I happen to agree with him on that too, so maybe I don't see it the same.

As to leaders without either attribute, I dunno, I guess someone would have to do a search of known leaders from that perspective. I don't know how much the "authoritarian" "diagnosis" pertains to other times in history--certainly the "social dominance" theory would seem to hold from the dawn of time...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 11:59 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Niki,

I guess during my limited schooling, I obtained a distaste for texts which purport to analyze a topic, but ooze bias consistently throughout. It is possible to present only facts, but to color those facts with your bias and to ignore or fail to consider any contraindicative facts. Hence, not factually wrong, but wrong as an instrument of science (in my opinion.)

I recently read a book called Empire of Trust written by a historian. He attempts to present Rome as an Empire of Trust, and compare it to the United States as another Empire of Trust. The man uses verifiable facts consistently throughout his text, and makes strong arguments. However, it is blindingly obvious that the text is heavily biased. It analyzes each point of evidence from the standpoint of proving the author's conclusions, rather than allowing the evidence to declare its own conclusions. The author also marginalizes or fails to mention evidence that may enable the reader to arrive at any but the pre-determined destination.

It happens that I agree with many of the author's conclusions, but that I cannot accept his overall premise as a gift of whole cloth.

When a scientific or academic text behaves in this way, it is important to know that it is a propaganda piece spouting the author's point of view and concerns. Propaganda is not itself a dirty word. Propaganda can be true. The propaganda may contain only facts. But the bright paint of bias alerts me that the author has not struggled to analyze the work dispassionately and let the evidence speak for itself. I raise the hackles of caution when I see that, and wonder what evidence has been overlooked or ill considered in the journey to the pre-determined answer.

--Anthony


"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 12:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sorry...given the experiments, trials, and other things by both he and others in the field, I don't find what the book has to say as even slightly propaganda. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm a fairly critical reader myself and relatively immune to propaganda because I check things out from several sources. This doesn't fit.

Just out of curiosity, have you READ the book we've been discussing?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 1:02 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

No, Niki, I've only read what you've posted.

However, since this book's topic now consists of the majority of the front page threads of the day, I hope you're not going to suggest that this subject was meant to appeal only to readers of said book.

I have no doubt that your writer's material is backed by large amounts of research, but when the text includes phrases like 'astonishing arrogance' then that text is indeed propaganda on par with a Fox news report.

Again, do not assume that propaganda can't be true. There is anti-smoking propaganda that is very factual, for instance. It is backed by vast amounts of scientific data and reporting. And it tends to be emotional in its presentation.

In the small bit of information you posted above, I detected the tone common to highly biased reporting. No challenging of assumptions, no analysis of alternate explanations. No, merely a stating of facts followed by an interpretation that grasps first, and only, at the desired conclusion- Flavored with imaginative prose and subjective statements.

Not an academic text, even if it is supported by academics. Not with the tone you've presented here, as a representative example. Or perhaps it's not representative at all?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 1:28 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Again from Bob Altemeyer of Manitoba University's book "The Authoritarians", at the end he offers a couple of examples of what he's been writing about.


Interesting that his examples are Nazis and Bush, ignoring the much greater bodycounts of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. But he does mention Socialist authoritarians in Chapter 1.

Quote:
I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s
Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago.


Ah, whacky Socialists. Good times, those.

Once again, not saying that there can't be Conservative religious/political authoritarian social dominators. Just saying authoritarian social dominators can come from most any political direction.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 2:09 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nik

I think you read about 20,000 wpm, and type a similar speed. I suspect if I just read everything you posted it would keep me busy all day.

Just try to bear that in mind. I have about 10,000 books that are on my to-read list that I haven't found the time for.

People should be allowed to discuss topics with a fairly minimal investment. On this board I've noticed that evolution weeds out ignorance, so I don't worry about it too much.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 4:00 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The book IS a study of a particular psychological mentality, but it's certainly not dispassionate. He's quite clear that he's worried about the rise of both the religious right and the hard-core right wing influence in our society. I happen to agree with him on that too, so maybe I don't see it the same.


Niki2,

Okay, now that I've finished the book, I'm gonna give my opinion, and it'll most likely piss you off. Nevertheless, here goes.

This is a Liberal feel-good book...in the same way that any of the garbage Ann Coulter writes is a Conservative feel-good book. It has more of a veneer of scientific objectivity about it, but it's designed to push all of any Liberals oh-yeah buttons, just like Coulter writes her books to push Conservatives buttons.

It 'proves' all those 'truths' that Liberals like to think about Conservatives. They're this, they're that, they're the other. It uses surveys and tests which have questions only a Conservative would react to and then determines that, surprise, "only Conservatives react to these questions". Of course Liberals would love this book, it re-enforces all their preconceptions and prejudices. It provides Liberals with that warm and fuzzy feeling of being told they're absolutely right.

It makes sure to compare Bush to Nazis, but completely fails to mention some of the deadliest Authoritarian leaders and systems of the past century - those of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao - and dismisses authoritarian Socialism/Communism as a Monty Python sketch.

Not only that, it's not as funny as Coulter's books, crap that they are content-wise.

Once again, though it'll do no good, this does not mean that I don't realize that there can be and are conservative authoritarians, I just don't think Prof. Altemeyer's book even comes close to trying to give a complete picture of Authoritarian systems, and panders to a Liberal audience.

I'll be hiding out back for a while now.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 4, 2009 4:55 PM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer,

Thanks for the review. I thought that was fairly objective and thoughtful, and as someone without enough free time and a large number of books stacked up, it would have taken me time to get to this.

I can't comment contentwise, but just a few thoughts in manner of presentation:
1. There's a slight self defeatist attitude. General communication's concept: don't be your own detractor.
2. I don't find Coulter funny, but that may be because I'm angry at her for presenting very poorly what's sometimes a good case, and also being a very easy target.
3. On Nazis, Godwin's law aside, National Socialist is still socialist. The Nazis I might point out lost a democratic election to the conservatives.

That said, I wanted to share this comment from a liberal friend on socialism, and I wish I could remember the source, but it was a socialist writing that essentially: Socialism needs to masquerade in other parties which can then defer to socialist think tanks to gain power, because no sane populous would ever vote socialists into power directly.

That's a very telling statement, and he went on to say that the writer clearly and truly believed that socialism was right, and didn't need popular approval in order to go ahead.


On authoritarian systems overall, I think it's a complex issue, but not a left-right one. Left and right are artificial constructs that change over time, and just reflect a social division which is also artificially created.

I tend to think of it more in terms of "The right clings to 'the old ways are best' and left clings to 'the new ways are best'."

Past that, it's hard to say. Sure, there's no more appalling system than socialism, I think I've said that a number of times on this board, and people know I'm not a great fan of capitalism either, as it's very biased in favor inheritance over social contribution.

Some times I agree with positions of the left, usually I'm more in agreement with those on the right, but again, those change. The new right is further from me on some issues, and probably overall further.

I don't care for the interventionist policy, or the hyper-militarism, about which I'd say we're becoming the USSR in this sense. Anyone remember Reagan slamming the Soviets for their defense spending? His point was that any society that is totally consumed with defense would neglect its own people. The US defense budget is threatening to be in that position.

The left seems to me to be even more dispersed than the right in terms of its position. There are a lot of people who have some rosy vision of socialism which doesn't resemble the real thing. Both sides have an attachment to a set of ideas that aren't all that consist with one another. I feel a suspicion to a lot of leftist politics because I felt that I was indoctrinated into them in college classes that I took which told 1/2 of the story, and then later learned the rest.

Also, just a side comment about the recent political debates, even though this is off topic, but I think slightly relevent. I've come to conclusion that this is a sockpuppet debate. The proponents of administration policy are posing as their own opposition and deliberately sabotaging this position. I haven't looked into this in detail, and really don't care to, but this is just what it looks like.


Niki,

I'm going to start a new thread to try out an idea. If brevity is the soul of wit than my own posts could use some editing, but I want to try something out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:25 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Anthony: I tried to distill the text into some of what we were discussing, but yes, he does question what he's found and tried several different experiments to see if he got the same results.

I can't speak to whether the experiments were sufficient or not, but from what I saw, he tried to weigh things evenly to discern the outcome, and it verified the findings of high and low authoritarianism traits.

There was a lot of humor which I cut out, and he stated every time that everyone has most of these traits in one proportion or another, it was just that the subjects he deemed high authoritarian followers had them to such a dramatic extent. He also caveated each experiment by reminding us that HIS tests were done on university students and their parents, so were only valid insofar as that.

I guess you'd have to read the whole book to get a true picture of it. But you'd also have to read it with an open mind, because yes, he is biased insofar as believing that authoritarianism is, for the most part, a negative thing (tho' he also lists the good things about it). As well, he reminds several times that this is not a scientific treates, but a psychological theory backed by his experiments and those of others he described.

So I can't speak further to the issue unless you read it. Again, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Geezer, yes, I've always agreed (and so does he) that authoritarianism is possible in ANY culture, and he mentions extreme liberalist cultures several times in the book to remind us of that. But I also agree with his positing that, given authoritarianism is attractive to TRADITIONAL values, in America at this time, traditional values of marriage, racism, bigotry, religion, etc., are far more often the traditional values of the right, not the left, so that it would appear in the thinking of those groups would be more prevalent.

I also think that, in a democracy, there is less chance of authoritarianism ruling the culture, given that too much of either side's authoritarianism being in power naturally results in the other side's push-back and a change in power. Also I think our educational and social system makes for more low-RWAs than high for the most part.

Dream, yeah, I know...there are some subjects I find so fascinating I get going on them and don't know how to stop, and of course I post lonnnng...this is the first place I've been where others post even SLIGHTLY as long as I do, and it's joy unbounded for me.

Don't get me started on Bush, organized religion, pedophiles, abusers (of animals, children or otherwise), Afghanistan or a few other subjects, or I'll NEVER stop! I love exchanges with people of differing opinions, as I've said often before, and discussions about other people, where they live, their pets, their lives, so just about anything can get me going. (rolls eyes)

Ah, Geezer, you read it. Goodie--no, I have no problem with you seeing it the way you do, like I said, I love a good debate. I can see several of your points, and I'm more than freely give you that he's biased, as you will have read that he sees authoritarianism AS IT EXISTS IN AMERICA TODAY, as a big threat.

Yes, he didn't go into LEFTIST authoritarianism; he noted it's existence, but didn't deal with it for the above reasons, and because it most often (I believe) appens in other societies, which he can't test.

For all I know you may be right, given I'm currently democrat-oriented; I would like to hear from others who read it besides you and Anthony to see if they got the same impression. It would be interesting to see if ALL the right-leaning and left-leaning among us felt the same; that it reinforced what the left believes and is dismissed by the right. That would be illuminating.

We can agree to disagree, doesn't mean I'll hunt you down and beat you up (although... ). YOu haven't changed my mind, but you've made me determined to read it again and see if I see what you do.

Dream, I gotta go look for your new post (oh goodie!). As to
Quote:
Socialism needs to masquerade in other parties which can then defer to socialist think tanks to gain power, because no sane populous would ever vote socialists into power directly
all I can say is "hmmmm" until I think on it more!
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I have no doubt that your writer's material is backed by large amounts of research, but when the text includes phrases like 'astonishing arrogance' then that text is indeed propaganda on par with a Fox news report.

Again, do not assume that propaganda can't be true. There is anti-smoking propaganda that is very factual, for instance. It is backed by vast amounts of scientific data and reporting. And it tends to be emotional in its presentation.

In the small bit of information you posted above, I detected the tone common to highly biased reporting. No challenging of assumptions, no analysis of alternate explanations. No, merely a stating of facts followed by an interpretation that grasps first, and only, at the desired conclusion- Flavored with imaginative prose and subjective statements.


Y'know, Hitler and the Nazis are kind of victims of the same type of bias - nobody ever seems to want to point out any of the GOOD things that came out of the Third Reich, like our interstate highway system and the birth of the ICBM and cruise missiles...

Relax. I'm just playing. But it's also worthwhile to point out that when it comes to authoritarian despots and their followers, often it becomes rather impossible to defend their "good" sides, because the bad deeds so inordinately outweigh any good they may have done for mankind.

Few people ever really point out how much Napoleon did for the waistcoat industry, for example...



Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 1:31 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay, I've given it some thought, and re-read some of thebook. I don't want to re-read the whole thing, and so I concede that some of what you said is true, that by his choice of wording, he geared the "RWA" scale more to the right.

On the other hand:
Quote:
In North America people who submit to the established authorities to extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or happy or grumpy or dopey.

You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the 1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities, Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago. Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers” in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA scale.
There he is freely saying there could be as many left-wing authoritarian followers--and he says it numerous places as well. The fact is that in America today, most authoritarian followers ARE right-wing, because that has been the "authority" in power, they are the traditionalists and the conservatives, the more prejudiced and willing to be aggressive against what they consider "others", and so forth.

I looked at his RWA scale, and I see I changed it wrong last time. One could use buzz words from the left just as easily, and I think it would still yield the same results--mainly, show which have a higher tendency to AGGRESSIVELY want to defeat those they disagree with. I think I got it right this time:

Quote:
___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the conservatives and hypocrisy that are ruining us.
___ 4. Religious conservatives are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds
___ 6. Right wingers who have advocated established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who are not part of any organized religion.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to cling to our
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading conservative ideas.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with honest evangelical preachers.
___ 9. Our country needs conservative people who have the courage to hold to their beliefs, even if this upsets many people.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the lies eating away at our President and his policies.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, political beliefs, and religious preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 12. Progress and new ideas show the best way to live.
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the liberal view by protesting against abortion, flag burning, or advocate school prayer.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush rabid right wingers, and lead us forward on a true path.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are questioning our President, advocating religion, and ignoring the way things should be done.”
___ 16. Science and the right to abortion, political freedom and same-sex marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who can’t accept them must be strongly punished.
___ 17. There are many conservative, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own religious purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be in the home. The days when women are independent of their husbands and social conventions should be left behind.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we fix government and follow new ideas, do what the administration tells us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 21. Evangelicals and conservatives should be praised for being brave enough to hold onto the old family values.
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s minority place in society.
Skipping #1 & 2, as he said, I think it would show a left-wing authoritarian follower just as the original would show right-wing follwers. It's hard to do, because "traditional" belongs to the Republicans, but I think I came close.

It should be easy to see how leftists (if I and another are examples) would reject even things we agreed with because of the aggression proposed, so I think it would still show a lower authoritarian FOLLOWER score.

There are other examples I could point out where he had caveats and mentioned that most people have these attributes in one form or another, it's that authoritarian followers have them to a MUCH HIGHER degree.

I don't think it's as slanted as you do. I think the "slant" has to do with the fact that, at least in America today, authoritarian followers ARE most often right wingers. You'd have to have a society which had been left wing for a long time for left-wing values to be the "tradition", which is one of the main aspects of authoritarian followers: that they AGGRESSIVELY defend traditional values.

I saw no "stating of facts followed by an interpretation that grasps first, and only, at the desired conclusion". I saw a question posed, tests to discover the answers, and conclusions drawn from the results of those tests. I freely grant you the "imaginative prose and subjective statements", but I think things such as "astonishing arrogance" are perfectly valid, when the arrogance is indeed so great as to be astonishing.

I believe your viewpoint is what makes it seem biased to you, not the book itself. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As to Geezer's opinions, I reject them out of hand--I think HIS viewpoint is so slanted he's incapable of even slight objectivity in reading anything negative about right-wing authoritarian followers.
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 1:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


___ 3. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the conservatives and hypocrisy that are ruining us. No.

___ 4. Religious conservatives are just as healthy and moral as anybody else. Yes.(and just as unhealthy and immoral)
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people’s minds. No.
___ 6. Right wingers who have advocated established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who are not part of any organized religion. Yes.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to cling to our
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading conservative ideas. No.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with honest evangelical preachers. Yes.
___ 9. Our country needs conservative people who have the courage to hold to their beliefs, even if this upsets many people. Yes.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the lies eating away at our President and his policies. No.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, political beliefs, and religious preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else. Yes.
___ 12. Progress and new ideas show the best way to live. Yes and No. ;)
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the liberal view by protesting against abortion, flag burning, or advocate school prayer. "Admire"? No. Respect, yes.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush rabid right wingers, and lead us forward on a true path. No.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are questioning our President, advocating religion, and ignoring the way things "should be done.” Yes.
___ 16. Science and the right to abortion, political freedom and same-sex marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who can’t accept them must be strongly punished. No.
___ 17. There are many conservative, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own religious purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action. No.
___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be in the home. The days when women are independent of their husbands and social conventions should be left behind. No.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we fix government and follow new ideas, do what the administration tells us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything. No.
___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way. Yes.
___ 21. Evangelicals and conservatives should be praised for being brave enough to hold onto the old family values. No. (They shouldn't be castigated for it, either)
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group’s minority place in society. No.



Okay, I tried to do it with a straight face, but that last question just about got me. Because, y'know, there ARE "certain groups of troublemakers" right now who would probably help things by shutting up and accepting their loser status in the latest elections...

Still, I don't want them to shut up - only to quiet down so that the rest of us can talk, too. It's not really a conversation if one side just shouts every time you try to speak, is it?

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:23 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Okay; there's a complex scoring system, but it's not really necessary, especially since we're only "playing" with it.

The idea, to me, was that an autho (I'll use that for authoritarian follower, it's too much to keep typing) would EXCLUDE "others", find nothing positive in those with opposing viewpoints to theirs, and AGGRESSIVELY attack those who disagree with their principles.

Now, I'm just guessing from some of your remarks, but I would bet:

3. Since it's worded as "mighty leader" and "destroy", you rejected it on those grounds.
4. A lefty autho wouldn't agree that their opposite number was healthy and moral.
5. Given that right now, government is left and the rabble-rousers are right, you still didn't agree--possibly because "trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government"?
6. See 4.
7. See 3: "tough leaders" "silence"--aggressive terms. I.e., you don't want to force your views on your opponents, or have a tough leader do it for you.
8. See 4.
9. You're willing to accept both sides are necessary?
10. Again, I'm betting "destroyed" and "smash" turned you off, nor do you believe the country would be destroyed by opposition-thinkers/actors.
11. You're willing to let everyone think for themselves.
12. Thinking which accepts there is more than one way.
13. "Admire" is an emotional/follower word.
14. See 3; "crush"
15. You agree with your opposition having the right to protest.
16. See 3: "strictly followed", "strongly punished".
17. See 3: "put out of action".
18. It originally read: "A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past." That would elicit a "no" from the a right-wing autho follower; the reverse did the same from you.
19. "Do what the administration tells us to do" and "get rid of" rotten apples...did those turn you off?
20. I didn't change that from the original, because the test is if you'd be an autho FOLLOWER, in which case you WOULD think there's only one right way: your way.
21. The original was "Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional family values. While you didn't think they should be "praised" (autho follower trigger word), you wouldn't castigate them either.
22. Again unchanged--and tricky. If you were thinking "minority" was the leftists, that's different than if you thought the "rightists" were the troublemakers, and didn't want to quash them. Oh, wait, I just went back to your post--you DID interpret it as the left being the troublemakers IN THE TEST. But even considering the right to be the troublemakers, you didn't want them to "shut up" (the trigger word)

See where it goes? It's not about left and right, buzz words can be used for either...it's about how open to the positive aspects of those you disagree with you are, and how AGGRESSIVELY you would stifle them, if at all.

Again, I'm no expert, but I'd say that was the score of a non-autho follower. I don't know if you're left or right (tho' I think you're kind of left?), but EITHER WAY you're answers, if based on the autho-follower trigger words, show a non-authoritarian follower (or Low RWA).

Thus, I don't think the test is slanted right--yes, it has buzz words, but I tried to reverse THAT aspect of it with left buzz words--it's about how willing a blind follower one is, how much one hates "the other side", how aggressively one would be willing to stifle them, etc.

What do you think? Is my interpretation of the concept, and of your responses, right?

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:30 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Nik, I'm a warped, twisted individual. The only belief I want to force on anyone is the belief that you can't force your beliefs on anyone. And the only thing I'm intolerant of is intolerance. I'm fortified with irony.

I make a lousy follower, and a lousy leader. My way of leading? "Quit following me, because I don't know where I'm going!"



And yes, your interpretation of how I came to my answers is pretty damned accurate. Trigger words like "force" and "punish" DO indeed set off my spidey senses and raise my hackles. I hear "Because I said so," and I'm up for a fight in a hearbeat. Anything you feel is so important that people should just blindly obey you, is something so important enough that no one should just blindly obey. If it's that important, it's important enough for me to deserve an explanation.

You see why I was never going to fit in in the military, yes? (And yes, that actually WAS a discussion I had with my dad, the career-military man, and in the end he pleaded with me NOT to join, lest they beat every ounce of inquisitive thought out of me)

Quote:
I don't know if you're left or right (tho' I think you're kind of left?)...


Just "kind of"?


Yeah, I'm a *little* bit left-leaning. Where Americans look at Reagan as this model of conservatism and Obama as some sort of mad socialist radical bolshevik, I look at Obama as leaning about half an inch to the left of Reagan, and about thirty-seven miles to the right of me.

But I *DO* enjoy my guns.

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 2:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


My daily scan through the BBC World News site found another posible recent example of a RWA/Social Dominant leader.

Quote:
Tens of thousands of people have marched through the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in rival demonstrations for and against President Hugo Chavez.

Opponents held a rally against what they called the president's growing authoritarianism.

They were concerned about an education law they fear could lead to socialist indoctrination in schools.

Meanwhile, one government minister told Chavez supporters that 29 more radio stations would be closed, reports said.

The radio closures are part of a continuing campaign against what the government considers to be right-wing media, with 34 stations already closed down.
(emphasis mine)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8240188.stm

Hey, if it looks like a duck...



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Interesting. I wonder how many "left-wing" newspapers have been "closed down" here in the U.S. lately? Was that done by the "authoritarians" in control?

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:50 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Interesting. I wonder how many "left-wing" newspapers have been "closed down" here in the U.S. lately? Was that done by the "authoritarians" in control?

Mike



You could find out, and let us all know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 6:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I dunno, Geezer, I can't get enough information from the article to decide, but he might well be. But what you posted doesn't prove it:

"Authoritarian" can be used in many different ways aside from "RWA/Social Dominant leader".

Yes, his desire to return to "traditional" teachings in schools might be a good sign of an RWA/Social Dominant leader, but as for "indoctrination" in schools, isn't that just what Obama's accused of presently, because of one question in an entire speech? Would have to know more--tho' I grant my original statement.

Closure of radio stations is certainly the move of an RWA/Social Dominant leader, stifling the opposition by force...but these alone aren't enough.

Maybe we should ask him to fill out the questionnaires?

Is it important to you to find left-wing RWA/Social Dominant leaders? That seems to be part of your ongoing argument, so I'm curious. Do YOU think Bush doesn't come under the heading? Also curious.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 7:00 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think Geezer believes, as I do, that shitheels come in all stripes, colors, flavors, and textures.

I think Geezer is concerned, as I am, that if people fail to realize this, then they will overlook shitheels that are issued in the stripes, colors, flavors, and textures where they are not supposed to exist.

Further, Geezer might be worried, as I find myself worried, that if a particular stripe, color, flavor, or texture is exclusively associated with shitheels, then there might be discrimination or bias against those in that category.

I could, of course, be mistaken.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Interesting. I wonder how many "left-wing" newspapers have been "closed down" here in the U.S. lately? Was that done by the "authoritarians" in control?

Mike



You could find out, and let us all know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"


What would be the point? You'd just claim that when a paper is shut down under a fascist regime in THIS country, it just proves that capitalism works, and is the very bestest system ever created by God. When a radio station fails in a socialist country, it MUST be because it was shut down by "thugs", though.

Right?

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My daily scan through the BBC World News site found another posible recent example of a RWA/Social Dominant leader.

Quote:
Tens of thousands of people have marched through the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in rival demonstrations for and against President Hugo Chavez.

Opponents held a rally against what they called the president's growing authoritarianism.

They were concerned about an education law they fear could lead to socialist indoctrination in schools.

Meanwhile, one government minister told Chavez supporters that 29 more radio stations would be closed, reports said.

The radio closures are part of a continuing campaign against what the government considers to be right-wing media, with 34 stations already closed down.
(emphasis mine)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8240188.stm

Hey, if it looks like a duck...



"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hey, if it looks like a duck and cover...


"...But Chavez!"

That's really getting old, Geezer. Is that the only argument you can make?



Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 9:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I dunno, Geezer, I can't get enough information from the article to decide, but he might well be. But what you posted doesn't prove it:

True. That's why I described Pres. Chavez as a "possible" A/SD leader. The article shows items that are troubling, but not enough detail to come to any conclusions.
Quote:
Maybe we should ask him to fill out the questionnaires?
I'd like to see that myself.
Quote:
Yes, his desire to return to "traditional" teachings in schools might be a good sign of an RWA/Social Dominant leader...
Not sure if teaching the "Bolivarian Doctrine" is traditional. Really kind'a hard to get a line on exactly what the Bolivarian doctrine/revolution/movement is from a quick web search.
Quote:
...but as for "indoctrination" in schools, isn't that just what Obama's accused of presently, because of one question in an entire speech?
Yep. And it's pretty silly. Pres. Chavez, however, is including his ideology, by law, in Venezuelan schools.
Quote:
Closure of radio stations is certainly the move of an RWA/Social Dominant leader, stifling the opposition by force...but these alone aren't enough.

But is it enough to make you look farther?
Quote:
Is it important to you to find left-wing RWA/Social Dominant leaders? That seems to be part of your ongoing argument, so I'm curious.
I think it's important to realize that RWA/Social Dominant leaders can come from most any part of the political spectrum. Prof. Altemeyer has done a fine job of pointing out the Religious/Political Conservative ones, so I figure the Marxist/Leftist,etc. side should get its exposure too.
Quote:
Do YOU think Bush doesn't come under the heading? Also curious.

Authoritarian - most probably. Social Dominant? I don't see him whipping up the crowds with his personality or rhetoric. Maybe we could give him the test too?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 1:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
I don't see him whipping up the crowds with his personality or rhetoric.

Then you ain't payin attention - the mans whole rise to power was practically cult of personality, chapter and verse.

He's also a bloody wonderful case for how power corrupts, cause he went straight down that path step by step - and we even foolishly gave him a "foreign threat" to rally folk against with our endless tax-funded threats, provocations, and outright coup attempts, without which he'd have a harder time of stuff like that - but now all he has to do is accuse em of being backed by our black baggers and he can come down on anyone he pleases.

Gee, more brilliant strategy from the State Dept of the type that kept Castro (you forgot him too, if you wanna talk about left-leaning strongarms) in power - although one could make the case they're doing it to give THEM a "foreign threat" to rally us against, a perfect storm of push-me-pull-you politics.

MOST left-leaning strongarms do it on cult of personality rather than the measures right-leaning ones do, which gives them a slight edge when things start going to hell cause they can parlay that faith into trust by people who should know better.

I've refrained from comment here cause admitting using some of those social dominance methods kinda makes me look a bit like a goon, but yes, there ARE anarchist demagogues, and I think whoever said that had a specific one in mind when they did, so I might as well cop to it.

Thing is, a social dominant does not necessarily HAVE to use coercion, of any kind - persuasion and psychological exploitation is very damned effective in it's own right.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 2:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Addition, from reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
S'funny, as apparently my variation is completely inverse.
(Absolutely Not on 1-8, Absolutely Yes on 9-16)

I wonder what one WOULD call this same scheme from a reversed polarity.. anyone ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Then you ain't payin attention - the mans whole rise to power was practically cult of personality, chapter and verse.

Don't think so. I'd consider him a not-too-dramatic point around which various brands of conservatives - religious right, old cold warriors, fiscal conservative - could coalesce; specifically because he was so non-charismatic that any type of conservative could see him as their boy.
Quote:
Gee, more brilliant strategy from the State Dept of the type that kept Castro (you forgot him too, if you wanna talk about left-leaning strongarms) in power...
Didn't forget. He's too many folks fair-haired boy to bring it up.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Addition, from reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation
S'funny, as apparently my variation is completely inverse.
(Absolutely Not on 1-8, Absolutely Yes on 9-16)

I wonder what one WOULD call this same scheme from a reversed polarity.. anyone ?

-F


Funny - I got the same result. Looks like we're brothers from another mother...

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:52 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Don't think so. I'd consider him a not-too-dramatic point around which various brands of conservatives - religious right, old cold warriors, fiscal conservative - could coalesce; specifically because he was so non-charismatic that any type of conservative could see him as their boy.


Geezer and I might have a nugget of agreement on this one.

I viewed Bush the same exact way I see Palin - a completely empty vessel, and as such, the neo-cons' perfect wet dream. They can take those heads and fill them up with ANYTHING, and they'll walk out and spew the gibberish they've been crammed with with all the vigor of a vicar.

Bush gets the CREDIT as being the "real" authoritarian-in-chief for the last 8 years, but my feeling is that he was merely the figurehead, and had no more desire to invade Iraq or Afghanistan than he did to read War and Peace. Nope, HE was the one being coerced, by the ACTUAL authoritarians, people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Feith.

Still, Bush was the face of his administration, so his is the face that has some 'splainin' to do on the whole mess he made of Mesopotamia.

Mike


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nah, Frem, I think this is a loaded list. You're supposed to say no to 1-8 and yes to 9-16.

The list is very redundant as well.

3. is iffy, because saying "it's not OK" is a potential justification of social intervention on that grounds. I'd say intervention on the grounds of oppression is okay if your info is good.

This came up recently re: guatamalan orphans, many of whom were actually stolen. The majority opinion was "but that doesn't matter because their life would be so much better in america" I was in the dissenting group that said "you can't really have any idea what Guatamala will be like in 20 years, or America, there's a lot of assumption there, presumption... I think 3 is a slippery slope towards white man's burden.

5 is probably true (nazis? zionists?) but not a damned thing you can do about it, on a non interventionist position I'll say no.


12 is also potentially interventionist, it could justify a lot of things, including the Iraq war.

16 is probably the key. No group should dominate.

The problem is that this list is a shallow ideal. Realism would indicate that some groups *will* dominate, and it's better to plan for that eventuality with some defensive measure than to just idealistically hold that it *shouldn't* happen.

I still hold the theory is bogus. In my experience most group-minded individuals tend to become separatists like the Amish, and not Nazis. Most domination is based on a believed necessity, and a belief in a greater good, and an inculcated fear of any other result.

I think the machiavellian model is pretty straightforward:

1. The agenda is for the greater good.
2. The agenda will not take place without intervention of some kind
3. If the agenda fails, the results will be catastrophic
4. We cannot endure the catastrophy, so the success of the agenda is paramount, its need absolute
5. Given that the agenda prevents evil and helps the greater good and that it is absolutely essential, then any price is acceptable to pay in order for it to be enacted. I.e., If we don't act, the world will be destroyed; so if through our actions we destroy 1/2 the world, that could be acceptable if it is our only course of action.

This is the sort of logic that carried the people through to the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.

IMHO, this idea that the evil are somehow different from us in their values is probably misplaced. They differ in their methods, and how far they are willing to go. They also differ in their degree of certainty. The above logic falls apart if you have doubt on some level.

My friend who was visiting is an EU/UN expert on WWII, and he was explaining to me the step by step dynamics of the holocaust. He was certain that the resulting catastrophe initially envisioned was the deportation of 600,000 jews to either Israel or Russia, and that this was unacceptable, as was the concept of an independent socialist state, or and independent Imperial Japan.

Part of the problem with the machiavellian dogooder is a myopic world view. No one envision the holocaust, a war with russia that would dwarf the holocaust, or Mao Tse Dong who would dwarf the whole war on both sides. Which is not intended as an apology for any of the actions of brutal regimes, but we certainly made things worse, rather than better. Still, we were convinced, as allies, that our actions were not just warranted, but absolutely essential to the survival of million, and for the greater good.

I just suggested to him today that if the empire had not been dissolved in 1919, we might live in a very different world, perhaps with no WWII.

It all gets very complicated, but I think the simple answer is: we don't know. it's presumptuous to think that we do. It's easy to predict some things, but as systems get larger, more complex, only the arrogant presume to know everything. I'm much more of a relative than absolute thinker, I don't accept "because we don't know we can't act" but there is a point at which we should be humbled by our lack of knowledge.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:33 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike, I mostly agree, Bush as puppet, but I think there were some puppeteers further down the line.


But I have to say Feith?!?!

Douglas Feith is our evil mastermind?

The quotes of people in the dept on Feith are just priceless. I can't find the video now, but there's an awesome clip of Colin Powell saying of Feith:

"Of Feith, I can say, Seldom have I met...
[long pause, looking for a better word]
... a dumber man"

OTOH, looking at the result, it could very well have been a Feith-based initiative.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:00 PM

BYTEMITE


I don't remember anyone else talking about anarchist demagogues, so I think that was me on another thread, unless I'm mistaken.

I don't think you're a demagogue. I think sometimes the way you talk about your minions is a little alarming, but then, no person can do everything themselves, and I'm positive that a lot of that is dark humour.

When I talk about things like that, I usually mean activities like sending a sacrificial lamb out to the slaughter, stuff that'll rob people of their lives or livelyhood without their realizing what they're being sent into. Or as an alternative, being so blinded by a personality cult that they give those things up without thinking. Both are forms of abuse, a betrayal of trust.

I've really only heard you relate accounts of people who were willing, knew what they were getting into, and when you sent them out, you weren't sending them out expecting them to fail... Except, perhaps, as a learning opportunity with no long term damage. Which while also a little alarming, is somewhat understandable considering the dangerous nature of the work you do. Sometimes the lion has to drop it's cubs off a cliff, to see which ones are strong and smart enough to climb back up.


=========================================
Summary/conclusion:

Frem = not demagogue, I think.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 5:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Miss Bytemyte:

Yes, there's a lot of dark humor, sometimes taken to a psychotic degree, far enough to make other people cringe and shudder.
Quote:
When I talk about things like that, I usually mean activities like sending a sacrificial lamb out to the slaughter, stuff that'll rob people of their lives or livelyhood without their realizing what they're being sent into. Or as an alternative, being so blinded by a personality cult that they give those things up without thinking. Both are forms of abuse, a betrayal of trust.

Umm, you DO know that I have a penchant for winding up some other RWA/Personality Cult's "drones" and more or less marching them off a cliff to unknowingly fulfill MY agendas, right ?
I do believe this qualifies, and it would be completely dishonest to deny something I've already admitted doing.

No, I don't do it to my own, but I *will* do it, because once someone has handed over their entire cognition and motivation to the point where they are no longer in control of their own life - are they really even "human" anymore ?
To me... no - and I guess that would also qualify as me considering them "Other", wouldn't it ?

And while one could make the rationalization that by giving their consent to be manipluated by a collective, it implies consent to be manipulated in the first place, but I don't hold with that, such rationalizations are dangerous cause they blind the user to the blood on their own hands, and I will not do it.
Eyes wide open, all the way - even if some folk consider that worse.


Lemme give you an analogy here, not to justify anythin, cause it don't, but for the same of understanding the basic principles.

Some punk kid (RWA leader) is using an RC car(pack of drones) to harrass some old ladies drinking tea(populace).

Being the typical coward-bully that sort is, of course they are doing it from concealment and thus cannot be connected to the harrassment personally, especially since the first thing they'll do is abandon the RC car(drones) if the game goes south on them.

So then some enterprising jackass(me) also working from concealment, applies a booster to their own remote(pyschological exploitation), overrides the signal, and sends the RC car(drones) out into traffic(political flow) thus getting it destroyed and causing a snarl with some pissed off folk about it.

Now the punk(RWA) is up a creek, he's been stripped of his tool, the RC car(drones) and not only has he no idea who did it to him, he cannot take direct action without revealing himself - and so he goes to the store(hellcamps) to get another RC car(set of drones) only to find the place has been shut down and boarded up.

Thus he must then find ANOTHER store(public school, juvenile justice, church) and they are not likely to have the model he's looking for so he will have to settle for one less efficient(not as easy to program) and less effective(not unquestioningly obedient) which opens up new avenues of tactics to use against him.

Sooner or later he's either gonna run out of RC cars(drone collectives) and have to take the field himself, or most likely make a mistake, punks(RWAs) have a low tolerance for frustration of their agendas and lack the internal consistency and discipline to cover every base, every time - although there are exceptions to the rule, like Rumsfeld and Kissinger, who are damn dangerous for it, and hated passionately by me for that very reason.

So, eventually the punk(RWA) breaks cover, at which point I can simply beam a spotlight(media) on him without exposing myself, giving a target for the disrupted traffic(political flow) and the old ladies(populace) ire, who given human nature won't question where the spotlight came from too deeply cause they'll be busy kicking someones ass about the situation.

Or, I could handle the matter discreetely, like with a 2x4 from behind in a dark alley somewhere, a mugging gone all wrong, just one more file to lose in the pile, oh-what-tragedy for like, 12 hours at the very most.
And if one is skeptical of that, look just how fast Larry Frankel dropped off the radar, despite a seriously suspicious set of circumstances that don't quite add up - a mugging gone bad wouldn't go any further, and now it's back to your bread and circuses after the commercial break...

Anyhows, that's how it goes, and sure, any way you slice it the RC car(drones) takes a damn beating in the process, doesn't it ?

While the primary goal of crushing the hellcamps and other establishment that psychologically damage our youth before reach adulthood and can legally refuse, has been the redemption of us as a people and society if at all possible - the secondary goal has always, ALWAYS been to deprive the types we're talking about of troops.

Without their little brownshirt hordes, without folk who will listen to em, take their orders, these guys are just one more asshole with a big mouth, something the world has quite a sufficiency of, none of whom are any kind of threat beyond the range of their individual voice.

Good generals study tactics, GREAT generals study logistics.

Cut off their damn supply lines, then encourage their troops to desert, defect or surrender - this is SOP for any kind of engagement.
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec08/spplyline_war.html

Although I could take Welborn to pieces cause while groups in the past have used supply line warfare, and have used pysops, and have used comm security and exploitation - few if any have ever formulated a seamless combined arms tactical approach to USING them simultaneously.

Anyone wishing to debate the effectiveness of such should go take a long hard look at the empty buildings where Pathway used to be before offering comment.

-Frem

PS...
ProTip: Don't take me for a nice person, never ever, it's a mistake.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 6:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike, I mostly agree, Bush as puppet, but I think there were some puppeteers further down the line.


But I have to say Feith?!?!

Douglas Feith is our evil mastermind?

The quotes of people in the dept on Feith are just priceless. I can't find the video now, but there's an awesome clip of Colin Powell saying of Feith:

"Of Feith, I can say, Seldom have I met...
[long pause, looking for a better word]
... a dumber man"

OTOH, looking at the result, it could very well have been a Feith-based initiative.


Oh, I didn't mean to imply that he's a genius, or a criminal mastermind; only that he's got the ear of a certain section of the NeoCon wing of the Republican party - and that's indeed who's been driving the party's agenda for the last several years.

It gives me great faith (pun?) in Colin Powell that he sees through Feith's bullshit, but committing the crime of "truth" has also gotten Powell all but kicked out of his own party.

Unfortunately, Powell is a man without a country, so to speak. He tarnished (some would say "ruined" - but not in a Stewie from Family Guy kind of voice: "This whole evening is rheweened.") his reputation by doing the bidding of the NeoCons in laying the groundwork for the Iraq debacle before the U.N., and then had the temerity to vote for the guy he thought was the best candidate, who just happened to be black. In saying that Powell's endorsement of Obama was "totally about race", Rush Limbaugh didn't even seem to realize that that particular sword cuts both ways - that would mean that every white person endorsing McCain would ALSO be doing so "totally" because of race.

Now, Powell is left with a sullied reputation and a party that idolized him, used him up, and cast him aside like a used Kleenex or used condom. I feel sorry for him, in a way, but then I have to remember that he warned Bush about Iraq, and then he STILL went to the U.N. to sell the war to the world. He knew better, and he didn't DO better. That's the tragedy of his life.

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 7:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Damn. Lost my whole post, and was half-way through. Grrr...argh! Okay, again I'm coming in late, but what the hell:

Quote:
when a paper is shut down under a fascist regime in THIS country, it just proves that capitalism works, and is the very bestest system ever created by God
BIG difference between "closed down" and "failed"...

Quote:
I think it's important to realize that RWA/Social Dominant leaders can come from most any part of the political spectrum. Prof. Altemeyer has done a fine job of pointing out the Religious/Political Conservative ones, so I figure the Marxist/Leftist,etc. side should get its exposure too.
But Altemeyer agreed in several places just that, so why is it so important to keep coming up with examples so as to "refute" him? It's accepted already.

Mmmm, good point about Bush. I'd classify him th same. I think the social dominant in the administration may have been Cheney...and/or others, what'cha think? Actually, I think Dumbya represents more the authoritarian FOLLOWER, but in power...and yes, I'd love to have either of them fill out the questionnaire!

Quote:
MOST left-leaning strongarms do it on cult of personality rather than the measures right-leaning ones do, which gives them a slight edge when things start going to hell cause they can parlay that faith into trust by people who should know better.
Excellent point, IMO. Also
Quote:
a social dominant does not necessarily HAVE to use coercion, of any kind - persuasion and psychological exploitation is very damned effective in it's own right
They can also use psychological exploitation to get their followers to use the coercion/aggression, and DO, yes?

Okay, Frem, according to that scale you're not a social dominant, nor is Mike. I agree with Byte's assessment. Altemeyer used the same Likert scale--he mixed the two, as he did with other tests, so that it wasn't all one then all the other, but had a better chance of getting results from less-obvious means.
Quote:
I viewed Bush the same exact way I see Palin - a completely empty vessel, and as such, the neo-cons' perfect wet dream. They can take those heads and fill them up with ANYTHING, and they'll walk out and spew the gibberish they've been crammed with with all the vigor of a vicar
Absolutely...that's why I said I'd classify him more as an authoritarian leader, as opposed to a "double high": social dominant authoritarian leader. (However, I think he wanted to invade Iraq so bad he drooled at the thought, for his own various reasons, and the true social dominant(s) saw that as a great way to further consolidate power.

Dream, I don't know where you'd fall...
Quote:
I'd say intervention on the grounds of oppression is okay if your info is good.
I'd still put you in non-social dominant, because you question intervention ("aggression").

And yes, you've got it perfectly...most like-minded groups keep to their own, which is only really dangerous when coupled with social dominant leaders--however, if the Global Change Game held true, groups of HIGH authoritarian followers aren't particularly healthy for their society. But you yourself pointed out that it's the DOMINANCE that's dangerous
Quote:
Most domination is based on a believed necessity, and a belief in a greater good, and an inculcated fear of any other result.
I might disagree on the "greater good" part where a TRUE social dominant is concerned (because their desire is above all for power, so "greater good" might be USED, but not believed by them).

I like the Machiavellian model, it's right on.

Frem:
Quote:
I guess that would also qualify as me considering them "Other", wouldn't it ?
I'm not sure. Your classification of "other" is based on how the other ACTS in harming people, not on their philosophy, race, etc., but by how they've proven themselves willing to use/abuse people. I don't think that qualifies, does it? It's not blind belief in "others", it's judging them by their willingness to do bad things, for whatever reason (or lack of reason--mostly not thinking for themselves, except for the social dominants among them abusing their power). It's about actually doing HARM, for whatever reason.

Not a perfect explanation, but I think you can extrapolate from what I'm trying to say?
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 9:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But Altemeyer agreed in several places just that, so why is it so important to keep coming up with examples so as to "refute" him? It's accepted already.
Sigh. I'm not trying to "Refute" Prof Altemeyer, I'm just trying to provide some balance. All his references to Authortiarians in the book relate to religious/political conservatives. His surveys and tests are geared towards religious/political conservatives. he has found authoritarians among religious/political conservatives. His one paragraph about Socialist Authoritarians dismisses the possibility they might be a threat, or even exist, by comparing them to a Monty Python sketch. Look at your own response to the book. "The book HKCavalier suggested is fascinating reading, and has done a lot to explain to me that it's not just "me" who sees the right the way I do; it's real." Not "authoritarians", but "The Right". I suspect you're still having a hard time really accepting the premise that Marxists/Socialists/The Left can generate Authoritarian leaders, followers, or movements.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 9:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


That explaination *might* actually not leak like a sieve if the first thing you'd come off with is "explain Castro, or Mao, for that matter?".

You really kinda fumbled the ball coming on ducking and juking before the shots were taken Geeze, it makes you look guilty.

Just sayin...

Oh, and Niki ?

Our variation on your signature line:
"ain't not a one of us quite as good as ALL of us."

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 3:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nik,

Quote:
Dream, I don't know where you'd fall...


I'm a Taoist, so: Live and let live. I only question the list as redundant and dubious in parts. IMHO, neutrality begets credibility. You would have to filter FOX NEWS to get any truth out of it. Same applies to most of the web.

I favor "least death": if intervention causes fewer deaths than doing nothing, it's justified. But who makes that call? Have they considered all options?

Quote:
And yes, you've got it perfectly...most like-minded groups keep to their own, which is only really dangerous when coupled with social dominant leaders...I might disagree on the "greater good" part where a TRUE social dominant is concerned (because their desire is above all for power, so "greater good" might be USED, but not believed by them).

I like the Machiavellian model, it's right on.


The theory should rein in the reach of its claims, show less political bias and just focus on psychology.

If I may, I'm assuming you know the author, because it is a self-publish, and my whole family is writers, I'm fairly familiar with Lulu (My sister knows these people.) But if I may:

1. Look objectively for what the experiments are showing about human behavior and psychology.
2. Don't bring baggage, seek some predicated conclusion, be on guard for anything which might unintentionally skew the experiment.
3. Don't assume any conclusions are sole or dominant operating factors in any larger schema.

I know this is outside of your model, but it's been overstudied, so I hope you forgive a digression into WWII:

I would place Hitler as left-wing, socialist PWL. (If he believed in equality, it was among Germans only, screw everyone else.)

I've read analyses of Hitler saying he had syphilis, was brain damaged, on amphetamines, steroids, was a creationist, a darwinist, an abused child, etc. Each theory tends to hinge on the one factor as responsible for all of German public policy from 1934-1945. That's just silly.

Sure. Hitler was responsible for radical shift in Nazi policy particularly in 1938. But I'm not even sure I credit the man's own personal psychology as catalyst. There were many special interests, international pressure, etc.

Historians say now there was an opportunity in 1936 to reach some sort of accord with. IMHO, probably would've been a good idea, even the only way to deal with Hitler was with a sniper rifle, Goering was still opposed to the war, and would have been a lot easier to deal with.

This is very Kobayashi Maru, which yes, I'm geeky enough that I knew it well before the amazingly dumb film, but it's a perfect political storm. If you appease the Nazis, you might get caught in "If you give a mouse a cookie." If you oppose them, we now know, all the jews die.

So what do you do? Suppose you *knew* that the Germans were going to kill 6 million jews? Wouldn't it behoove some sort of intervention? Myself? I would have made a deal with the Nazis to save the jews. I think that a lot of people wouldn't like that idea, but then, the plan that was used didn't save the jews, did it?

IMHO, the "let's not reward bad behavior" mentality impedes making the right choice:

Another example:

Abraham Lincoln, right-wing, UE

It was far cheaper to buy freedom for all the slaves according to existing law than it was to fight the civil war, something which everyone knew at the time. One million people died in the war, including a fair number of the slaves that Lincoln was trying to save. After the war, many blacks were put back into defacto slavery until the next depression when the system collapsed as predicted.

Wouldn't it have been better to just give the bastards the money and save all the slaves rather then save some, kill some, and leave others in slavery? Sure, evil people would profit, but is that new?

Still, these are always difficult questions. I think, if given a choice, I'd choose the non-violent intervention first over the violent one, even if it rewarded bad behavior. I confess that I'm not yet sure of all the special interests playing into both wars. I'm sure some frequent posters have some theories...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 5:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That explaination *might* actually not leak like a sieve if the first thing you'd come off with is "explain Castro, or Mao, for that matter?".


Frem. As you might have noticed, me criticizing anything Socialist/Leftist around here usually results in mass piling on, namecalling, insult, and accusations if being a paid lackey of the capitalist powers. I did bring up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao in another thread, and the response was that it's old news. Criticizing Hugo Chavez, who looks to me like a Castro-in-waiting, gets the predictable "But Bush Did..." or admiration that he (figuratively) makes the trains run on time.

I was trying a different route.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 7, 2009 5:27 PM

DREAMTROVE


I oppose the Geezer pile on. He was never an Auraptor. Also, he has a point. Actually, he doesn't go far enough.

Castro was an isolationist. Chavez is an imperialist. He wants his "Bolivarian Socialist" party to rule all of South America, and he's doing a job of it. He's also very rough on the environment and local indigenous populations. In short a disaster. Cuba's not really all that bad off, as socialist regimes go.

But Hugo has been importing arms from China, and buying them with oil at extremely sub-market value, either cause he's stone stupid or more likely because those are the only conditions that even china will sell him weapons under.

He's also clinically insane. I never got that feeling about Fidel.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Frem. As you might have noticed, me criticizing anything Socialist/Leftist around here usually results in mass piling on, namecalling, insult, and accusations if being a paid lackey of the capitalist powers. I did bring up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao in another thread, and the response was that it's old news. Criticizing Hugo Chavez, who looks to me like a Castro-in-waiting, gets the predictable "But Bush Did..." or admiration that he (figuratively) makes the trains run on time.


Oh horseshit. You claim that bringing up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao gets dismissed as "old news", yet you want to piss and moan when someone brings up Bush, WHO HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR LESS THAN A FUCKING YEAR! Your standard response to ANY criticism of Bush is that "the statute of limitations has run out on Bush". So shut the fuck up about Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and Castro, would ya?

How much of a hypocrite are you, anyway?

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh horseshit. You claim that bringing up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao gets dismissed as "old news", yet you want to piss and moan when someone brings up Bush, WHO HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR LESS THAN A FUCKING YEAR! Your standard response to ANY criticism of Bush is that "the statute of limitations has run out on Bush". So shut the fuck up about Stalin, Mao, Lenin, and Castro, would ya?

How much of a hypocrite are you, anyway?


Hey Frem. See?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:10 AM

DREAMTROVE


Whack!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:53 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Looks like Mikey beat me to it.

Indeed, horse shit.

I distinctly remember the Bush fellating pile-on which got received around here up till it was clearly game over, and then the folks doin it, many of whom were sock puppets, quietly creeped away and disappeared from RWED, the same way those "W" stickers dissappeared in the dead of night with a quiet scrapey-scrapey sound, and yet you have the very nerve to whine when that shit sandwich y'all seemed to enjoy dishin out so much comes back around the table ?
Please.

I rarely tear into you cause despite the fact that your a damn weasel with an agenda like me, at least most of the time you're halfway competent about it, and you DO bring excellent points and issues to the table with you, but this crass whinge and whine bullshit is unbecoming and beneath you.

If you are not willing to stand and defend your position against ALL comers, than what are you doing publicly expressing it in the first place ?

If you wanna play on a loaded field where folks who get too assertive or effective in challenging your opinion quietly disappear, there's no shortage of boards with "friendly" moderators who'll help it right along on that front, and you're every bit as well aware of that as I am.

You also know it's a pathetic little goldfish bowl compared to swimming with the sharks here in RWED, where no one is gonna pull you out when you get in over your head, so that poor little me shit buys ya nothin.

And since at least one of us is admitting weaselhood here, lemme also point out that your tactical position sucks, the pre-emptive ducking and dodging made you look guilty from step one, and the poor little me gig just makes you look like a whiner with a weak position he cannot effectively support, grasping at straws.

What you SHOULDA done was back off and quietly slink till you had better shot and carried off a verbal ambush of missed points, citing real life concerns as a reason for lack of participation, and the fact that I feel the need to tell you that means your game is slipping pretty badly as of late, cause you NEVER should have gone reinforcing defeat by using Mikeys honestly deserved flame to justify the whining.

You didn't bring your A-game and got moshed into the wall for it, it happens, accept it, learn from it, next time bring the valid points up first, THEN duck and weave, if you wanna play the game that way.

And you DO have valid points, often enough, or I'd not have bothered with my variation of constructive criticism, and woulda just added my boot to the party.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 6:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your standard response to ANY criticism of Bush is that "the statute of limitations has run out on Bush".


You want to criticize Bush, start a Bush thread and have fun.

However, when you jump in every thread concerning a problem any Liberal or Leftist has, and try to excuse them by playing the Bush Card, you're just wasting folks time. It's a diversion and an attempt to change the topic, probably because you have nothing to say that's germane to the issue.

On the other hand, in a discussion about Authoritarian figures (like this thread, before you threw in your diversions.), you want me to leave out Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, three of the four major authoritarian mass killers (Hitler being the fourth) of the last hundred years. Why would I do that? They're Authoritarian. They're Social Dominants. They're the subject of the thread. Bush has been mentioned as an authoritarian here, and that seems appropriate, although the Social Dominant label might be in question.

Discuss the topics at hand, or start your own to discuss what you want. Quit being a jackass.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Better, much better - albiet generally the reversi gambit is best saved for midthread rather than the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversi

Good column flip save, tho.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:05 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer,

Agreed, but a quibble:

Chiang Kai Shek.

The collective wars of the 1990s have to place as well...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 7:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
On the other hand, in a discussion about Authoritarian figures (like this thread, before you threw in your diversions.), you want me to leave out Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, three of the four major authoritarian mass killers (Hitler being the fourth) of the last hundred years. Why would I do that?


Maybe you want to include them to deflect from the ACTUAL issue brought up in this thread (and I quote):

Quote:
A recent example of an RWA/Social Dominant leader...guess who?


Note the use of the word "recent". You ARE aware of its general meaning, yes? Would you consider Lenin, Mao, or Stalin "recent"? So instead, you try to deflect a conversation that was centered on Bush, by telling me to go start my own Bush thread. Seems you, in your never-ending and always-successful quest to be an ultimate jackass, just walked straight into a BUSH THREAD, and then tried to claim that it's not fair, and we shouldn't be allowed to say these things about your dear and fluffy lord and master. You want to go start your little circle-jerk on-your-knees-before-Bush thread, go for it. Meanwhile, we're discussing an example of a RECENT Authoritarian despot, who happens to be named Bush. Your ridiculous attempts to derail that discussion by going on and on about "But Stalin...", "But Lenin...", "But Mao..." aren't working here. THIS IS A BUSH THREAD. Get your head out of your ass and figure it out before spouting your bullshit.



Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:31 - 564 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:06 - 952 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts
The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts
The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts
Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts
MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts
The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL