michael94
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 2,419
/\
Last edited:
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?
- Thread starter Dopamine
- Start date
LUH 3417
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,990
Maybe we should start sending “real men” to Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq...I mean there are only 10,000 US men in Afghanistan. What could be manlier than PTSD, suicide, and nervous breakdowns?
Last edited:
Sarcasm is always an easy way out of a serious discussion.
If you have serious intelligent inputs, feel free to share them.
LUH 3417
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,990
Have you considered other causes of thin wristed and long fingered eunuchs besides their not being forced to slaughter foreign women and children?
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
“It’s a mistake to interfere with the ‘law of the jungle.’ Some people were meant to dominate others.”
“Winning is not the first thing. It’s the ONLY thing.”
“If you have power in a situation, you should use it however you have to, to get your way.”
“I’d be cold-blooded and vengeful, if that’s what it took to reach my goals.”
“Money, wealth, and luxuries mean a lot to me.”
“I enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint me.”
“It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times.”
“I enjoy taking charge of things and making people do things my way.”
“I like other people to be afraid of me.”
“I will do my best to destroy anyone who deliberately blocks my plans and goals.”
“You know that most people are out to ‘screw’ you, so you have to get them first when you get the chance.”
“There is really no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ It all boils down to what you can get away with.”
“One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly.”
“Basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit.”
“Deceit and cheating are justified when they get you what you really want.”
“The best skill one can have is knowing the ‘right move at the right time’: when to ‘soft-sell’ someone, when to be tough, when to flatter, when to threaten, when to bribe, etc.”
“The best reason for belonging to a church is to project a good image and have contact with some of the important people in your community.”
“There’s a sucker born every minute, and smart people learn how to take advantage of them.”
“It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to actually be the person others think you are.”
“One of the best ways to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.”
The Authoritarians
“Winning is not the first thing. It’s the ONLY thing.”
“If you have power in a situation, you should use it however you have to, to get your way.”
“I’d be cold-blooded and vengeful, if that’s what it took to reach my goals.”
“Money, wealth, and luxuries mean a lot to me.”
“I enjoy having the power to hurt people when they anger or disappoint me.”
“It’s a dog-eat-dog world where you have to be ruthless at times.”
“I enjoy taking charge of things and making people do things my way.”
“I like other people to be afraid of me.”
“I will do my best to destroy anyone who deliberately blocks my plans and goals.”
“You know that most people are out to ‘screw’ you, so you have to get them first when you get the chance.”
“There is really no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ It all boils down to what you can get away with.”
“One of the most useful skills a person should develop is how to look someone straight in the eye and lie convincingly.”
“Basically, people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit.”
“Deceit and cheating are justified when they get you what you really want.”
“The best skill one can have is knowing the ‘right move at the right time’: when to ‘soft-sell’ someone, when to be tough, when to flatter, when to threaten, when to bribe, etc.”
“The best reason for belonging to a church is to project a good image and have contact with some of the important people in your community.”
“There’s a sucker born every minute, and smart people learn how to take advantage of them.”
“It is more important to create a good image of yourself in the minds of others than to actually be the person others think you are.”
“One of the best ways to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.”
The Authoritarians
Great list. Hah. Winning!!
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
lol people say it's a great list, the best questions!
yeah I guess those questions are to determine how 'power-mad' a person is, the later half how 'Machiavellian', it's interesting. I just started reading about the authoritarianism concept. The books available for free on that website if anyone is interested btw
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
Here's a scaling-test from the authoritarians book if anyone is interested;
Below is the latest version of the RWA scale. Read the instructions carefully,
and then write down your response to each statement on a sheet of paper numbered
1-22.
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues.
You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying
extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement on the line to the left of each item according
to the following scale:
Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.
If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about an item, write down a “0."
(“Dr. Bob” to reader: We’ll probably stay friends longer if you read this paragraph.) Important: You
may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example,
you might very strongly disagree (“-4") with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (“+1") with
another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and write down how
you feel on balance (a “-3" in this case)
___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals
and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
___ 3. 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.
___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds
___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if
it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting
for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
___ 16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional
family values.
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
Done them all, as best you could? Then let’s score your answers, and get an idea of
whether you’re cut out to be an authoritarian follower. First, you can skip your
answers to the first two statements. They don’t count. I put those items on the test to
give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They’re just “warmups.”
Start therefore with No. 3.
If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 9.
Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way.
Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
If you wrote down a “-4" that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 1.
Now simply add up your twenty scores. The lowest total possible would be 20, and
the highest, 180, but real scores are almost never that extreme. Introductory
psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents
average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so
most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither
are most Americans, it seems. Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil administered the
RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the
Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90.3, 4 Thus the Manitoba parent
samples seem similar in overall authoritarianism to a representative American adult
sample.5 My Manitoba students score about the same on the RWA scale as most
American university students do too.
Below is the latest version of the RWA scale. Read the instructions carefully,
and then write down your response to each statement on a sheet of paper numbered
1-22.
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues.
You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying
extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement on the line to the left of each item according
to the following scale:
Write down a -4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
Write down a -2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
Write down a -1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.
Write down a +1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
Write down a +2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
Write down a +3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
Write down a +4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.
If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about an item, write down a “0."
(“Dr. Bob” to reader: We’ll probably stay friends longer if you read this paragraph.) Important: You
may find that you sometimes have different reactions to different parts of a statement. For example,
you might very strongly disagree (“-4") with one idea in a statement, but slightly agree (“+1") with
another idea in the same item. When this happens, please combine your reactions, and write down how
you feel on balance (a “-3" in this case)
___ 1. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals
and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance.
___ 2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
___ 3. 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.
___ 4. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.
___ 5. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and
religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create
doubt in people’s minds
___ 6. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every
bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
___ 7. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
___ 8. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.
___ 9. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this
upsets many people.
___ 10. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
___ 11. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if
it makes them different from everyone else.
___ 12. The “old-fashioned ways” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live.
___ 13. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority’s view by protesting
for women’s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.
___ 14. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take
us back to our true path.
___ 15. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the “normal way things are supposed to be done.”
___ 16. God’s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is
too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished.
___ 17. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
___ 18. A “woman’s place” should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.
___ 19. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities
tell us to do, and get rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything.
___ 20. There is no “ONE right way” to live life; everybody has to create their own way.
___ 21. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy “traditional
family values.
___ 22. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up
and accept their group’s traditional place in society.
Done them all, as best you could? Then let’s score your answers, and get an idea of
whether you’re cut out to be an authoritarian follower. First, you can skip your
answers to the first two statements. They don’t count. I put those items on the test to
give people some experience with the -4 to +4 response system. They’re just “warmups.”
Start therefore with No. 3.
If you wrote down a “-4” that’s scored as a 1.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 9.
Your answers to Items 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are scored the same way.
Now we’ll do the rest of your answers, starting with No. 4.
If you wrote down a “-4" that’s scored as a 9.
If you wrote down a “-3" that’s scored as an 8.
If you wrote down a “-2" that’s scored as a 7.
If you wrote down a “-1" that’s scored as a 6.
If you wrote down a “0" or left the item unanswered, that’s scored as a 5.
If you wrote down a “+1" that’s scored as a 4.
If you wrote down a “+2" that’s scored as a 3.
If you wrote down a “+3" that’s scored as a 2.
If you wrote down a “+4" that’s scored as a 1.
Now simply add up your twenty scores. The lowest total possible would be 20, and
the highest, 180, but real scores are almost never that extreme. Introductory
psychology students at my Canadian university average about 75. Their parents
average about 90. Both scores are below the mid-point of the scale, which is 100, so
most people in these groups are not authoritarian followers in absolute terms. Neither
are most Americans, it seems. Mick McWilliams and Jeremy Keil administered the
RWA scale to a reasonably representative sample of 1000 Americans in 2005 for the
Libertarian Party and discovered an average score of 90.3, 4 Thus the Manitoba parent
samples seem similar in overall authoritarianism to a representative American adult
sample.5 My Manitoba students score about the same on the RWA scale as most
American university students do too.
CarbAppreciator
Member
I looked at the site with initial interest, but quickly lost interest when realizing this author is simply a partisan democrat, he actually defends the TARP bailouts lol. He seems to have a reductionist view of politics... typical of authoritarians.lol people say it's a great list, the best questions!
yeah I guess those questions are to determine how 'power-mad' a person is, the later half how 'Machiavellian', it's interesting. I just started reading about the authoritarianism concept. The books available for free on that website if anyone is interested btw
"Anger among economic conservatives rose yet higher in early 2009 when Congress responded to President Obama’s call for a massive economic stimulus to keep the recession from turning into a Depression. Almost every major Western government, whatever its political stripe, went deeply into the red at this time to keep its economy afloat. Republicans in Congress voted massively against the bill, and Democrats took the heat for trying to stop a recession that the Republicans had largely caused"
He does not seem to acknowledge any nuance, to him it's simply problem-solution, just give authority to the experts and problems are easily solved, there's no room in his brain for the concept of unintended consequence. This is a typical mindset of scientists and university experts. These people are highly specialised and very competent in their fields, tend to be narrow minded, tunnel-visioned, not creative or natural leaders. It is especially when these people lack humility that their views radically skew from reality, and as they are experts, and lecture to students, they are used to being superior, that environment does not foster humility. So they advocate for radical political movements... one of the most unsavory examples is the eugenics movement, pioneered in Ivy league schools before the Nazis took it up, a nice expert led silver bullet solution there. I view these silver bullet fantasies as a distant relative of a religious messianic delusion. "If only we can just ... then we'll reach utopia/zion. Why can't anyone else see it? Idiots! Out of my way, I'm trying to save you!"
CarbAppreciator
Member
This "test" clearly uses politicised language, one can't define "authoritarianism" as a sort of psychological defect, then turn around and diagnose it using a political poll/questionnaire.
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
I'm not sure what to make of his political views but there is some interesting research in the book I've read so far.
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding the quote and the argument you've made and also how they relate. So rather than "problem-solution", "giving authority to experts" , not "considering unintended consequences", we should...?
That's interesting, some of the same ideas are kind of discussed in what I've read so far. Here's an interesting experiment-I'm not even 1/2 way through the book yet though; (RWA=>right wing authoritarian)
By now you must be developing a feel for what high RWAs think and do, and
also an impression of low RWAs.23 Do you think you know each group well enough
to predict what they’d do if they ran the world? One night in October, 1994 I let a
group of low RWA university students determine the future of the planet (you didn’t
know humble researchers could do this, did you!). Then the next night I gave high
RWAs their kick at the can.
The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth’s future
called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70
participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa,
India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot
more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed
to raise environmental awareness, 24 and before the exercise begins players study up
on their region’s resources, prospects, and environmental issues.
Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any
member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once
the “Elites”in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control
of their region’s bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies,
and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other
Elites. They also discover they can discretely put some of their region’s wealth into
their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the
World’s Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the
players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes
about two and a half hours.
31
The Low RWA Game
By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA
students to play the game together on October 18th . (They had no idea they had been
funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed
they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three
women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim
Elite called for a summit on the “Island Paradise of Tasmania.” All the Elites attended
and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization
was thus immediately created by mutual consent.
Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to
ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of
wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite
suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they
told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.]
An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the
earth’s ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to
buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer.
Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the
Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America
refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease,
and India 100 million.
Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7
billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for
almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that
benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the
32
Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North
American Elite hoarded the most.)
One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly
successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the
players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs
do not typically see the world as “Us versus Them.” They are more interested in
cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the
environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these
first-year students would have usually found themselves “on the same page”--and writ
large on that page was, “Let’s Work Together and Clean Up This Mess.” The game’s
facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous
runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the
lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.
The High RWA Game
The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how
they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had
been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read,
Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the
“wedgies” started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East
announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union
(known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies
and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend
itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which
killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which
had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.
33
When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the
lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a
second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the
hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and
invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called
for a “United Nations” meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements
were reached.
At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent
failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took
steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was
spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their
population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems “back
home,” Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming
military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room
and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another
nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into
alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United
Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came.
By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps
threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred
thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who
died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4
billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5
billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are
counting some of the corpses twice.
The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the
character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets
34
as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World’s Richest
Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as
payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved
incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like
themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to
their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their
page was, “Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together.”
The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care
about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the
bucks. That is, they didn’t care much about the long-term environmental consequences
of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting
much of the region’s forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem
vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree’s lumber was
very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth
control. Advised that “just letting things go” would cause the populations in
underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.
Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not
world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing
as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students’ behavior
on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions
about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true
to me. I especially thought, “I’ve seen this show before” as I sat on the sidelines and
watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.
Yeah that's explained a little more in the book, I didn't want to post the whole thing. He also discusses 'left-wing' authoritarianism in the little bit I've read.
"John Dean, who loves words the way I love pizza, pointed out this early meaning of “right”
after pinning me to the wall on how come I called this personality trait right-wing
authoritarianism. I’ve always called it right-wing authoritarianism rather than simply
authoritarianism in acknowledgment that left-wing authoritarianism also exists. An
authoritarian follower submits excessively to some authorities, aggresses in their name, and
insists on everyone following their rules. If these authorities are the established authorities
in society, that’s right-wing authoritarianism. If one submits to authorities who want to
overthrow the establishment, that’s left-wing authoritarianism, as I define things."
Last edited:
CarbAppreciator
Member
Critics of the economic stimulus typically said this is a pork(wasteful spending) bill and written by special interests, defendants typically said this bill is written by experts and is a solution to our economic problems. The quote serves to demonstrate the author is in the latter camp, and my view is that the latter camp has an authoritarian character behind it. To me, the author is a hypocrite when he criticizes religious fundamentalism on the right, and fails to even acknowledge that a shadow form of that same religious zealotry exists on the left.
The author seems to say here that Stalin would be a right wing authoritarian, because he is an "established authority". To me, Stalin is a left wing authoritarian because he has a liberal view of reality, he thinks things can be changed rapidly and for the better, that humans can have a utopia if they can change society, and he forcibly instills this view on society whether people agree or not. The author seems to say that left wing authoritarians are only those who seek to take power from the establishment for themselves, but who themselves don't possess power. To me this is wrong, authoritarians are those who wield power over other people. I suspect this serves to hide/defend his own brand of left wing authoritarianism.
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
O okay. Well I don't really have an opinion on that economic bill as I haven't studied it and don't know much about it. I guess an opposition to expert authoritarianism would be what? What would a non-authoritarian view on the bill and what happened look like in your opinion?
That's interesting. So to you the "Left" would be defined as seeking improvements towards a utopic ideal, as defined by their group no less, and enforcing the means to reach this goal forcibly. Where as the right would be...?Yeah, the author discusses some of the issues with the labels the results of his research in regards to communism;
"This and a study by McFarland, Ageyev and Abalakina-Papp (see note 14)
confirmed--you will please notice because it means a lot to me--what I said about
right-wing authoritarianism at the beginning of this chapter. High RWAs in the USSR
turned out to be mainly members of the Communist Party. So psychologically they
were right-wing authoritarian followers, even though we would say they were, as
Communists, extreme political and economic left wingers"
"
The people of Russia and other Communistcontrolled
European countries made it clear how evil they thought the Marxist-
Leninist-Stalinist dictatorships were. But in the context of this study, I think you can
point out instances in which both sides invaded neighbors to control their international
allegiance, lied to their own people and to the world, made disarmament proposals for
public relations purposes on the world stage, and so on. And when their government
did such things, the authoritarian followers in both countries tended to believe and
support them more than others did."
"
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then,
maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)
In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, 2 so you can call
them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual
political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the
established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly
conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing
authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or
happy or grumpy or dopey.
You could have left-wing authoritarian followers as well, who support a
revolutionary leader who wants to overthrow the establishment. I knew a few in the
1970s, Marxist university students who constantly spouted their chosen authorities,
Lenin or Trotsky or Chairman Mao. Happily they spent most of their time fighting
with each other, as lampooned in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the People’s
Front of Judea devotes most of its energy to battling, not the Romans, but the Judean
People’s Front. But the left-wing authoritarians on my campus disappeared long ago.
Similarly in America “the Weathermen” blew away in the wind. I’m sure one can find
left-wing authoritarians here and there, but they hardly exist in sufficient numbers
now to threaten democracy in North America. However I have found bucketfuls of
right-wing authoritarians in nearly every sample I have drawn in Canada and the
United States for the past three decades. So when I speak of “authoritarian followers”
in this book I mean right-wing authoritarian followers, as identified by the RWA
scale."
(underlining my emphasis)
energyandstruct
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2017
- Messages
- 960
3 points: 1) authoritarian is an ill defined term, almost laughably so. i generally agree with ray, but the idea that all people who believe in hierarchy or authority of some kind are all small minded people etc is kind of hard to believe imo. there are different types of vitalisms, "authoritarianisms" etc. just like there might be a difference between the average citizen who is part of the fascist masses and the average fascist leader.
2) nietzsche was incredibly sickly. not at all an attempt to discredit his work, it just makes it more interesting imo, he had a hereditary stroke disorder apparently. anyway can't u see his mode of agonism/combativeness as being borne out of illness? illness experienced as struggle, as an attack on the body... how can u believe in some kind of organic harmony when ill all your life? instead you believe in struggle
3) lol did the person who made this post also make it on the salo forum? interesting...
2) nietzsche was incredibly sickly. not at all an attempt to discredit his work, it just makes it more interesting imo, he had a hereditary stroke disorder apparently. anyway can't u see his mode of agonism/combativeness as being borne out of illness? illness experienced as struggle, as an attack on the body... how can u believe in some kind of organic harmony when ill all your life? instead you believe in struggle
3) lol did the person who made this post also make it on the salo forum? interesting...
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
Yeah I think the author was exploring what is common between them while there can be many differences; such as a russian communist and an american conservative. Many differences, but what do they have in common? Haven't finished the book so I think it's difficult to really have an opinion without fully reading it.
What is the salo forum? Have a link?
energyandstruct
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2017
- Messages
- 960
to me it's not particularly interesting to identify the commonalities between a multiplicity and erase the differences. illuminating difference seems more subtle and more important as a mode of analysis. erasing the differences results in incredibly vague thought. if u are thinking vague u can never get anywhere. what does gabrielle d'annunzio have in common with a neoconservative? they both believe in hierarchy to some extent, yet they are worlds apart... this kind of analysis is worthless, seeing "authoritarianism" everywhere. i believe it may have started with hannah arendt.
energyandstruct
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2017
- Messages
- 960
i guess it's not the same thread but someone copied and pasted this thread there i think: Amerikwan Shaman
meatbag
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,771
I think its useful if we consider it as a property, like the melting temperature of different chemical compounds or the electro-negativity of the vast array of elements, or considering a musical piece it's soul, rhythm, brightness, etc. Of course anytime you compare and contrast there will similarities and differences, and I think the author was attempting to test, and I think to make it testable was a key aspect, a certain property that is commonly found in certain groups and perhaps less common in others but might be found regardless of the nature of what a group is doing; scientist, artists, plumbers, factory workers, art-critics, etc. I think it's the properties that allow for discussion, reproducible testing, and analysis. What do you think might be a more useful property? I see you mentioned an interest in hierarchy between the fascist (or maybe he was just a nationalist?) and the neocons
energyandstruct
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2017
- Messages
- 960
all hitherto existing attempts to isolate a testable property known as "authoritarianism" have been miserable failures imo. i would count adorno's test that he developed as one of them. look this is just my opinion. you're welcome to try and pursue this but to me this is just a wrong tree to bark up and a waste of anyone's time. there are various forms of structure and control in various societies, that vary historically and geographically, many of which are effective modes of control and repression but don't involve overt authoritarianism. many of which are compatible with "liberal democracies", many of which are very diffuse in structure. i think debord's "notes on society of the spectacle" or deleuze's "on the societies of control" are relevant texts
energyandstruct
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2017
- Messages
- 960
i don't think it's a singular property. I think will exists as multiplicity of wills... if there was a singular reducible element of "authoritarianism" somebody would've found it by now. Instead all these tests that supposedly "measure" authoritarianism are total jokes, they might only detect an american conservative but not detect a monarchist and so on
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
