REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Authoritarian LEADERS/Social Dominants/Both (Now with Colors and Fonts!)

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 17:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2510
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, September 4, 2009 10:22 AM

NIKI2

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


This is a continuation of the original "Authoritarians" thread I posted, and references same in places--so if you weren't in that thread, it might confuse you. The book is at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ , this part pertains to the two chapters on the mentality of leaders, rather than followers. Again, since copied from the book, I may have made mistakes and there are probably numbers from "notes" I missed deleting.

I got to this part of the book and found it also most interesting, and wanted to see what others here thought. Authoritarian LEADERS, according to the author, are usually a combination of RWA and "Social Dominants". Apparently scales for RWA don't necessarily expose RWA LEADERS, but do when combined with Social Dominance scales. Here's some of it:

Social Dominants v. Authoritarians Remember those “group cohesiveness” items in chapter 3, such as, “For any group to succeed, all its members have to give it their complete loyalty.” We saw that authoritarian followers endorse such sentiments. But social dominators do not. Oh sure, they want their followers to be super loyal to the group they lead. But they themselves are not really in it so much for the group or its cause, but more for themselves. It’s all about them, not about a higher purpose. If trouble arises, don’t be surprised if they start playing “Every man for himself,” and even sell out the group to save their own skin.

Empathy. Here’s an easy one. How empathetic, how compassionate do you think dominators are? Not very, right? You got it, for they agree with statements such as “I don’t spend a lot of time feeling sorry for people less fortunate than me,” and “I have a ‘tough’ attitude toward people having difficulty: ‘That’s their problem, not mine.’” And they disagree with, “I feel very sorry for people who are treated unfairly” and “I have a lot of compassion for people who have gotten the bad breaks in life.”

Religion. High RWAs, we know, strongly tend to be religious fundamentalists. Social dominators do not. In fact, like most people in my samples, most dominators only go to church for marrying and burying. This would be “Three strikes and ye’re out” as far as the religiously ethnocentric high RWAs are concerned except for one thing. Dominators can easily pretend to be religious, saying the right words and claiming a deep personal belief and, as we saw in chapter 3, gullible right-wing authoritarians will go out on almost any limb, walk almost any plank to believe them.

Some non-religious dominators, as part of the act, do go to church regularly, for manipulative reasons. This amounts to lying, but I hope you don’t think social dominators would never, ever, ever, tell a lie.

Social dominators admit, anonymously, to striving to manipulate others, and to being dishonest, two-faced, treacherous, and amoral. It’s as if someone took the Scout Law (“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, ...”) and turned it completely upside down: “A ‘winner’ is deceitful, manipulative, unfair, base, conniving, ...” Furthermore, while the 168 followers may feel admiration bordering on adoration of their leaders, we should not be surprised if the leaders feel a certain contempt for their followers. They are the suckers, the “marks,” the fools social dominators find it so easy to manipulate.

Roots of hostility. Another difference between authoritarian leaders and followers comes into view when you untangle the roots of their hostility. Social dominators show greater prejudice against minorities and women than high RWAs do, but the followers are much more hostile toward homosexuals. Why should this be the case? As we saw in chapter 2, high RWAs are especially likely to aggress when they feel established authority approves of the aggression, when they are afraid, and because they are self-righteous. Since the Bible condemns homosexuality in several places, and “giving” rights to homosexuals seems to right-wing authoritarians yet another nail in the coffin of moral society, aggression against homosexuals is aroused and blessed.

Why are social dominators hostile? Well unlike high RWAs who fear an explosion of lawlessness, they already live in the jungle that authoritarian followers fear is coming, and they’re going to do the eating. They do not ask themselves, when they meet someone, “Is there any reason why I should try to control this person?” so much as they ask, “Is there any reason why I should not try to gain the upper hand with him right now?” Dominance is the first order of business with them in a relationship, like dogs encountering each other in a school yard, and vulnerable minorities provide easy targets for exerting power, for being mean, for domination.

If this analysis is correct, then social dominators should not score highly on the measures that predict authoritarian aggression among the followers: fear of a dangerous world and self-righteousness. And most of them don’t. Dominators aren’t usually afraid that civilization might collapse and lawlessness ensue. Laws, they think, are not something you should necessarily obey in the first place, so much as things you should not get caught disobeying. And as for self-righteousness, it’s pretty irrelevant to people as amoral as most social dominators tend to be. They may speak of the righteousness of their cause, but that’s usually just to assure and motivate their followers. Might makes right for social dominators.

Their image of themselves as the good people leaves no room for believing they are cold-blooded, ruthless, immoral manipulators after power at almost any cost. So social dominators might incite authoritarian followers to commit a hate crime, but the dominators and followers probably launch the attack for different reasons: the dominator out of meanness, as an act of intimidation and control; the follower out of fear and self-righteousness in the name of authority.

The mental life of the social dominator. Persons who score highly on the Social Dominance scale do not usually have all the nooks and crannies, contradictions and lost files in their mental life that we find in high RWAs. Most of them do not show weak reasoning abilities, highly compartmentalized thinking, and certainly not a tendency to trust people who tell them what they want to hear. They’ve got their head together. Nor are most of them dogmatic or particularly zealous about any cause or philosophy. You have to believe in something to be dogmatic and zealous, and what social dominators apparently believe in most is not some creed or cause, but gaining power by any means fair or foul.

Like high RWAs, social dominators are quite capable of hypocrisy--the difference being that the RWAs probably don’t realize the hypocrisy because their thinking is so compartmentalized, whereas the dominators do but don’t care.

One of the most useful skills a person should develop, they say, is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly. And lying often pays. One established propaganda technique is called the Big Lie, in which one says something outrageous, completely false, the complete opposite of what is true. [my gawd, there it is; look at all the Big Lies used against healthcare reform?!]

Like high RWAs, social dominators are quite capable of hypocrisy--the difference being that the RWAs probably don’t realize the hypocrisy because their thinking is so compartmentalized, whereas the dominators do but don’t care. I found evidence of this duplicity when I asked various samples for their opinions about equality--the thing the Social Dominance scale is all about, the underlying democratic value that high social dominators do not believe in.

What reasons do dominators give for giving equality short-shrift? Well, they say, ultimately complete equality is a pipe dream. Natural forces inevitably govern the worth of the individual. And people should have to earn their places in society, not get any free rides. All that society is obliged to do, if fairness is an issue, is provide a level playing field. The poor can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they really want to.

You have probably heard these arguments before, and some of them make a certain amount of sense. But I don’t trust the social dominator when he says them because I know how he reacts to other statements about equality. [A test was given here with various questions. You’ll have to go to the book (Chapt. 5) to read the details, this is gonna be long enough!] He’s quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance. It doesn’t bother the social dominator that masses of people are poor. That’s their tough luck. And some racial groups are just naturally inferior to others, he says. Justice should not be applied equally to all. The “right people” should have more votes than everybody else in elections. And so on.

They believe “equality” is a sucker word. Only fools believe in it, they say. And if people took equality seriously, if society did try to provide equal opportunity for all, and if the playing field really were made level so that bootstraps could be pulled up and multitudes of lives bettered, the social dominator knows he would get less. And he very much dislikes that notion. He says so.

Combining Social Dominators and Right-Wing Authoritarians [Distillation of an experiment: People were chosen to decide whether a product which produced toxins should be moved to Argentina where the government would allow the pollution, they’d get tax breaks and labor would be cheaper, rather than clean up their act. High Social Dominance people were made General Managers, with high RWA and low RWA Operations Officers under them and they had to make the decision together. High RWA underlings didn’t just go along with moving to Argentina, they LIKED the decision, said it was the right thing to do, and liked their bosses. Low RWA underlings didn’t like moving to Argentina, said so, and didn’t like their bosses.]

This is now called the “lethal union” in this field of research.7 When social dominators are in the driver’s seat, and right-wing authoritarians stand at their beck and call, unethical things appear much more likely to happen.

Double Highs: The Dominating Authoritarian Personality For starters, they win the gold medal in the Prejudice Olympics, whether you’re talking about prejudice against racial and ethnic minorities, hostility toward homosexuals, or men-who-hate-women-who-wantto- control-their-own-lives. They also score higher than anyone else on a “Militia” scale I developed after the Oklahoma City bombing which measures belief that a Jewish-led conspiracy is plotting to take over the United States through such dastardly devices as gun control laws and the United Nations.

How can somebody score highly on both tests? One measures an inclination to submit to authority and the other measures a drive to dominate. How can one be a submissive dominator?

Aspiring dictators can sometimes score highly on the RWA scale too. Consider the first item on the measure: “Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.” Couldn’t an authoritarian follower and an authoritarian leader both agree with this? The follower would say, “Yes, yes. Oh please let him appear,” and the wannabe leader would say, “Yes, yes. Behold, here I am.”

Ordinary social dominators may meet with only limited success in life. Their biggest obstacle in an organizational structure, besides the animosity they create for themselves, will predictably be other social dominators reaching for the top, to whom they might lose out and have to play a subordinate role, biding their time. Just because one wants power doesn’t mean one is shrewd enough, attractive enough, well-connected enough, etcetera, to get it. Or they may go too far and get caught in their manipulations, in their lies, in their illegalities-- and not be able to squirm their way out of it.

Double Highs, however, have a big head start over ordinary social dominators in politics, because they are the consumate leaders of a readily-formed army of zealots longing for a fearless leader. Ordinary authoritarian followers, we've seen, tend to be highly religious (in a fundamentalist way), and their highly ethnocentric minds probably evaluate people on religious grounds more than any other.

A Double High has the best chance of attracting this army of yearning and loyal supporters. He comes packaged as “one of our own,” one of the in-group. He not only shares their prejudices, their economic philosophy, and their political leanings, he also professes their religious views (even if he may be faking his religiousness to some extent), and that can mean everything to high RWAs. Given this head start, you can expect to find a Double High leading most of the right-wing authoritarian groups in our country.

Distillation of the Global Change Game: He ran the same game as he ran with High and Low RWAs before, this time once with all high WRAs and once with Double Highs mixed in. First time, it took 40 seconds for people to stand up and volunteer to be an Elite for each global "state".

The Elites in the fist Game had little interaction with one another, stayed in their own “region” trying to solve their political, economic, etc., solutions alone. When the ozone layer crisis occurred, no meeting of any size resulted, they shrugged as if “it’s too big, nobody can do anything about it”.

Sometimes they told “foreigners” (their word) from other groups to go away if they came over to talk. They worked enthusiastically and earnestly shoulder-to-shoulder. But they were singularly unimaginative and took a long time finding solutions to their problems.

They had enormous trouble with birth control; unyielding on the issue of birth control; India began bursting at the seams while disease and poverty ravaged sub-Saharan Africa. Gloom and despair settled in with a thick mental fog about two-thirds of the way into the simulation. Most of the players, assigned to the over-populated, poor regions of the world, had no idea what they could do to make things better, and glumly sat on the gym floor resigned to failure.

There were no wars on this night, not even a hint of a threat. The basic high RWA attitude seemed to be, “You don’t bother us, we won’t bother you.” By the time forty years had passed, 1.9 billion people had died from starvation and disease, which the facilitators thought was close to a record for a non-war run of the game.

The second ight (with Double Highs mixed with RWAs and middle RWAs), it took 12 seconds for Elites to volunteer. One Double High who did not volunteer eventually became the co-Elite for his group; another took no office but fomented a revolution within his group and became de-facto Elite.

There was intense interaction among the Elites. World leaders visited one another, sometimes in groups of two or three, working out the best deals they could get with their resources and combined bargaining leverage.

Trading partnerships developed and dissolved. “It was like the stock exchange” a facilitator commented afterwards. Wheeling and dealing, some regions made headway against their problems as their Elites traded things they did not need for things they did, but there was no charity. No commitment to the planet as a whole ever materialized. When the ozone layer crisis broke out, a global conference was held, but nobody put a farthing into the pot to solve the problem.

Regions began increasing their military strengths, and the stronger ones started making threats against the weaker ones. A lot of bullying suddenly appeared. "Oceana's" Elite bought nuclear weapons and declared war on vastly out-gunned “India”, which tried to get protection from “North America”. Getting none, India surrendered immediately and paid a tribute.

Soon Oceana was making the same threats against Africa and Latin America. This time North America offered protection, for a price, and the world quickly rushed to one camp or the other and began buying nukes. The facilitators thought an all-out nuclear war was going to break out just as the forty year time limit for the game expired.

One billion, six hundred million people died from starvation and disease by the end of the game. This was three hundred million less than the night before, and the improvement was attributable to the Elites’ trading skills.

But the Elites also caused the militarization and nuclear confrontation, and if the game had lasted five minutes longer, everybody might well have died. When he began the arms race, the Oceana Elite was operating entirely on his own hook. No one else in Oceana wanted to buy nuclear weapons or threaten anybody.

But although they outnumbered him in their group, they let him do what he wanted. He was their leader. And he knew how to handle them. He simply declared war on India, and told them afterwards. After his bloodless victory, he skillfully won over a couple of his Oceana colleagues to the slogan, “War is good,” and that provided a base for his further military adventures.

Ssome of the folks back home remained unhappy with the way their region was driving the world to war, and on post-game surveys they described their Elite as “bad” and “evil.” But they did not have the gumption to stop him. They sat still and sighed and let it happen.

First, the spectacular ethnocentrism of ordinary RWAs takes one’s breath away. Assigning authoritarian followers to a sub-unit appears to automatically put blinders on them. “We’re the (whatever) Team,” they seemed to say, and taking the concept of “team” much more seriously than most people do, they sealed themselves off from the rest of the world.

When one injected a few Double Highs into a high-RWA world, almost all of them grabbed power by hook or by crook. Although only a tiny part of the earth’s population, they made a huge difference in how the world developed because authoritarian followers basically just follow. when the Double Highs took over and formed that lethal union, their strong need to dominate led to bullying, military build-ups, and warfare. They showed no signs of being guided by moral principles and they certainly had no interest in charity or in serving the common good of the planet. They thus proved as insular as ordinary RWAs.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:01 AM

NIKI2

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


Nobody wants to dive into this one, eh? Chickens...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:13 AM

CANTTAKESKY


I don't think anyone's read it.

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If I might comment without having read the book...

"Global Change Game"

Sounds like a lot of fun. I played with a game on the computer called Geo Political Simulator a while back. Not a perfect program, but fun.

What were the parameters and rules of this game, and can we simulate it here on RWED? That would be a hoot.

--Anthony

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

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:45 AM

NIKI2

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


He didn't go into great detail about the parameters of the game. I could give you the basics--will try to, but gotta go walk the dogs right now...sigh...

I agree it would be fun, but I don't think it would translate to a forum; private deals were made, and if all could read all, what any one "area" was doing would be available to all, like internal discussions, debates, decisions. Don't think it would work, but I wish we COULD play it, would be fascinating!

And yeah, I know, it's a lot to wade through--should have made it two posts; one on "leaders", one on the game. Still might not have worked, tho'. Ah, well...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Private deals could be handled through emails or other forms of private messages, copied to the referee or moderator.

The game itself is very important, because the rules will affect behavior to an extraordinary extent.

Man, now I'm all psyched for an RWED forum political simulation.

--Anthony

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

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:02 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

More on topic with what you wanted to discuss, probably...

"He’s quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance. It doesn’t bother the social dominator that masses of people are poor."

Where would I fall, if I were quite willing to let the children of the rich get rich merely through inheritance, but it did bother me that masses of people are poor?

For instance, I believe that one of the goals of a parent is to create a superior starting point for their children. An advantage that they lacked. I also like the idea that any wealth I produce will not die with me, but be passed on to my inheritors. It will benefit my children and grandchildren long after I am gone, hopefully. Even if all I leave behind is a house in decent repair and an old reliable automobile, it will be quite a boon to my children, who can utilize those assets to get a head start that I didn't get. Not having to purchase a 200k dollar house or a 10k dollar car is quite a leg up, in my opinion.

Meanwhile, I am bothered by masses of impoverished people who struggle to provide the basic essentials. But how bothered am I? I'm not bothered enough to rob my neighbor's bank accounts in order to give his money to the poor. I figure it's his decision what to do with his money, and mine what to do with mine. When the situation bothers either of us, we are free to donate whatever we wish to spare. So how does that class me?

--Anthony

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

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:34 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:

Meanwhile, I am bothered by masses of impoverished people who struggle to provide the basic essentials. But how bothered am I? I'm not bothered enough to rob my neighbor's bank accounts in order to give his money to the poor.


Exactly. I'm bothered, but not enough to give up MY home, MY car, MY groceries. I'll take the homeless some food, but I won't take them ALL my food.

In that, I suppose I'm no better than most "christians" who drive their shiny new cars to their shiny new megachurch, then drive home to their shiny new house afterwards. Christ never had any of these things, and I doubt any of these "christians" are willing to give them up to share the wealth with the poor. So I'm no better than they are; but I'm no worse, either. :)

Mike


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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 12:29 PM

NIKI2

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


Quote:
For instance, I believe that one of the goals of a parent is to create a superior starting point for their children.
There's a middle ground to what both of you wrote. I contribute to numerous causes, but I have enough to care for myself as well.

If I had kids I'd like to give them a leg up, too--and Jim is doing so in his will for his son, whereas his daughter married a guy with money, so she doesn't need from us. But if I had a LOT, I wouldn't want to leave it all to my kids; it's a fine point between leaving kids a leg up and leaving them so much they don't have to do anything; that doesn't make for good humans, a lot of the time.

Since I can't know when I'm going to die, I wouldn't want to deprive myself too much to give to others; but after I'm gone, I'd have no problem with it going to help others. And I BELIEVE, from what little I know, that inheritance tax is incremental? That the more you leave, the more they take out...yes? That works for me.

So I'm all in favor of a middle ground. What I give to causes, I would probably waste on things I don't need but "want" at the moment. It leaves me enough to buy some of the things I want, and it helps others at the same time.

Different points of view is all. I believe I'm part of a global village and have responsibility to the earth itself; that's big for me. Owning things isn't, nor is luxury; we live pretty simple but don't mind it much (tho' living in Marin gets harder every year, admittedly, but we've managed to pay off our house so it makes it easier).

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Saturday, September 5, 2009 11:52 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"And I BELIEVE, from what little I know, that inheritance tax is incremental? That the more you leave, the more they take out...yes? That works for me."

Hello,

I'm not at all opposed to you giving away your money to your kids, your favorite charity, or giving it to the government when you die. I think that is a very personal decision.

However, just as I wouldn't want to make that decision on your behalf, I wouldn't want anyone else to make it for me. All the money I have has already been taxed. Taxing it again when I die seems like so much thievery and grave robbing.

No... it disturbs me when people enact a policy that robs from other people. I'm not really concerned about the fine intentions behind it. Someone can ask me for a buck to get a cheeseburger, and it's my choice to surrender that buck or not...

...but I don't want them taking it by force. That seems immoral.

--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 6:58 AM

NIKI2

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


Heavens, aren't all taxes taken "by force"? Ooops, maybe you believe that there should be no taxes, I know some here have advocated that.

I don't mind inheritance taxes because, c'mon now, you TRULY don't see the rich as leaving their "excess" money to the government voluntarily, do you?

Just my opinion, but I think an awful lot of people who get uber wealthy these days did so by means that don't entitle them to be as rich as they are...I got no problem taking it from them when they're gone, or even before that to a degree.

The gap between rich and poor has widened enormously in America thanx to the last eight years gimmes--not that it didn't start before that. Trying to lessen it, now that the past administration's cronyism is (mostly) over or being made (somewhat) less doesn't bother me in the slightest. It infuriates me that so many have gotten so rich off Dumbya's administration's robbery; so call me prejudiced.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 7:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

All taxes and all laws are taken and enforced 'by force' and so I like to minimize the existence of both as much as possible. I am not an anarchist. I do want some public services, but I generally analyze each law and tax with the statement, "Is there any way society could function if this were eliminated?"

Now, I find it disturbing that your innate assumption is that anyone who is wealthy probably did something improper and so doesn't deserve their money.

That's a rather awful default position. It is no different than me saying, "Anyone who is poor probably did something stupid and so doesn't deserve more money."

I am also infuriated by those who become rich via illegal or immoral processes, but I don't feel that righteous anger over those assholes means I can start robbing the rich wholesale in order to even the scales of 'justice.'

--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 7:25 AM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, long post, sorry.

At risk of offending...

1. Lulu is a vanity press, ergo, the audience tends to know the writer. MSM may lack credibility, but something on lulu has no more objective credibility that something posted on FFF RWED.

I welcome any challenge to orthodoxy that's *more* coherent than accepted dogma, rather than less. This one falls far short. Our author may have something to contribute, but is not the definitive work. I'm sorry, this is an excellent test case in what *not* to do when writing. Our writer has a preconceived set of beliefs and set out to prove himself correct, at which people always succeed.

Some beliefs stated border on the absurd:

1. Universal Equality (UE) is the opposite of authoritarianism. Preservation of a Way of Life is not a motive.(PWL)

2. Authoritarian regimes are based on racism and fundamentalism, and the two are connected.

3. Right wing has some connection to authoritarians, and that stating a partisan bias will help your credibility.

4. Understanding psychology doesn't rely on any studies or confirmed real world trends.

5. Oppressors are racists, and think "muahahahah were evil," rather than that they believe in some greater good.

6. The opposite of UE is "bigotry" not PWL. UE societies cannot be bigotted, and so something like this would never happen: Negroes shall be counted as 2/3 [human] and Indians shall not be counted at all (sumtin like that) following "all men are created equal."

7. Prediction that authoritarian societies are ruled by right wing religious fundamentalists, which is just not what we see in reality.

8. A brain trust think tank is sound data. Self doubt is also not necessary when making random guesses about human behaviour.

This is just amateurish psychology that doesn't have a close connection to how people actually work.

Specific to Nik's post: I don't think that it's credible to site the motivations of the Argentine puppet regime as being at all internal to Argentina. Even the Brits admit that they pretty much handed policy decisions to the Argentines carte blanche.

Reality disconnect:
Quote:
Chapter 5
Suppose you were applying for a leadership position in a right-wing
religious/political movement--a movement hell-bent on gaining total power so it could
impose its beliefs and rules of conduct on everyone forever. (I realize this may not be
your No. 1 career choice, but work with me a bit here.) As part of your application
you’re asked to take an aptitude test. Indicate whether you dislike, or favor, the
sentiments below on a -4 to +4 basis.
This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people are.
Some groups of people are simply not the equals of others.
Some people are just more worthy than others.

I hope that anyone with such high ideals will accept the right or religious fundamentalists in their dominance over intellectuals, as the former surely outnumbers the latter. I'm the hold such groups in high esteem, and consider, as evident through, that right wingers are their equals.

Anyone remember the cell phone beehive experiment? Just because you can prove that microwaves can kill bees doesn't mean the bees are dying from radiation. (The bees were dying of mites.)

This is that sort of logic.

re: GW Bush. Even if it's fairly evident that the author started at Bush, jumped to Nazis, who, for some reason, he thought were right wing, and then decided this was about racism: There's really no racism in Bush, as much as I have serious issues with this administration. It's like his total lack of marital infidelity, or his not personally profiting from his regime. There are just curious personal flaws that Bush doesn't happen to possess. When Bush said "Obama probably won in part because of me" he meant that it was his own unpopularity that pushed a democratic victory. What he doesn't realize is that, by appointing both the first, and second, black secretaries of state, Bush prepared America to accept black leadership. So yes, in a more positive way, he *is* responsible for an Obama victory. (Anyone remember in previous primaries, how black candidates were routinely discounted as not viable?)


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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:14 AM

NIKI2

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


Hmmm, interesting. Dunno if it's 'cuz it's morning, but I'm having trouble grasping some of what you wrote. But:

1. I'm not quite clear what you're saying. I DO believe UE is--not the opposite of, but more often unacceptable to--authoritarianism, in that UE is INCLUSIVE, not exclusive. The second part I don't get.

2. Authoritarian THINKING does connect to racism and fundamentalism, I think; both are exclusive of "other", and aggressively so.

3. I don't think he was stating a partisan bias to increase his credibility, but rather to acknowledge he has a bias. He also, many times, added caveats like everyone has this or that to a degree, and that left-wing can be authoritarian as well.

4. "Understanding psychology doesn't rely on any studies or confirmed real world trends". If you're intimating that is what the author says, it's definitely not. He cites studies, did experiments of his own, and connected it to real-world trends.

5. I don't think SOCIAL DOMINATORS generally believe in the greater good, and it's not about thinking they're evil, it's about attaining power and having few if any scruples about doing so. People like that don't think they're evil, just right. Big difference between "oppressors" and authoritarian social dominators, too, tho' the latter usually turn out to be the former.

6. I don't think he said a UE society was the opposite of a PWL at all, but that authoritarianism doesn't make for a UE society. But if you're citing the US, I don't think we began as a UE society, and again, it's the degree of aggression, not the specifics mentality. As to whether we were, or even are today, a UE society is a whole different discussion; I don't think we are or ever were.

7. He was talking about America today, and it would appear the Bush Administration, in noting Bush as a RWE Social Dominant, fits. I don't think he was predicting specifically what you said.

8. Don't think he was stating categorically that "A brain trust think tank is sound data". Lack of self-doubt is an aspect of the opposite--being self-righteous without questioning. A brain trust can be either. I don't think he was making "random guesses", I think he ran tests to find out, and came up with theories from the conclusions.

No, he didn't jump from Bush to Nazis as both right-wing, he was citing Nazis as an example of a LEFT-wing authoritarian regime.

Dunno how Bush feels personally about race; however I believe part of his reasons for choosing people of other races to hold office was to show he WASN'T prejudice and to appeal to the left. As to "It's like his total lack of marital infidelity, or his not personally profiting from his regime."--Dunno about marital infidelity, but I'm guessing you're saying those are incorrect assumptions about Dumbya? Because his profiting from his regime is, as far as I'm concerned, unquestionable--as was the profiting of his cronies.

Confused by
Quote:
I hope that anyone with such high ideals will accept the right or religious fundamentalists in their dominance over intellectuals, as the former surely outnumbers the latter.
Are you saying religious fundamentalists should dominate because there are MORE of them? Wow--if so, boy, do we disagree!

Quote:
I'm the hold such groups in high esteem, and consider, as evident through, that right wingers are their equals.
Can't make that one out...?

I don't think it was his "unpopularity" that helped a democratic victory, I think it's what his administration DID, which yes, caused his unpopularity. But I have to disagree with his appointing black Secretaries of State as contributing even slightly. I think it has more to do with the youth vote, rejection of his policies/actions, and the turnout of dems by far. And the fact that any "regime" which swings too far in one direction will face a correction.

If you truly believe that societies SHOULD accept religious fundamentalists' dominance over intellectuals, that's so far away from what I think is reasonable that debate is impossible--aside from both the author's and my belief that social dominants seek POWER and are quite willing to fake religion or religious fundamentalism to gain it.

From what you wrote, if I take it seriously it seems to me that you have misunderstood what the author posits, and your beliefs are so diametrically opposed to mine--and apparently the author's as well, that it would be lengthy and probably useless debate. The only thing I can point out that might make an impact is that it's not what one BELIEVES, it is a major part of the authoritarian follower and leader mentality to be very AGGRESSIVE in persecuting those who believe differently, which is different from just beliefs...not WHAT one believes, but how willing one is to stifle others' beliefs.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:26 AM

NIKI2

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


Anthony: You didn't read. I said "an awful lot", not "anyone"....biiiig difference. No, it is definitely NOT my inate assumption; it's what I see as true in America today, aided and abetted by the previous administration. But certainly, CERTAINLY not "anyone"!

I also think "robbing the rich wholesale" isn't what I was positing even in the slightest, nor would I agree with doing so even slightly.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:40 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Forgive me for saying so, but if I say that an awful lot of hispanic people are thieves and liars, I doubt anyone would give me credit for saying 'an awful lot' as opposed to 'all of them,' or credit me for the biiiig difference.

I read your statements, Niki, and detected a strong bias against the wealthy. And with advocating taxes targeted specifically at the most wealthy citizenry, robbing the rich wholesale seems spot on.

Are there alternative explanations I am overlooking?

--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 8:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Robin Hood and Little John were walking through the forest, laughin' back and forth at what the other had to say. Remanisin' this and that and havin' such a good time. Ood-a-lolly ood-a-lolly golly what a day.

:) Sorry, couldn't resist.

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 1:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nik

1. UE is often part of authoritarianism, it's often the idea. USSR for example. PWL is the conflicting ideology, but doesn't require authoritarianism, but can have it (Israel, for example.)

2. Authoritarians are often about "the greater good." That, coupled with "absolute necessity" leads to the machiavellian attitude. This isn't a radical notion, it's pretty well accepted I think.

The author of the book is proposing a radical notion in opposition to common wisdom, but doesn't support it well because he seems unaware of it.

3. His partisan bias is absurd, it is as bad as Wulf's racism or PN's antisemitism: No one will ever believe any of them. I don't personally care, all of them are entitled to their opinions, but from a communication perspective, this is a disaster. I think Mike said it best on this one.

4. I was refering to where authoritarian regimes come from: socialist think tanks.

> I don't think SOCIAL DOMINATORS generally
> believe in the greater good

5. I do understand the point, but I don't really agree. There is power motivation in many people, but behind that power motivation is a desire to use that power. I would like to see more environmental protection. If I controlled the world bank, I could use that power. This is basically the ring, but people who pursue it do so because they have a use for power, imho, not because they are wicked. At least in real world power structures.

The #1 powermonger in america right now is Barack Obama, he was a powermonger before he became president, it's why he's president. He was willing to make deals with special interests because he really wanted that power. But Obama is not a bully, he's not sinister, he really believes in his mission that he wants to do good. He has harness the US Govt, giant death machine that it is, and think he can redirect it for good (good luck with that.) But he needs that power in order to enact his agenda, in order to do what he thinks is right.

I don't, btw, have a serious problem with what he thinks is right, just the deals he had to cut to get there, which is the problem with power rings.

6. I said a UE society was the opposite of PWL. I think these are conflicting ideologies. The Amish can't exist in a state school system under communist rule. Look at how China has crushed the cultures of mainstreamed minorities, like the Soviets before them. Likewise, the Amish can't maintain their way of life if they have to subsidize the local trailer parks, which they would for there to be equality.

Quote:
Niki wrote

But if you're citing the US, I don't think we began as a UE society


Quote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


Quote:
I don't think we are or ever were.


Sure, but I didn't hear the argument that preservation of a way of life was the principle american value until reagan, though it could be argued that this was always a running thread, what I think almost certainly this was not responsible for american totalitarianism.

7. In 2007 it had already appeared in the Bush admin. I think this is a retro-active construction of how we got to neofascism, and it's just misguided. There's almost no difference between Bush policy and Clinton policy, just a gradual increase in reach of power, pushing the envelop as it were, but the will was always there.

8.
Quote:
Don't think he was stating categorically that "A brain trust think tank is sound data". Lack of self-doubt is an aspect of the opposite--being self-righteous without questioning. A brain trust can be either. I don't think he was making "random guesses", I think he ran tests to find out, and came up with theories from the conclusions.


Wasn't saying he was, just that the key is the end here: Came up with theories from conclusions. [the ones he was looking to find.]

I think that there is a large host of real world evidence being ignored here called "history" which shows that totalitarian govts. don't really evolve in this manner.

Quote:

No, he didn't jump from Bush to Nazis as both right-wing, he was citing Nazis as an example of a LEFT-wing authoritarian regime.


My mistake then, I was skimming and misread that.

Quote:
Dunno how Bush feels personally about race; however I believe part of his reasons for choosing people of other races to hold office was to show he WASN'T prejudice and to appeal to the left.


You saw evidence at some point in the last 8 years that the Bush administration lifted as much as an eyelash to appeal to the left?!?!?!?

Really, If this is so, then why wouldn't Clinton have done the same?

IMHO, Because Clinton was and is a racist SOB, it's not partisan, it's personal. Bush isn't, but he is an SOB, just not a racist. I think he hired Powell and Condi because they fit his model of best person for the job: Capable, Loyal, Known Quantities. I think he weighed these three equally. Other people might have used a different measuring stick, such as "Competence above all else." I can fault Bush on a hell of a lot of points, but not this one.

Sure, his cronies profited, but that's the motivation of cronies. Bush was a dumbfuck and may not have even noticed

Quote:

Confused by

Quote:
I hope that anyone with such high ideals will accept the right or religious fundamentalists in their dominance over intellectuals, as the former surely outnumbers the latter.

Are you saying religious fundamentalists should dominate because there are MORE of them? Wow--if so, boy, do we disagree!


Nik,

This is what we call sarcasm.

I was actually taking the logic of the argument of the book and applying it to an absurd counterpoint, to illustrate the flaw in the underlying logic.

You don't want the majority setting the moral agenda or your likely to end up with the Taliban, American style.

...yes, I know this one is close to home for you, sorry about that, I actually don't know about the degree of support for the Taliban is... In fact, I'm far more interested in Afghanistan than I am with this sort of "someone is wrong on the internet" argument.

I just thought the book was out of touch with historical reality. Yes, the theory laid out in the book looks good on paper, but when you study history, it's simply not what happens. If we want to discuss psychology, I'm up for it, but let's move that to a different thread.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm the hold such groups in high esteem, and consider, as evident through, that right wingers are their equals.

Can't make that one out...?


Neither can I. Problem with editing. Who knows what I was trying to say.

Quote:
I don't think it was his "unpopularity" that helped a democratic victory, I think it's what his administration DID, which yes, caused his unpopularity. But I have to disagree with his appointing black Secretaries of State as contributing even slightly. I think it has more to do with the youth vote, rejection of his policies/actions, and the turnout of dems by far. And the fact that any "regime" which swings too far in one direction will face a correction.


I'm not about to debate the merits of the thoughts of GW Bush, I'm frankly amazed that there are any. I don't think that his administration policies were the direct cause, because there hasn't been much of a shift in govt. policy in many many years.


Quote:
If you truly believe that societies SHOULD accept religious fundamentalists' dominance over intellectuals, that's so far away from what I think is reasonable that debate is impossible--aside from both the author's and my belief that social dominants seek POWER and are quite willing to fake religion or religious fundamentalism to gain it.


I agree: Of course they would. It was sarcasm.
Do we have an emoticon for that?

Quote:

From what you wrote, if I take it seriously it seems to me that you have misunderstood what the author posits, and your beliefs are so diametrically opposed to mine--and apparently the author's as well, that it would be lengthy and probably useless debate. The only thing I can point out that might make an impact is that it's not what one BELIEVES, it is a major part of the authoritarian follower and leader mentality to be very AGGRESSIVE in persecuting those who believe differently, which is different from just beliefs...not WHAT one believes, but how willing one is to stifle others' beliefs.


The rest of this was sarcasm as well. Except for the part where I thought his grasp on psychology was a little on the shallow side. Which, no offense if he's someone close to you, is just how it comes across. Oh, and I don't think that the leader mentality is all that important unless we are talking about the leaders of special interest groups. Certainly Bush's own personality had no impact at all on policy. I watched very closely, and about 1/2 a dozen times Bush actually came up with a policy and tried to implement it, but I can say I honestly believe that zero PERSONAL policies of GW Bush ever became law. That doesn't save him. This man is less sympathetic than Teddy Kennedy. Both of them got a lot people killed along with some girl they knew. But neither one ever had an original idea, they supported policies handed to them by their owners.

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 1:30 PM

DREAMTROVE


BM

Point well taken.

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
2. Authoritarian THINKING does connect to racism and fundamentalism, I think; both are exclusive of "other", and aggressively so.


This only applies to religious/political conservative Authoritarian thinking.

For Marxist/Leftist authoritarian thinking, racism is replaced by classism. It's not the Blacks or the Jews, but the capitalists, the proletariat, the land owners, the bosses, the intelligentsia, etc.

Fundamentalism is replaced by ideology. Anyone not sufficiently pure in their ideology can be considered the enemy.

This is really convenient, because while you can't generally call a White person Black or a Fundie Christian an Atheist and make him the "other", pretty much anyone you want can be identified as a capitalist or neo-liberal at heart, or as not sufficiently ideologially pure. Then it's off to the gulag.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


This isn't partisan because I'd throw 'em both to the dogs at this point, but...

Uh oh. Geezer is too far to the left on this one:

Nazis were not the only racist left wing regime. There are many in Africa (I don't mean wulfie anti-white) I mean what we call black on black. Many leftist totalitarian groups are anti-semitic, I can't think of any right wing ones off hand, which isn't surprising: Judaism is a religion. Only in a strictly religious construct. Still, though jews were slaughtered in the crusades, that was not the intent, the intent was to slaughter muslims (hmm.) Okay, there have been a fair number of conservative western ideologies that are anti-muslim, and also liberal ones. I think the west is probably pretty anti-muslim overall.

Still, I'm not sure this holds at all. FDR's democratic party was still racist socialist. It's a long standing party position, just every once in a while it changes targets (switching in the mid-20th c. to be anti-asian, and later, anti-arab, though there's still some anti-asian)

Obama's famous The chinese will poison your children rant, and more recently, his positively Bidenesque "No more Bangalore..." playing up to the xenophobic democratic party base.

Democrats in power in the US have killed more asians than blacks, and more blacks in the last 20 years than in all of slavery (another great democratic party achievement.) Oops, sorry, forgot the indians.

Yes, but often there is class warfare in leftist totalitarian regimes, sometimes, like under Pol Pot and Mao, the line gets blurred. In africa also, at times, but at times it's appallingly clear.

Right now, the BNP is growing in britain on a platform of no more jews no more muslims, but it's a socialist-left platform, and expected to split labour's vote, which I'm so happy about, because labour will lose. :) Still, it means there's a rising xenophobic attitude in Britain, but notice that it's not coming from the Tories, they're just benefiting by default, because the BNP can't possibly win, they can only cause labour to lose.

Again, the USSR. Not racist later on, but early on it was, very: Ukraine. The major non-russian group in russia. Also, little publicized: Jews, and attempt at muslims, but it failed, and of course, I have to sympathize with the christians on this, because they never ever get sympathy: Christians. Christians just don't know how to play the victim card: they go on "thrown to the lions," or "war on christmas" but actually, there's an anti-christian genocide every ten years or so, racking up more than probably any other religion, though not %wise. (The US seems bent on making muslims the #1 victim religion...)

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:48 PM

BYTEMITE


Sorry again, Anthony, after DT's post I realized that even though it's a cute, fun song, that my post might not make sense in context, and people might think I'm just being frivolous.

Basically, I started singing that song because all the talk about robbing from the rich (and giving to the poor, that's the other half of it) reminded me of the story of Robin Hood.

I sang happily, because there are some of these rich folks who I wouldn't cry a damn tear over if they lost all their money tomorrow. I might feel bad for their employees if their employees weren't all in slave shops overseas. For that reason, where it counts, I also doubt that the loss would have much impact on the economy, apart from the stock market, which I feel is largely illusionary anyway.

But, I was also being tongue in cheek, as I realize a lot of these wealth distribution schemes really DO see themselves as justified, no matter the target, and probably do compare themselves to Robin Hood.

Have to be careful!

Mostly, I think there's gonna be an economic collapse that TPTB haven't planned for cause they only THINK they know how to drive the market. And when that happens, that's going to render all the rich versus poor stuff moot.

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

Sunday, September 6, 2009 6:01 PM

BYTEMITE


In regards to China, I heard that there's now a worker class and the educated class that controls the jobs, the economy, the state, and etc. And the worker class is getting PISSED.

I'm actually wondering if China isn't going to have another Tiananmen Square sometime in the next two decades... Though no one in China will remember the original protests in 1989. ._.

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 2:37 AM

DREAMTROVE


Byte

Quote:
Have to be careful!


No, you don't. Really. If people are saying they miss RiveR6213, go back and read some posts and you'll see that you are currently in a crowd I'd say it's *impossible* to alienate.

It's possible if an FFFer killed someone, a simple "my bad" would suffice

Quote:
Mostly, I think there's gonna be an economic collapse that TPTB haven't planned for cause they only THINK they know how to drive the market. And when that happens, that's going to render all the rich versus poor stuff moot.


Well, they created the system, so they know it, IMHO the only potential flaw is people can abandon that system, which is the only thing I think they haven't counted on.

Quote:
In regards to China, I heard that there's now a worker class and the educated class that controls the jobs, the economy, the state, and etc. And the worker class is getting PISSED.


That's fairly close to accurate. Ripe for revolution. I think the people aren't out for blood though, and the commies are, so people will wait for a weak post-revolutionary regime (after the last of of the old guard is dead)

Quote:

I'm actually wondering if China isn't going to have another Tiananmen Square sometime in the next two decades... Though no one in China will remember the original protests in 1989. ._.


I believe the tagline here is:

Tonight we're going to party like it's 1989.

I always thought it would be nice if signature lined appeared differently from the text, like italic blue or something... erg no blue. Anyone know any easter eggs?

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 3:23 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)


You mean like this?

Just testing.


I always thought it would be nice if signature lined appeared differently from the text, like italic blue or something...


Font colors aren't hard - I learned how in the "Test" posts in Troll Country. Find something cool, and hit "Reply with Quote" to see what all is included in the coolness.

You can do it in different colors, too, 'til you find one you like.

Not sure how many are available. I'm guessing "mauve" or "chartreuse" aren't in the cards. I could be wrong.

Anyhow, you use the less than/greater than brackets (<,>) and in between them, you just type in (with no spaces)"font color=(insert color name)".

Try it out.

Special Thanks to AVeryFineCompanion for the tutorial.

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 6:45 AM

NIKI2

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


Anthony: If we're speaking of the "uber rich", certainly I have a bias against their POSITION, not the people themselves. Met on the street and being told they were amazingly rich, I'd have no problem with them any more than any other person.

However, "I read your statements, Niki, and detected a strong bias against the wealthy. And with advocating taxes targeted specifically at the most wealthy citizenry, robbing the rich wholesale seems spot on." I didn't advocate taxes specifically at them, I said I believe the inheritance tax is--damn, what's the word? "Scaled"--proprtionately decided, you know what I mean? I think that's appropriate. UE is the OPPOSITE of authoritarianism. I don't know of any society which has "universal equality" which is authoritarian, certainly not today.

Israel, for example is no UE, but I wouldn't call it authoritarian either.

Wow, Dream, you've left me waaaaay behind in the long-thread category. I guess you win!

Seriously, this is sooo much stuff to plow through, I don't think I'm gonna do it. I agree there are flaws in the book, but I'm gonna hold to its main tenants rather than try to keep on debating point by point.

One thing I see is your bias is pretty strong so it's hard for me to try to write in generalities and feel like I might get through. It's turned into specific LEADERS, and if I were to try and point out how some leaders fit what he posits and others don't, I'd have to get into defending people/administrations or castigating others--that's too complex for me!

I'd be disagreeing and agreeing all the way down the line. I think you're not understanding that the author was THEORIZING, aside from Bush and the Nazis and authoritarian FOLLOWERS, I'm not sure he was saying many specific "social dominator high authoritarian" REGIMES have grown big enough in history to cite. I think his main mistake was to not realize that an authoritarian regime which is as tightly defined as the way he defined it doesn't last long 99% of the time--tho' he did say that somewhere, I forget where.

The vast majority of societies don't get that authoritarian, don't fit all the categories, at least to me. I disagree wholeheartedly that the author's bias equals anything like Wulf or PN's! Equally so that authoritarianism comes from socialist think tanks!!!

Quote:
people who pursue it do so because they have a use for power, imho, not because they are wicked
. You spoke of "people". He was talking about a specific KIND of person, psychologically, someone who wants power for power's sake. Whether WE want to classify them as "wicked" or not is immaterial; in THEIR minds, the world is evil and it's every man for himself, and they want to control. Dick Cheney is a perfect example...what he truly believes I don't know, but I'm betting he believes the world is evil and he needs as much power as possible to protect himself from it, and to destroy it. It seems pretty obvious to me that he doesn't care how he gets it, OR that it's "for the good" of the American people--tho' it may be IN HIS MIND. It's a specific type of personality, which I would say is almost pathological in nature, which is willing to do ANYTHING to achieve its goal.

Quote:
The #1 powermonger in america right now is Barack Obama
Again we WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree. Nor do I even begin to believe he is a social dominant high authoritarian! Would be too long to point out all the falacies in that theory, so I'm not gonna.

As to citing the US as a UE society, what leaders SAY doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the REALITY, so citing Jefferson is a fallacy.

I don't even GET "preservation of a way of life was the principle american value until reagan"--because he was one of the biggest proponents of PWL...?

Quote:
There's almost no difference between Bush policy and Clinton policy
That's your opinion, I disagree HEARTILY with it. In fact I find it amazing.

Quote:
You saw evidence at some point in the last 8 years that the Bush administration lifted as much as an eyelash to appeal to the left?!?!?!?
Yup, when it came to achieving what he wanted, such as nominations which he wanted to succeed, among other things.

Agai
Quote:
Because Clinton was and is a racist SOB
That's your opinion. We are diametrically opposed.

Quote:
Bush was a dumbfuck and may not have even noticed
Hoo, boy, DO we disagree! He put people in power specifically because they were cronies, and specifically to enhance their wealth...many, many times!

I don't see the author as saying intellectuals were the ideal any more than religious fundamentalists. He was citing, again, the MENTALITY, which is possible for either group, or many others.

Quote:
there hasn't been much of a shift in govt. policy in many many years
Again, we disagree enormously. You don't think waterboarding, Homeland Security, alienating our alies, The Bush Doctrine, and many, MANY of the other policies in the Bush Administration weren't shift in policy??? Wow.

And again
Quote:
I don't think that the leader mentality is all that important unless we are talking about the leaders of special interest groups. Certainly Bush's own personality had no impact at all on policy.
we disagree hugely. Have you read any books on Dumbya's personality? I think his personality and beliefs had TONS to do with the direction our country took.

As well as
Quote:
This man is less sympathetic than Teddy Kennedy. Both of them got a lot people killed along with some girl they knew. But neither one ever had an original idea, they supported policies handed to them by their owners.
.

I'm not going to go into all the whys and wherefors molding my beliefs on where we disagree, it would go on forever. I am merely more convinced than ever that you didn't "get" the concept of the theory, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that and let it go.

Geezer:
Quote:
For Marxist/Leftist authoritarian thinking, racism is replaced by classism. It's not the Blacks or the Jews, but the capitalists, the proletariat, the land owners, the bosses, the intelligentsia, etc.
I'm not well versed enough to debate that, tho' I'll grant you in theory I'd have to agree. But I'd have to understand about Marxism more than I do to debate it appropriately.

Mike: I agree...it's hard to recognize the "signature" a lot of the time for me, which is why I put a line then my signature in italics. Now I'll have to go back and add color, since you mentioned it. I'm guessing one might be able to use different FONTS as well, under that concept? Hmmm, have to try it out. Most places I'm used to, you have a pull-down menu or button for all that, and the code PUTS IN the instruction. Ooo, boy, more fun to play with...hee, hee, hee!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 7:16 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 didn't advocate taxes specifically at them, I said I believe the inheritance tax is--damn, what's the word? "Scaled"--proprtionately decided, you know what I mean?


I think the word you're looking for is "progressive".

And I think it was Rue and SignyM who got me thinking more about flat-tax proposals, and how they SOUND fair (everybody pays 12%, for instance, or a 12% sales tax on everything), but in reality they end up punishing the poor more than the rich. How so? Well, for someone making a thousand bucks a month, a 12% tax is $120 out of their pocket, every month. It ends up taking a bigger bite out of their disposable income than it would for someone like a health insurance CEO who's making $100,000,000 per year. Take away $12,000,000 of his yearly salary, and he's still going to be doing okay with $88 million to tide him over...

Which is why we're set up on a progressive income tax structure. A progressive inheritance tax system seems pretty reasonable, too. Like Anthony points out, though - that's money that you've already paid taxes on once; why tax it again?

It seems a screwy system - if I buy a house, I have to pay taxes on it. And property taxes for the property I allegedly "own". And when I SELL that property, guess what? I have to pay taxes on the money I get from selling the house, at least if I get more than I bought it for. And the new buyer has to pay taxes on it, too. Same with cars - they're taxed every single time they change hands. Does that seem right to you?

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 7:51 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I always thought it would be nice if signature lined appeared differently from the text, like italic blue or something... erg no blue. Anyone know any easter eggs?


You may also change the font, if you'd like:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=11&t=26185#695712

Edit:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Not sure how many are available. I'm guessing "mauve" or "chartreuse" aren't in the cards. I could be wrong.


Mauve
Chartreuse

Edited to clean things up.

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 7:56 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 yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I always thought it would be nice if signature lined appeared differently from the text, like italic blue or something... erg no blue. Anyone know any easter eggs?


You may also change the font, if you'd like:

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=11&t=26185#695712




YinYang, I love you for that! Niki and I were just in *another* Test Thread discussing that very thing. And playing with font sizes and colors, of course.

You rock.

And just because the font is handy,

SERENITY

There. I just had to say that. :)


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

Monday, September 7, 2009 8:15 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)


YY, I've got a pretty good list going on colors, just by typing in color names and seeing what happens. Where do you find the color # values that you use?

Red
Yellow
Blue
Purple
Green
Brown
Sienna
Maroon
Silver
Grey
Gold
Orange
Turquoise
Cyan
Magenta
Olive


This is pretty darned fun.

Before it's all said and done, it's going to look like Walt Disney threw up in here!



Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 8:22 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


The Internet. This is a good place to start, though:

http://html.decobug.com/hexblack.htm

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 8:24 AM

BYTEMITE


Here, try some of these colours.

Scroll down and ignore the cowboys, don't think they're gonna shoot.

http://cookshangout.com/internetcolors.html

EDIT: heh, think YinYang's list is better. :)

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 11:08 AM

NIKI2

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


Let's see what happens.

Wow, it seems those "internet colors" WORK, and there's all kinds of wild colors in there.

Hee, hee, hee, both these "authoritarian" threads have devolved into "play"--which is fine with me, I think we beat 'em to death. But it's funny.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 12:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


Chartreuse sounds like fun

Looks ordinary to me. I can't see Serenity either.

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 12:42 PM

NIKI2

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


Oooo, you managed Comic Sans!!! That's my favorite font (well, next to benguiat maybe), but I couldn't get it to work! I wonder if the quote marks would work on other fonts we don't see?

Some of the fonts that don't work for me, Mike sees, and some I see, he doesn't. Go figger. But I tried Comic Sans so many times, and YOU got it!

Let's see if I can get these by adding the quote marks as you did:

Monaco
Palatino
Onyx
Rockwell

Nope, no such luck. Ah well...


________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 2:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Nik

1. Sarcasm. Most of that was sarcasm, esp. the part where you said "I hope this is sarcasm." It seems you then argued with it.
2. Not so long a post, mostly quoting you. I have won by quoting my opponent alone though :)
3. I have a bias? News to me.
4. The main tenets of the book are flawed. I can't speak to it's tenants
5. Without correlation to the real world, case by case, the whole argument falls apart.
6. Did you even read my post? I said the problem was that it was all theorizing. There's a ton of fact already upon which current accepted analysis is based. Altemeyer's book opposes this, and simply fails to make the case.

Some humble suggestions:
a)Discard the ideological bias. Be very objective, let the studies speak for themselves, don't try to impose preset beliefs.
b)Try not to make grandiose claims. Stick to the particular psychological aspects of the study

I often disagree with the accepted viewpoint, I was just stating it. Personally, I think a lot of dictators are pretty boys without abnormal psyches serving masters who use psychological manipulation to secure power.

7. I'm concerned about real authoritarianism. If you propose "SDHA" is a hypothetical type of government which is NOT a major world problem, why worry?
Quote:
I disagree wholeheartedly that the author's bias equals anything like Wulf or PN's!

That was a snark at their expense. Welcome to the snark. Expect more of them. (Snarks are sarcasm.) Oh, and Wulf, PN, don't be such easy targets
Quote:
Equally so that authoritarianism comes from socialist think tanks!!!

Neocons who created the Bush admin openly admitted to being socialists:
"A Neoconservative is a socialist who supports the conservative movement" - Irving Kristol, founder of neoconservatism.
"Socialists will never get elected on their own merits"
"A neoconservative is just a socialist who was broadsided by reality."
"A social dem [later:clintonista] is a socialist who was broadsided by reality but didn't press charges."
Mr. Kristol is a funny guy. Too bad he has killed so many people.

8. Yeah, I got the "kind of people" thing, I just didn't buy the theory.
9. As I said, the underlying ideas are not without merit. He should stick to psychology until he can prove the phenomenon, and not leapfrog into geopolitical analysis.

Quote:
in THEIR minds, the world is evil and it's every man for himself, and they want to control. Dick Cheney is a perfect example..."for the good" of the American people--tho' it may be IN HIS MIND.


10. I think Dick is a career politician with a deep abiding faith in the greater good, IN HIS MIND, YES, and a very strong reliance on others. Notice that his cabinet was filled with long term political associates.He's also very deeply misguided.Outside of Rummy, I'm not sure he has "friends."

11. Obama made deals to get power which he now has, (He is President of the USA,) power which he acquired to enact (his version) of the greater good (which is hopefully closer to ours) I thought this was so obvious it barely made a mention. And no, I never said he as authoritarian, that would be absurd.
Quote:
citing Jefferson is a fallacy.

12. No, it's not. Whatever one thinks of Jefferson, that line opens our founding document. Ergo, it was the consensus viewpoint of the founders, or they'd have changed it.
13. On PWL/Reagan, that an editing error. I meant what you said: he was the major proponent.
Quote:
Quote:
There's almost no difference between Bush policy and Clinton policy

That's your opinion, I disagree HEARTILY with it. In fact I find it amazing.

14. ??? I'm surprised. I thought you followed politics.
15. Re:Clinton and racism. He's responsible for the deaths of over 8 million blacks, has frequently made racist comments, used to work in his father's whites-only store. The guy's Klan material. Hell, he's their wet dream.
Quote:
Quote:
Bush was a dumbfuck

Hoo, boy, DO we disagree!

16. No solving this one. He nominated his own powerless friends, nominations later overrun by the GOP. If you want to meet the dumb fuck I can probably arrange that. I think it might change your mind on this one. ;)
17. Re: policy changes under Bush. Yeah, minor ones, it's just pushing the envelop, but I'll grant 2 of those: Homeland Security and the Bush Doctrine (Arguable. Bush could claim he had UN and NATO okays.)
Quote:
Wow.

18. You should look into this politics thing more.
19.Don't need to read books analyzing Bush, I know people who know him personally. Obama too. Don't know anyone who knows Cheney. No one knows Cheney.
Quote:
you didn't "get" the concept of the theory

20. I thought I did, just wasn't willing to follow the leap to the political connection.

Spell it out for me then. Start with the core psychological ideas, and we'll see where the problem come in.

What comes across is a left wing rant against the right. Within that, there's probably sound theory, it's just mired in prejudice, and leapfroging on speculation.

These are the two things harming the argument:
A. Underlying prejudice and preconceptions in favor of the conclusions that then he finds to the surprise of no one
B. A quantum leap from what *can* be created an observed artificially to the political real world, which contrasts with what we see historically.

If you want to support a theory, you have to do it block by block from some sort of basis we can accept, not backing down from a grand conspiracy theory and then attempting to recreate a rationalization for it.

Nik, The problem with the conclusion is that the formation of the Bush admin is something that has been discussed on this board for the last 7 years. If you read back you'll find millions of words on the topic, and a lot of really astute analyses, but I think everyone who has been here for a while has a basic idea. There are some areas where there is little room for doubt. I feel very sure that Irving Kristol had more impact on Bush policy than George W. Bush did. That doesn't mean that the psychology theory here has no merit. I'm sure it has merit. But start small, don't leap to explaining the Bush administration on a classroom experiment.

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 3:31 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 Niki2:
Oooo, you managed Comic Sans!!! That's my favorite font (well, next to benguiat maybe), but I couldn't get it to work! I wonder if the quote marks would work on other fonts we don't see?

Some of the fonts that don't work for me, Mike sees, and some I see, he doesn't. Go figger. But I tried Comic Sans so many times, and YOU got it!

Let's see if I can get these by adding the quote marks as you did:

Monaco
Palatino
Onyx
Rockwell

Nope, no such luck. Ah well...


________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts


See, I see 'em just fine. Monaco, Palatino, Onyx, and Rockwell, in their typefaces.

And your post is in Comic Sans, at least on MY monitor.

Your signature, however, is in dingbats, because I may have broken my settings on my Mac. The "Appearance" page font is defaulted to dingbats, and it won't let me change it. Might have to do some hacking around to see what I can clear out...

Oddly, it's ONLY your sig line that appears that way.

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

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

Monday, September 7, 2009 4:30 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

The font I used was "Comic Sans MS" which doesn't display on Linux. The "Serenity" doesn't either, but they just revert to default. I see few fonts.

Only Palatino came through over here.

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 6:06 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Ironically, something came across my desk today which relates to the original topic and I consider still worth posting.

Y'all do recall me often stating that CITIVAS and Childtrauma academy research has noted actual physical construction differences in the brains of severely abused or neglected children, and that failure to acknowledge this makes treatment difficult, right ?
http://www.childtrauma.org/CTAMATERIALS/neuros~1.asp

Psychopaths have faulty brain connections
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32333480/ns/health-mental_health/

Apparently some british researchers have added some useful info on the other end, and it'd be interesting to correllate with their early experiences and see if the faulty connections are indeed that result, or a naturally occuring defect.

Either way, this is a pretty decent forward step in treatment and mitigation, so long as we treat it like a mental health issue rather than an outcast branding or pre-crime assessment.

-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 9:35 AM

DREAMTROVE


Frem.

Interesting. There are two problems here:
1. unnatural synaptic connections relating cause and effect, strange relationships, etc.
2. Actual brain damage caused by early head injuries and even more from poor nutrition of the abused child.

IMHO, Mental heath care is pathetic. I think we should destigmatize it, and just pull it into mainstream "healthcare." If someone' behavior is erratic, probably they have a heath problem that should be treated. Yes, there's psychology and neurochemistry, but I'd say most causes are just natural, with psychological symptoms.

But: All of these should just be treated as normal health problems, because mental health care is just as bad as the child treatment clinics you fight against... and you know I know...

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Not just mental health care, but drug addiction and abuse should be folded in too, and treated as a purely medical problem rather than a criminal justice issue.

Make it a one body, one full-service system, instead of segregated parts working at cross purposes.

Of course, my reaction to the whole system is a bit like Gils reaction to the Dihoxulator his father had built.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20021218

"Sparks": in this comic are based on hyperfocus ISTP personalities, one can imagine imma big fan.

-F

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


Agreed.

Not one system of course: competing systems.

Our actual medical system is a mess, and its new govt subsidy will lead to even more hopeless corruption.

But I agree, all are conditions to be treated. Education, medicine, etc.

Phil Foglio might be another two degrees of separation.

I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."

Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...

gnawing...

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Ah, well, my madness has a purpose, and a focus, and best of all ?
An ON/OFF switch.

You'll note that one of my memes is Try Reason FIRST, but reality is what it is, and sometimes reason doesn't work...

And I do believe Gil has the right idea about how to handle that.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080303
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080305
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20080307
Although admittedly I am much more fond of his father, Klaus.

Damn good comic, very entertaining to an ISTP with Sparky tendencies themself.

-F

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:00 PM

DREAMTROVE


On off switch would be nice, what is it?
(love the ads)

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:01 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey DT, it's always tough coming into a conversation that's been going on for 4 days, read it all in one sitting (as I have just done--more or less, some definite skimming and glossing goin' on over here ) and then try to add to the conversation--feels kinda like trying to merge onto the freeway during rush hour, but here I go:

Way too much to go into point for point--and I generally try to avoid such, 'cause it so often leads to more misunderstanding, not less--but I'll take on just this li'l snippet as a microcosm, if you will, of what doesn't sit right with me from your posts on this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Neocons who created the Bush admin openly admitted to being socialists:
"A Neoconservative is a socialist who supports the conservative movement" - Irving Kristol, founder of neoconservatism.
"Socialists will never get elected on their own merits"
"A neoconservative is just a socialist who was broadsided by reality."
"A social dem [later:clintonista] is a socialist who was broadsided by reality but didn't press charges."
Mr. Kristol is a funny guy. Too bad he has killed so many people.
First of all there's a choice of words that I find to be pretty thoroughly loaded, which you may not have noticed or intended as such: "openly admitted." I really doubt that. The Neocons are spin-doctors first and foremost. They're admitting nothing, they're framing the debate and you're just accepting their frame and calling it "objective." Neocons, 1; DT, Zero.

Now, folk on the Libertarian side of the discussion tend to use "socialist" and "statist" as pretty much the same thing. It's a right-leaning idea. Lefties, real lefties, commies and anarchists tend to see "statist" and "fascist" as the same thing, which is just their scare-words for bad right-wingers. The Neocons are happy to continue the confusion. But communism, actual miggy figgin' communism isn't statist at all. And socialism for the communist--the REAL leftists in the spectrum--is just a stage on the way to communism theorized by Karl Marx. The words "communism" and "socialism" have been completely redefined by the anti-Stalinists, the anti-Maoists. And then co-opted by the right-wing to discredit actual leftism. The philosophy and theory of "communism" and "socialism" have been completely drowned out by the PROFOUNDLY CORRUPT regimes that co-opted both terms.

At the heart of Neocon theory is the idea that the general populace cannot think for themselves and require a tiny Cabal to decide what's best for them. The Neocon's are fundamentally anti-egalitarian. And ALL so-called "leftist" leaders the right is so fond of pointing out--your Stalins and such--have only used leftist rhetoric to achieve power--none of 'em have ever ACTED on egalitarian principles.

What's hilarious is that the libertarians have aided and abetted the Neocons in discrediting the real Left, by claiming that the left are the ones who want "government" to decide what's best for everyone. You see what they did there? The Neocons and the libertarians are the one's who see government as an oligarchy, de facto, while the leftists believe government is by, for and of the people (or should be/can be). So when the Leftist says that government should decide what goes on, the leftist is talking about the actual will of the people. But when a Neocon or libertarian speak of government deciding, they always see oligarchy--AND THEN, ta-daaa! paint the leftist as a closet oligarch, or "authoritarian." Obama is the biggest power monger in the country! Check your premises, DT.

It's maddening. You and your side (nya, nya, DT's on a si-iiiide! ) have decided what communism and socialism MEAN now. Except, ironies of ironies, to the actual communists and socialists.

So, your Neocon "openly admits" to being socialist? Bull. Shit.

"A Neoconservative is a socialist who supports the conservative movement."

No. A Neoconservative is a statist who will discredit leftist rhetoric any way he can.

"Socialists will never get elected on their own merits"

Not when their own merits have been so twisted by the right-wing think tanks and propaganda machines that have hammered away at the left since the 70's.

"A neoconservative is just a socialist who was broadsided by reality."

No, the Neocons have simply redefined reality to suit their nihilist agenda--the "reality" they speak of is might makes right and all their policies bend to that malignant distortion of reality.

"A social dem [later:clintonista] is a socialist who was broadsided by reality but didn't press charges."

I see you enjoy his style of snark. I don't.

Hey, DT, which side are you on? Might makes right, or right makes might? Is a conversation between these two view points possible? What would it look like?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:25 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Chartreuse sounds like fun


Folk who fish crankbait for largemouth bass say, "If it ain't chartruese, it ain't no use".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 7:03 PM

DREAMTROVE


HK

You might have noticed that I don't get into partisan debates, and that usually when one comes up I tend to just whack people over the head and tell them to sit down and behave which has absolutely no effect.

That said, I'll answer your questions, but I don't want to get into a political argument. I have no stake in them and think they're a waste of time.

My only concern is the truth and that people cooperated to help each other find it. If I don't know something, I ask. If I'm pretty sure of something, I just point people in a direction, and they can go read up on it, and draw their own conclusions. I'm not out to convert anyone.

Okay, now specifically.
Quote:

First of all there's a choice of words that I find to be pretty thoroughly loaded, which you may not have noticed or intended as such: "openly admitted." I really doubt that.


Don't. You can go back and read them. Start with the early one, Max Shachtman, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, that whole crowd and their immediate underlings, who you know as the neocons, Bill Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, and their social dems, who are part of the same think tanks, Brezinski, Khalizad, the whole list is pretty easy to assemble.

Back in the early days they made no effort to cover their tracks, they were pretty arrogant. Now they do, because they realize that their policies are unpopular. In the 60s and 70s they were real open about it, they even supported socialist candidates as third party, and then as democrats, but even after the Scoop Jackson disaster there was still a lot of open rhetoric about what they were doing, and a fair number of people were paying attention... Just not enough, or not the right people. Mainly, I suspect that the people who were warned shrugged the idea off as paranoia, that these neocons were conspiring to take over the govt. and dismantle the constitution, "oh, that's absurd" people of either party would have said at the time. Still, if you dig you can find some interesting and insightful analysis from contemporaries.

I'd say even up to 2001, there was some openness to the movement, but the first real attempt to cloak themselves was when Reagan nominated Jean Kirkpatrick, who was a member of the communist party, a fact that the neocons went out of their way to hide. So, like many things, you can watch this as a gradual shift.

Another thing you'll find when you dig is that the agenda in the 1970s for the neocons was very similar to what it is right now. That's part of the problem. The world has changed. They haven't. They're dinosaurs, and it's time political evolution moved passed them.


And yes, I grant that they would not admit it *now*. Unfortunately for them, they talk all the time and write even more.


Re: word use

I got into some arguments about this before. Socialism is short for social engineering. I have no idea how anyone intends to do that without a strong degree of central authority.

I think statist is a loaded word. It only has negative connotations, as does fascist. Sometimes I use these, but only as an insult, with a grain of truth, like re: Hugo Chavez.


Re: scare-words for bad right-wingers.

I don't think that the left has a real clear idea of the right, not saying that it's any better in reverse, but the left does label govts. as "right wing" on a completely random basis.

The right wing is probably more off base when it tries to ascribe motives to the left.

Quote:
The Neocons are happy to continue the confusion.


The word is dead. I think we have to call them "globalists" now, because post-bush you have a lot of these folk redefining themselves as democrats, and a lot who were in the back rooms in those think tanks who were always social dems coming to the forefront for the same groups with the same ideas. They're a bipartisan disease. They just seem to increase in govt. over time. I hope Obama can shoot better than he bowls because he's gonna have his hands full with these agendamonkeys.

Quote:
But communism, actual miggy figgin' communism isn't statist at all.


Another word that has to be retired. The problem is, once a word gets used, it gains meaning. You can see this through the entire etymological history of every language. Conservation now refers to environmental policy, and conservative to fiscal, but conserve took on a meaning at some point, I think some point, 17th c. from the latin with+keep.

Communism now means a top down enforced equality, just like democracy now means a govt. of elected representatives.

If we have a system of govt. where every debate, decision, etc. was done by whole population online voting, we wouldn't call it democracy, it would need a new name.

If you mean small communes, you have to give them a new name, like communalism. Communism is govt. proposed by Marx as applied by the people who have used it, collectively.

Many communal societies are extremely right wing.


Quote:
The words "communism" and "socialism" have been completely redefined by the anti-Stalinists, the anti-Maoists.


No, they were defined by Stalin and Mao, and also Lenin, and others THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS. It's not their detractors. Lenin's govt. killed 13 million people, he doesn't get a free ride. Stalins at least shared responsibity for 60 million deaths, and Mao, 70 million. Any wonder they have opponents?


Ok, I'm so not getting into a left vs. right debate, cause I so don't care. The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.

Yes, I'm conservative, but I've shown pretty well over the years that I don't discount liberals out of hand. Often they have good ideas. A lot of conservatives can be really annoying, some of them aren't at all.

Statements like this one:
Quote:
And then co-opted by the right-wing to discredit actual leftism.

Are just set ups for left-right battles. You're grouping right and left as if they were sides in a war. I just don't think it works that way.

It would be like saying that Bush was the opposite of Clinton. Bush was Clinton. There's no real difference between the two. Anyone who objectively studied both administrations at length would come to the same conclusion, regardless of their own ideology. The key words there being "objective" and "at length."


Re: Obama as powermonger.

I like Obama, and I never implied he was an authoritarian.

power monger. Monger, someone who deals, trades, a broker, buyer and seller.

Power, influence over others.

My statement was sociological and psychological:

Obama wished to enact change, change which he believes is for the greater good, and for the most part, I agree.

In order to enact such change, Obama needed to acquire influence over others, in short, power. There's no more powerful position (officially) than President of the United States.

But they don't just give the post away to any Ron Paul or Ralph Nader that comes along with a desire to affect change.

You must become a powermonger to get it: You must trade in the commodity of influence. Many people already have power. To get them to help you with your rise to power, you must make deals. As a result of these deals, you can be sure that elections will not be stolen from you, that campaign coffers will be full, no scandals will spill, or be fabricated, and during your campaign, the press will be relatively friendly.

John McCain is a powermonger also, he's not as good at it as Obama, because IMHO, he's not as smart a man as Obama. This should be no surprise to anyone. You can look at their careers, even their college grades and determine this. I think Obama has 30-40 IQ points over McCain, which is not to say that John McCain is a moron by any means, just that he was no match for Obama.


Okay, I'm responding as I read. The next part is just obnoxious. Don't be an ass.

The quotes I posted were not my words, they were the words of Mr. Irving Kristol, the founder of Neoconservatism, a splinter branch of the social democrat movement founded by former Trotsky-Communist leader and head of the SWP Max Shachtman. I'm not shooting in the dark here. This is reality. Mr. Kristol is still alive, you can go talk to him about it. I'm sure he'll tell you all about the history, their shifts, strategic choices, and yes, their deep abiding faith in their ability to make decisions for us for the greater good. And he will really truly believe every single word of it.


As for my side, yeah, I'm on my side. I voted for Cynthia McKinney. Why? Because I believe in what she stands for, she speaks truth to power. I like what she has to say, and I deeply respect that she has the courage to say it. If Ron Paul had the GOP nomination? Yea, I would have voted for him.

If Obama had taken a different platform that was not militant, keynesian, and was willing to take a hard line against the kleptocracy and end the stupid war on terror, support a return to the constitution, etc., I would have voted for him. The thing is, I say this because I think he *actually* believes those things are wrong (except he may actually believe in keynes, which is unfortunate, from my *side* or rather, a personal point of view, I think keynesian economics is just a drastic waste of manpower.)

But Obama didn't oppose things that I thought were wrong, even though I think HE thinks they are wrong as well, because he was brokering for power (mongering if you will) because he wanted to win. And he did this because he's a smart guy. Ron Paul had no chance. He probably had more popular support, but he stood on principle (he's also a smart guy) but he also knew that they weren't really going to let him win, he just wanted to get his message across, and he did so, loud and clear.


BTW, I find it humorous that you argue with the Kristol quote I quoted, even though I clearly identified them as quoted of the archon of neocons himself at the beginning, and put each one in quotes.

No offense, but it's almost like the thread where Citizen argued with his own quoted words.

Quote:

Hey, DT, which side are you on? Might makes right, or right makes might? Is a conversation between these two view points possible? What would it look like?


My side. You know my position already. Taoism. Respect all life, avoid confrontation, passive life. Allegiance to none, fair quarter to all, all of that.

If I were to be irked about anything here it would be that which in general irks me about the left: You already know my position very well, because we've been here for four years. I have to then take any such assault as a display being put on for the third party viewer.

Seriously, I would assert that this is not a social skill to cultivate, as it does not win friends, not influence people, in any way that you would want to.

Specifically, to answer your questions, you are right on one point: Neocons are machiavellians. They never claimed not to be. They are cold and ruthless because they believe that this is the most effective means of exerting their influence. They think they have all the answers, which makes them arrogant, sure, and they want to apply those answers to save us from ourselves, so they would fall under this category.


My answer: Might makes morons. It's just a flawed strategy rooted in a flawed ideology. The most profound proponents on this board of radical oppositional tactics would, I suspect, agree with this basic logic.


I also want to add a psychological footnote: Your post looks like it's jonesing for an opponent, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not that opponent. I simply don't have the time, nor any will to fight.


I also humbly suggest that while I have no allegiance, were I to, I wouldn't make a very good Taoist, now would I? (Sure, I support people, and rarely, parties, such as the Tories, presently, that is because they support what I believe, not because I follow them. If they change, sobeit, I'll stop supporting them.)

OTOH, you appear to have one. You seem to view the left as a victim, and the right as a deep dark manipulative force trying to destroy you. I can't imagine a world so dark that 1/2 of humanity would have to be considered the enemy.

Maybe you should see to that.

[Now THAT, was a snark.]

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:01 PM

HKCAVALIER


(Holy crap, I think I just won the interwebz! This is the longest post I think I've ever written!!! Huzzah!)

Hey DT,

Oh well. You kinda get a lot of ideas about my intentions other than the one that rules me: expressing myself. I'm not jonesing over here. I did try to feature "the leftist point of view" and I may have gotten carried away. I don't consider myself a communist, though I grok it better than I do socialism. I like some of the communists I've known and think others of them are off their rockers. I am really annoyed about this disconnect between how actual leftists use the words "communist" and "socialist" and how their detractors use them. Why use a term to describe regimes that oppose communism at every level other than rhetoric just because they used the term themselves? Just doesn't seem fair, darn it!

I was trying to explain the profound disconnect between the way you seem to be thinking about the Left, and how the Left think about themselves. That was my big point and you thought I was trying to get in a fight with you. I played at getting in a fight with you (nya, nya, etc.) but I wasn't expecting a fight. I thought maybe I could say something about communism, because I know a lot of self-described communists--don't know that a lot of folk on this board can say that. I could be dead wrong.

And, waaaa, I've read Strauss and Kristol, that's how I know they are not egalitarians (I half heartedly went around looking for quotes but lost interest, 'cause I knew you'd read them). Egalitarianism is presented as anti-authoritarian in Altmeyer's book and I agree with that assessment. So I say egalitarianism is a leftist value because of the leftists I have known--no communist I have ever met believes that Stalin was a communist (and will go on at great length to explain exactly why at the slightest provocation)--Stalin called himself a communist, his party appropriated the mantle of communist, destroyed the meaning of the word, but they were fundamentally authoritarian in their views and policies.

When I talk to communists and socialist they never quote any of the neocons you mentioned. Those people may have been acting within the socialist or democratic parties, but that doesn't really mean much, does it? Their agenda is power, so they thought the socialist party success was their best, most direct way to power. Turns out they miscalculated, so they dumped their so-called leftist roots wholesale. To the authoritarian mind and to the social dominating mind, it's all just a means to an end. They're Machiavellian, yes, absolutely and that is why they're not leftist/progressive/populist/humane/socially responsible/trustworthy. That's was my point.

I didn't mean to be snarking at you with my rephrasing of your Kristol quotes--I was trying to rephrase them from a leftist point of view to show you how different a leftist point of view is from Kristol's. You were saying he was a socialist because he said he was a socialist and I was trying to show the illogic of that argument, by contrasting it with a leftist interpretation of those quotes. Oh well. Chaos and miscommunication, 1; HK, Zero.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Back in the early days they made no effort to cover their tracks, they were pretty arrogant. Now they do, because they realize that their policies are unpopular. In the 60s and 70s they were real open about it, they even supported socialist candidates as third party, and then as democrats, but even after the Scoop Jackson disaster there was still a lot of open rhetoric about what they were doing, and a fair number of people were paying attention... Just not enough, or not the right people. Mainly, I suspect that the people who were warned shrugged the idea off as paranoia, that these neocons were conspiring to take over the govt. and dismantle the constitution, "oh, that's absurd" people of either party would have said at the time. Still, if you dig you can find some interesting and insightful analysis from contemporaries.
Absolutely.

Quote:
I'd say even up to 2001, there was some openness to the movement, but the first real attempt to cloak themselves was when Reagan nominated Jean Kirkpatrick, who was a member of the communist party, a fact that the neocons went out of their way to hide. So, like many things, you can watch this as a gradual shift.
I don't get it, DT! You say yourself that these guys were Machiavellian--did they become cynical deceivers "gradually" over time, or were they always such folk?

Quote:
Another thing you'll find when you dig is that the agenda in the 1970s for the neocons was very similar to what it is right now.
Yes! I know this! Authoritarian wolves in progressive clothing. From my reading I don't see that they've really changed at all.

Quote:
And yes, I grant that they would not admit it *now*. Unfortunately for them, they talk all the time and write even more.
Remind me why we're fighting again?

Quote:
I got into some arguments about this before. Socialism is short for social engineering. I have no idea how anyone intends to do that without a strong degree of central authority.

I think statist is a loaded word. It only has negative connotations, as does fascist. Sometimes I use these, but only as an insult, with a grain of truth, like re: Hugo Chavez.
Yes, we disagree on definitions, that was my point. Disagreeing on definitions makes communication hard. The neocons have more or less successfully reframed the entire political debate in this country. You as a non-partisan should know that. But I see you defaulting to their definitions of everything and when I point this out, you say, "Well, we should throw all those words out anyway." Perhaps so, but right now we have the Left and the Right using these words in totally irreconcilable ways.

Quote:
I don't think that the left has a real clear idea of the right, not saying that it's any better in reverse, but the left does label govts. as "right wing" on a completely random basis.
You call it "random" and Altmeyer's book "shallow," but that's not what I hear from the actual leftists I know. I don't find it random and I don't find Altmeyer shallow. Oh well.

Of course, I don't see the left/right divide the same way you do. The left doesn't seem to have much political power in this country anymore. We have the right vs. the not-so-very-far-right in this country. Civil rights still count for something, at least.

And there's hope. Obama talked a good game about egalitarianism, and the left saw electing him as a progressive action in itself, and a lot of us hoped--still hope, at least until tomorrow night --that he would promote a more progressive agenda than he really has. Egalitarianism also means equality under the law--torture is torture and those who engage in it are criminals, that sort of thing.

Quote:
Communism now means a top down enforced equality, just like democracy now means a govt. of elected representatives.
Says you. You playin' My Definition Can Beat Up Your Definition here? I'm trying to talk about the divide between left and right thinking. And I was trying to get you, DT, to perhaps, be mindful of how your definitions promote a right-wing agenda by defining real leftist ideas and ideals out of existence.

Quote:
If we have a system of govt. where every debate, decision, etc. was done by whole population online voting, we wouldn't call it democracy, it would need a new name.
I disagree. I think we'll call it "direct democracy" and no one will bat an eye.

Quote:
If you mean small communes, you have to give them a new name, like communalism. Communism is govt. proposed by Marx as applied by the people who have used it, collectively.
So you say. But communists themselves would vehemently disagree. You think you know more about communism than the communists themselves?

Quote:
Many communal societies are extremely right wing.
But are they egalitarian? Are there any extremely right-wing societies that are genuinely egalitarian?

Quote:
No, they were defined by Stalin and Mao, and also Lenin, and others THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS. It's not their detractors.
And I'm just sayin' that to the communists I've known, Stalin and Mao were themselves detractors. Their actions speak deafeningly lowder than their words.

Quote:
Ok, I'm so not getting into a left vs. right debate, cause I so don't care. The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.
I don't see it that way. If the left had any real political power in this country right now, I might agree, but the Dem/Repub split is not a left/right split--it is indeed a shallow imitation. I'm not personally convinced that it's a mechanism of TPTB. I don't see TPTB as competent enough to purposefully engineer something so pervasive. They are, have been and always will be opportunists and parasites.

Quote:
Statements like this one:
Quote:
And then co-opted by the right-wing to discredit actual leftism.

Are just set ups for left-right battles. You're grouping right and left as if they were sides in a war. I just don't think it works that way.
Neither do I. I think right-wing authoritarianism is a fundamentally abusive ideology--based upon systematic abuse of children and the destruction of critical thinking. I see it as ultimately maladaptive. I see the real anti-authoritarian, egalitarian left as the political manifestation of mental health. I know, everyone's convinced that anarchism is neither left nor right 'cause the Libertarians told us so, but I don't buy it. The more I learn about political psychology; the more the right-wing in this country shows its true colors; the more I see anarchism as a politically left leaning philosophy. You are free to disagree.

The morality of slavery used to be up for debate in this country. Now it's understood to be universally morally repugnant. At the moment, the morality of physical and mental abuse of children, spanking for instance, calling children hateful names, is up for debate. But I foresee a time when such violation of children will be as discredited as slavery. I am thoroughly convinced that the physical and mental abuse of children is at the heart of right-wing (and I don't mean conservative) anti-rational ideology.

I think violence/abuse pushes people, in the short run (and for long periods if the abuse is systematic), toward authoritarianism as described by Altmeyer (and, in some ways far more thoroughly and with far more research, Alice Miller). Look at what happened to this country, after the attacks of 9/11! That was an horrendous abuse of this country's people and a terrible blow to this country's psyche, our collective optimism and empathy. It propelled us, again in the short run, very much to the right. This is a psychological mechanism--the mechanism of abuse. Right-wing authoritarianism is the political consequences of abuse.

Quote:
It would be like saying that Bush was the opposite of Clinton.
No. Clinton wasn't left. He was only "lefter" than Bush. He had some leftist intentions and motivations, but they were pretty corrupted by other things. Interestingly, he's been able to promote more effectively leftist programs AFTER leaving office than when he was President.

One way in which Clinton's administration was profoundly different from Bush's was that Bush acted abusively and called it "protecting us." Clinton acted abusively and, well, tried to hide it. I honestly think that's healthier. It's not the best, not optimal, but he demonstrated appropriate, and I think sincere, shame about a lot of his abuses. Whereas, Bush gloried in them. Smirked and winked as he sent good men and women to their deaths--with, I believe, appallingly morally corrosive results. The net result was that we Americans saw Clinton as flawed (which he was/is) and we Americans didn't feel safe to make such assessments of Bush at all. Yes, I'm generalizing. Bad HK, Bad!

Quote:
Anyone who objectively studied both administrations at length would come to the same conclusion, regardless of their own ideology. The key words there being "objective" and "at length."
Very sweeping, that statement. You dirty generalizer, you! And it kinda set you up as the exemplar of impeccable study. Are you???? (sorry)

BTW: I think non-authoritarians can reach politically conservative conclusions (maybe I shoulda said that at the top of my post). I really don't have a problem with conservatism, per se. If Ron Paul by some miracle had gotten the nomination, I would have voted for him in a second (if I could have cleared up his apparent connections to the White Supremacist movement). I think the American system works best when there is a healthy debate between progressive and conservative ideas. But our present day politics, thanks in no small part to the Neocons--but there are other factors, of course--have become much more about image than idea.

Quote:
But they don't just give the post away to any Ron Paul or Ralph Nader that comes along with a desire to affect change.

You must become a powermonger to get it: You must trade in the commodity of influence. Many people already have power. To get them to help you with your rise to power, you must make deals. As a result of these deals, you can be sure that elections will not be stolen from you, that campaign coffers will be full, no scandals will spill, or be fabricated, and during your campaign, the press will be relatively friendly.
I thought you were using "power monger" in a more loaded and negative sense than you do here. I think Niki got the same impression. I appreciate your clarification and I agree. Obama is the closest thing we get to progressive candidate and that seems to mean less and less with each passing day.

Quote:
Okay, I'm responding as I read. The next part is just obnoxious. Don't be an ass.
Maybe we just need to talk to each other a lot more than we do, dreamstrove, to clear up misunderstandings like this. I wasn't attacking you with my refutation of Kristol--I was trying to high-light that the guy was a totally untrustworthy Machiavellian fraud. You seemed to be taking him at his word, accepting his comments on Socialism as fact and I found that kinda sorta outrageous.

Quote:
The quotes I posted were not my words, they were the words of Mr. Irving Kristol, the founder of Neoconservatism, a splinter branch of the social democrat movement founded by former Trotsky-Communist leader and head of the SWP Max Shachtman.
Yeah, we just don't have enough context for me to talk to you the way I did. My bad. Never thought they were your words.

Hello, dreamtrove. Are we enemies? I don't think we are. I think you're too cynical sometimes. I think you err on the side of paranoia and conspiracy. And I think you're a little blind to the psychological ugliness of the right (not conservatism). But, I don't think you're my enemy. I admit to playing the "Someone is Wrong on the Internet!" game in my last post, but I wasn't picking a fight with you.

Quote:
I'm not shooting in the dark here. This is reality. Mr. Kristol is still alive, you can go talk to him about it. I'm sure he'll tell you all about the history, their shifts, strategic choices, and yes, their deep abiding faith in their ability to make decisions for us for the greater good. And he will really truly believe every single word of it.
Yes.

Quote:
BTW, I find it humorous that you argue with the Kristol quote I quoted, even though I clearly identified them as quoted of the archon of neocons himself at the beginning, and put each one in quotes.
Waa, boo-hoo. I hope you understand a little better what I intended with my rebuttal to Kristol's b.s.

Quote:
You know my position already. Taoism. Respect all life, avoid confrontation, passive life. Allegiance to none, fair quarter to all, all of that.
Yeah, I do, or thought I did, but then I see you giving the right-wing such a pass, abusive warlike nihilists the time of day, and using their propaganda as if it's describing the world we live in and I'm confused. I think it's important if we're to negotiate the middle that we understand both ends. Your posts belied lack of understanding of the left. I wouldn't be surprised if you had what you believe to be better insight into the way people on the right think and live than I. And I welcome any insights you might offer about how folk on the right really think.

Quote:
If I were to be irked about anything here it would be that which in general irks me about the left: You already know my position very well, because we've been here for four years. I have to then take any such assault as a display being put on for the third party viewer.
Hrm. I guess I had Niki in mind as I wrote. Thought she might find some comfort in someone besides herself voicing confusion and opposition to some of the things you seemed to say. But, mainly I was speaking my mind.

Quote:
Seriously, I would assert that this is not a social skill to cultivate, as it does not win friends, not influence people, in any way that you would want to.
It's so funny, you're kinda lecturing me here on social skills. Thank you. And then, kinda out of nowhere you get my point exactly in this next bit:
Quote:
Specifically, to answer your questions, you are right on one point: Neocons are Machiavellians. They never claimed not to be. They are cold and ruthless because they believe that this is the most effective means of exerting their influence. They think they have all the answers, which makes them arrogant, sure, and they want to apply those answers to save us from ourselves, so they would fall under this category.
We reach! We grok in fullness!

But then, the sky goes dark and the music takes on a minor key:
Quote:
OTOH, you appear to have one. You seem to view the left as a victim, and the right as a deep dark manipulative force trying to destroy you. I can't imagine a world so dark that 1/2 of humanity would have to be considered the enemy.
Kind of an air-ball here. I don't see "1/2 of humanity" as the enemy. That's a ready-made distortion you brought to this conversation. And it is so far from where I sit. I see abuse and those who justify it as destructive to the human species and a grave danger to our long-term survival. I see that abused people who haven't found healing are extremely vulnerable to authoritarian domination.

I don't see enemies when you get right down to it. I see some very distorted thinking that leads to misery for all. Is Dick Cheney my enemy? I've never met him. I do think he has demonstrated some pretty extreme distorted thinking, habitual deceitfulness, and he doesn't strike me as a remotely happy human being. I think he's trouble, and I'm glad he's no longer in the White House.

Thanks for listening.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 5:13 AM

DREAMTROVE


HK

Yeah, you win, I have work t do. I asked Frem to kick my ass if I started doing this too much...

I'll try

1. doesn't matter how people intend a word to mean, it matters what they actually do.

2. i humbly suggest not latching yourself to a political side, these are sinking stones, and alienate 1/2 the population at least. Election results in any country where communists run (and Chavez isn't arming them) indicate that this allegiance will alienate 96% of the population. In china it's law, and so you won't alienate anyone.

3. Instead, learn to talk the talk of all political viewpoints in case you get mixed up with political people. In those situations, then try to extricate yourself before you end up in politics (trust me, it's not a pretty site.)

4. Egalitarianism is a leftist value. Unlike PWL, it requires totalitarian control to take it to the logical conclusion. Nature is by nature, unequal. Equality is an artificial opposition. Absolute equality requires absolute control.

5. Altmeyer isn't a source. I treat him as a poster, with whom I disagree, on politics. He should stick to psychology for now.

6. Stalin didn't destroy communism, Lenin did. In a few short years he managed to kill 13 million, a larger genocide that the indian wars (12 million) or the slave wars(11 million) both of which took centuries. But it was always a flawed ideology, IMHO.

7. Why would communists quote neocons? That would be like Ahmadinejad quoting Bin Laden.

8. The neocons didn't *change* as people. They changed their tactics. In the 1970s they didn't see the need. This was because they didn't have the level of power that generates scrutiny. The change was in behavior. They were always willing to do "whatever necessary" but they changed their range of "necessary." Supporting conservatives became "necessary" then, hiding their identitiesy of Kirkpatrick became "necessary" then hiding their actual point of view became "necessary."

It wouldn't occur to me right off the bat that hiding my point of view was necessary. If I were in Mao's China, I might notice that being openly Taoist was a bad idea. But it's not going to occur in a friendly environment. I'm guessing that you're surrounded by liberals, and so it doesn't occur that these points of view in support of communism could potentially alienate the majority of the population. If you weren't surrounded by liberals, you might hold the identical point of view, but it would occur to you not announce it so clearly.

I'm not saying one situation is better than the other, or that recognition of unpopular viewpoints leads to machiavellians, just that machiavellians are limited by the same psychology as the rest of us. I don't want my house invaded by rampaging gangs of barbarians, so I don't put up a castle wall around my house. It has little to do with not being I'm paranoid.

The only thing that would seem abnormal would be to set up such defenses long *before* they seemed useful

9. Damn, now this is a long post.

Quote:
Remind me why we're fighting again?


We're not. I'm just pointing out that there's a 1/2 of the problem that you've missed: the left half. I mean *I* don't this: (a real right wing problem):

Someone asked Carbone if he would still be designing missile systems for the defense dept if Bush hadn't won the election, and he replied "Bush wasn't elected by the people. He was appointed by God." And he meant it.

But you have to see them whereever they are. I'm not saying there was no right wing lunacy in the Bush disaster, but that the neocons, specifically, weren't one of them.


If you were to have your idyllic communal collectivist society, I can tell you already what the result would be:

1. It would be more efficient, because you wouldn't produce excess (why does every human need a motorized transportation device? Or their own washing machine?)

2. It would be less competitive. Competition is the birthplace of innovation, because it forces artificial necessity.

We don't need to guess, these societies exist all over the world and have for as long as there were people, the closest one to here is not 20 miles away. They're just about all right wing religious societies, but they uphold the ideas you're talking about. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just a glimpse into what it would be like.

Quote:
The neocons have more or less successfully reframed the entire political debate in this country.


No argument here. They even have us calling them conservative, something they didn't claim to be initially, they still don't talk the talk very well. I mean, Rummy and Cheney up there talking about family values? Give me a break. That's like Kerry on a goose hunt or Bush singing Kumbaya.


Altmeyer I'll admit goes out of his way to offend conservatives. Still, I think as I said there's some good footwork here, but he carries his theories way too far.

Any conspiracy theory does the same thing: It may start with a piece of information which is valid, and true up to a point, and then gets in over its head, and loses sight of the scientific method.

I think Altmeyer is trying to explain Bush, but bringing a lot of baggage, which clouds his conclusions. My explanation of Bush would start with Bush is a frat boy who never did anything but get stoned and drunk, and if you want more sophisticated decisions than those two, you'll have to look at other people, not deeper into Bush.

The furthest right contingent of the Bush administration is actually Israel itself.

Re: Definitions.

The reason I say that a word is defined by how it was used is partly because I study linguistics, and this is the way non-loaded words get their meaning. Today, we would never use "profession" to mean someone's allegiance to the church, nor penitentiary to mean a place in a church where people go to confess their sins.

The other reason I would cite is that how words have been used in reality is the only thing we can all agree on. I mean, if we look too competing speculations of what a word might be intended to be used, we'll never communicate.

liberal is a loaded word, but we use it all the time. It derives from generous, and we use it to mean just that, apolitically: "I spinkled the cake liberally with candy snowflakes." We all know what I mean. Similarly, we all know if I said "but I was conservative in cutting out the pieces, because I wanted there to be seconds."

Politically, it's safe to say liberals are generous people, they believe in charity and they believe in a generous govt. It's not a philosophy I prescribe to because I don't trust people with money and power. Personally I might, but I'm not going to give to an organization and trust them to carry out my wishes.

Anyway, yes you can apply these words how you want, but you run the risk of being misunderstood. If you apply them historically, you're pretty safe.

Re: Old words with stigma, yes you can cling to those words and try to redeem their connotations, but why make work for yourself? "direct democracy" is already a different term than "democracy" in the way that "railway car" is a different term from "car." Nobody called it an "automotive carriage" but more importantly, when you use the word "car," people will backtrack it to that meaning by default, unless you're in a railroad context.

I see TPTB as more manipulative than you do.

I would disagree on anarchy. Conservatives favor limited govt. Taken to the extreme that would be no govt. But left and right aren't important, it's a game they play with us.

"Let them eat cake" is taken as the quintessential right wing position, but Marie Antoinette was mocking her detractors, it was a quote, not original. She herself was a progressive reformer, and undoubtedly would have made France more liberal than Robespierre did. The French distrusted her because she was Austrian, not because of anything she said or did. Robespierre played on that fear and printed stories about her playing the king into accepting German domination, and that Germanic forces were on the border, and France would simply become part of the Empire. When Robespierre's own people confronted him with the lack of any evidence to support such a case, he said "who cares if it's true, as long as it gets the people on our side"

Admittedly, this is a digression, I'm just pointing out that this sort of manipulation is nothing new. The people believed that Marie Antoinette was an imperialist traitor, and they believed Robespierre was a progressive reformer, and so there were enough to support a revolution.

It does have relevance directly in that Robespierre is really pretty directly responsible for our current left-right dichotomy.

Quote:

The morality of slavery used to be up for debate in this country. Now it's understood to be universally morally repugnant. At the moment, the morality of physical and mental abuse of children, spanking for instance, calling children hateful names, is up for debate. But I foresee a time when such violation of children will be as discredited as slavery. I am thoroughly convinced that the physical and mental abuse of children is at the heart of right-wing (and I don't mean conservative) anti-rational ideology.

I think violence/abuse pushes people, in the short run (and for long periods if the abuse is systematic), toward authoritarianism as described by Altmeyer (and, in some ways far more thoroughly and with far more research, Alice Miller). Look at what happened to this country, after the attacks of 9/11! That was an horrendous abuse of this country's people and a terrible blow to this country's psyche, our collective optimism and empathy. It propelled us, again in the short run, very much to the right. This is a psychological mechanism--the mechanism of abuse. Right-wing authoritarianism is the political consequences of abuse.


is speculation based on speculation until you have a theory which is all theory. Should one day one brick prove not to be entirely in place than the whole thing falls apart. I prefer to take it slower, step by step, make sure everything is solidly based and proven by reality before going on.

Clinton ran on the left ticket. I'll grant he's no more a liberal than Bush is a conservative.

I can't take anything from either of these to. He apologied for taking part in Rwanda. I think ritual suicide would be a good start if you willingly take part in the genocide of an entire race of people. If Either Clinton or Bush is allowed to walk the streets, or any of their underlings, I see no purpose in a legal system whatsoever.

I can clear up the white supremacist connection:
Lew Rockwell.

The error that Ron Paul made was to hire Rockwell, and then allow Rockwell to use his name in a news letter. I admit this was a lapse in judgment that might foreshadow a lack of vetting of cabinet picks, but then look how Obama's own cabinet suggestions were thrown out the window and now we have Gates and Geitner, I mean phhlease..

Rockwell then printed some letters sent to him by white supremacists. Paul denounced the letters at the time and fired Rockwell, Rockwell claimed it was just a lapse editing. When Paul ran for president Rockwell supported him, which is understandable, if you know the president, that's always good. Also, Rockwell himself isn't all that objectionable. The problem is that Rockwell has attracted Nazis as followers, so when he endorse Ron Paul, the Nazis followed, much to the delight of John McCain.


Quote:
Kristol--I was trying to high-light that the guy was a totally guy was a totally untrustworthy Machiavellian fraud.


I disagree. I think he's a quite genuine totally untrustworthy Machiavellian
Quote:
I admit to playing the "Someone is Wrong on the Internet!" game in my last post, but I wasn't picking a fight with you.

You did attack. If I thought debating it were pointless I would have posted that pic. It's like I don't have negative feelings toward anyone here, but sometimes people are immoveable objects, and it's best to just point that out. Citizen wouldn't take a hint. I pick on Wulf because I think he sabotages his own arguments, I want him to learn, but I'm not going to have an argument with him over it.

No one here is an enemy, there are people here I will not debate, but they still have interesting things to say on other subjects.

Quote:
Waa, boo-hoo.

...is a poor rhetorical tool

If the snark was [later:clintonista] which I added, I meant it literally: the social dems became the clintonistas.

Cheney is a Dick.

Enemies are something people see, but can also make. Starting out arguments with "right wing zombies of death" will do it. I've done it myself. I assumed there would be zero socialists online when I said that socialist was essential an elitist dictatorial system. I got shredded. Note to self: Don't make assumptions.

Insights on to how the right thinks? Not sure.

I guess if I were toss a lone bone out there it would be that they do not like to change their life.

Like me. I expect kids should learn to read around 2 or 3 and know math by the time their 5 or 6, and if they have adequate social environment, parenting, and access to information, they will, barring some disadvantage like fetal alcohol syndrome.

Now figure that you're a parent of children in such a situation, and there is a substance abuse center built nearby, and you learn that the school is taking on 100 children with fetal alcohol syndrome and as a result, the curriculum will be changed, and multiplication tables are kicked back from first grade to third.

Yes, I can see both sides of this one, and I think a rigid education system is a bad idea, but this is the way people really react:

1. My kid is seven and can barely add at 7 years old! Let alone multiply and divide! Damn, it's all because of those alcoholics! That's it. I'm moving my kid to private school.

2. Oh, those poor kids. Think of what they inherited. They shouldn't be punished for their parents' stupidity! We need to help those kids! I don't think it will affect me.

These are just some basic right and left wing reactions, I'm sure you can tell which is which. But I think that you can see it even clearer when the left and the right separate more completely.

Here's another one:

Issues! At last a man who talks about issues. I like what he says. These are going to be good changes. I can't wait to see these promises pan out.

Oh damn. Another liar. Doesn't matter what he says if I can't believe him. I want a guy I can respect, someone who is going to make the right decisions.

This is probably more interesting than the other.

2 hours to respond. Ouch. Okay, there was breakfast in the middle of that, and a computer crash. Is there a cure for FFF addiction?

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

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 7:30 AM

NIKI2

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


Dream:
Quote:
I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."

Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...
Did/do you have a mental illness? It sounds like it--and there's a huge difference between "insane" and mentally ill, at least to most of us in the community. We try to avoid that word, given the stigma.

Sounds like bipolarity or schiz, from the brain being so muh faster and being able to do amazing, but unrealistic, things. Just curious.

Cavalier: Wow...I think you win the typing competition hands down! Found it really interesting, nonetheless:
Quote:
I miss mental illness, my brain was so much faster... No perspective though. I could make amazing things, no connection to reality. I did build some awesome things. I'm still seeking that chemical balance between "normal" and "insane."

Insane is definitely smarter and more capable, esp. at large complex tasks involving a large number of variables. It's less realistic, though, and can can get focused on complex projects that may be great master plans but are impossible to put into action...the Neocons have simply redefined reality to suit their nihilist agenda--the "reality" they speak of is might makes right and all their policies bend to that malignant distortion of reality...
I agree with all those statements. As well as
Quote:
That's part of the problem. The world has changed. They haven't. They're dinosaurs, and it's time political evolution moved passed them.
and
Quote:
The problem is, once a word gets used, it gains meaning. You can see this through the entire etymological history of every language.
Although there is still a big difference between "conservation" and "environmental"...but if you mean both are used as environmental labelse, I agree.
Quote:
they were defined by Stalin and Mao, and also Lenin, and others THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS.
Yes, but I think those and the other words all need to be retired; they've become nothing buzz words to inflame the masses--I'm not sure you wouldn't get different definitions of each, and "democrat", "conservative", "facist" and all the other buzz words politicians have used to further their agenda these days. Also "powermonger"--it's a loaded term, despite how you define it. Specific definitions have become lost over time, and calling someone that based on the specific definition isn't effective in communication. It's a visceral word, as are all the others. As such, yes:
Quote:
The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.
Quote:
The whole left/right thing is a divisive political mechanism of TPTB to split us against each other.
I heartily disagree. Especially as concerns their ADMINISTRATIONS. I don't know both men personally, so I obviously can't say, but given the actions of their administrations, I think there are huge differences.
Quote:
You must trade in the commodity of influence. Many people already have power. To get them to help you with your rise to power, you must make deals. As a result of these deals, you can be sure that elections will not be stolen from you, that campaign coffers will be full, no scandals will spill, or be fabricated, and during your campaign, the press will be relatively friendly.
Agreed, although I would say less to the degree you do; scandals still happen and the press isn't automatically friendly, even relatively, to what the two parties determine, IMO.

I, like most people nowadays, vote for the "lesser of two evils". Voting for someone who is the best candidate does nothing anymore except waste your vote. I don't know how to change that--a viable third party perhaps, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime. There is too much of the power you mentioned and backing by the rich to allow a viable third party to emerge. People are sheep, buy into what they're told, and vote by parties, in the vast majority.
Quote:
They are cold and ruthless because they believe that this is the most effective means of exerting their influence. They think they have all the answers, which makes them arrogant, sure, and they want to apply those answers to save us from ourselves
I agree again. The same could be said of any of those buzz words I mentioned; the difference is in how ruthlessly they are applied. But I also believe "powermongers", as it is understood today, are more likely to pretend to believe one thing or the other to gain power, for no other purpose than gaining power.
Quote:
Disagreeing on definitions makes communication hard.
I guess that best explains my disagreement with using buzz words. People read them and have a visceral reaction. I don't know how to get past that, since there are no words to put in their place, but I guess the closest would be to describe what we're talking about, rather than using terms which have lost their meaning.

I also agree that
Quote:
The left doesn't seem to have much political power in this country anymore. We have the right vs. the not-so-very-far-right in this country.
I don't see the democrats as "victims" at all, I see them as gutless--tho' yes, I agree we're more right and not-so-right. But the democrats tend to be concilliatory, afraid of looking like the "bad guy" and fearful of using their power, while the "true right" if you will, are willing to go to extraordinary, illegal, immoral lengths to gain and retain power. While I don't know the answer to that either, as I don't want to see the dems resort to similar tactics, I guess I wish people could become AWARE of the reps tactics, 'cuz I think they'd get away with them less if that were so.

While I'm losing faith in Obama, I'm still clinging to hope that some things will come to pass as the more important (right now) things are dealt with.

I agree that the communes I've known ARE egalitarian. However they end up being "ruled", that's one thing I've seen. I'm sure there are many that are not, but those I've known THAT SURVIVED, the work is shared, leaders are chosen by the members, adn anyone's welcome who is willing to do their share and participate. That's not right-wing, to me.

As to
Quote:
If the left had any real political power in this country right now, I might agree, but the Dem/Repub split is not a left/right split--it is indeed a shallow imitation.
I again say that the "true right" if you will is willing to use tactics the "semi-right" is unwilling/unable to use. In that respect, I disagree with
Quote:
I'm not personally convinced that it's a mechanism of TPTB. I don't see TPTB as competent enough to purposefully engineer something so pervasive. They are, have been and always will be opportunists and parasites.
think they're quite competent in engineering exactl that, proven by the fact that it's so difficult to get a "democrat" elected to power.
Quote:
Look at what happened to this country, after the attacks of 9/11! That was an horrendous abuse of this country's people and a terrible blow to this country's psyche, our collective optimism and empathy. It propelled us, again in the short run, very much to the right.
I agree; which is an example, to me, of Altemeyer's statement that, in times of crisis, people will accept authoritariansim which they would rebel against. Nonetheless, I think authoritarianism, left OR right, is abuse, I don't think it's representative of either side.

I think it's more appropriate to say Clinton was only "lefter" than Bush, but
Quote:
he demonstrated appropriate, and I think sincere, shame about a lot of his abuses. Whereas, Bush gloried in them. Smirked and winked as he sent good men and women to their deaths
is to me a big difference in their psyches.
Quote:
I think the American system works best when there is a healthy debate between progressive and conservative ideas.
I do as well. That's one of the things that most bothers me today, that the right has decided to use people's inate fears of "other" to a degree I find unconscionable, and has become a joke because of their pandering to the wingnut "base". I also think something that's been lost is the mere idea of bipartisanship; there was a time when the two sides disagreed, but managed to compromise enough to get something DONE. Not lately.

Dream, I heartily disagree that
Quote:
Equality is an artificial opposition. Absolute equality requires absolute control.
I think absolute equality requires absolute COOPERATION. As such absolute equality is no more attainable than "absolute" anything else. But I believe the best equality we can manage is attained by cooperation, not control.
Quote:
They're just about all right wing religious societies
I don't see those as "communes", I see them most often as "cults"--given that they have an authoritarian leader who determines things for everyone else...and even if not begun as such, they end up that way and usually end up full of the abuse we see in such societies; the leader becoming a tin god, using his power to have his way sexually, becoming so godlike people will follow them to their deaths (a la Jim Jones), and mired in abuse. Perhaps they only fail when society at large becomes aware of them, but at their best they're not healthy.
Quote:
Anyway, yes you can apply these words how you want, but you run the risk of being misunderstood. If you apply them historically, you're pretty safe.
I disagree. I think if you use them historically, you are more apt to be misunderstood, as both Cavalier and I misunderstood your use of "powermonger". Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I know using terms more in the current vernacular than the historical one makes for better communication. Language, like all things, evolves. I love language, too, but I don't try to use it as it was used historically, or I'd be constantly explaining myself.

Oh, well, I guess I joined you two in the typing competition. Not sure who won; think we can split the "prize" equally? Of course, depends on what the prize is...

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
The Hill: Democrats and the lemmings of the left
Thu, December 12, 2024 08:11 - 13 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, December 12, 2024 01:38 - 4931 posts
COUP...TURKEY
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:38 - 40 posts
Dana Loesch Explains Why Generation X Put Trump In The White House
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:21 - 7 posts
Alien Spaceship? Probably Not: CIA Admits it’s Behind (Most) UFO Sightings
Wed, December 11, 2024 21:18 - 27 posts
IRAN: Kamala Harris and Biden's war?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:34 - 18 posts
Countdown Clock Until Vladimir Putins' Rule Ends
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:32 - 158 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:04 - 251 posts
Who hates Israel?
Wed, December 11, 2024 19:02 - 77 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:59 - 4839 posts
Jesus christ... Can we outlaw the fuckin' drones already?
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:55 - 3 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Wed, December 11, 2024 17:42 - 45 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL