michael94
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 2,419
/\
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?I don't take increased life span as a gauge of health.
I mean to say: will hurdles make a man manlier? As in his body will be forged to combat?
A man that has been raised in the farm or a war environment has very masculine traits (thick arms, thick neck, leathery skin with a thick beard of somewhat thinning hair).
Nowadays all I see is "men" taking bottles of supplements and vitamins that have never looked so feminine (thin hairless arms, long fingers, thin neck, head full of hair, very soft face features, like Danny Roddy for example).
The fact that society is abundant and has it too easy is shaping eunuchs.
I miss my real men
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?
Have you considered other causes of thin wristed and long fingered eunuchs besides their not being forced to slaughter foreign women and children?Sarcasm is always an easy way out of a serious discussion.
If you have serious intelligent inputs, feel free to share them.
Great list. Hah. Winning!!“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
lol people say it's a great list, the best questions!Great list. Hah. Winning!!
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
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.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.
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.
"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!"
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.
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.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...?
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.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.
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.
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...
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.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?
i guess it's not the same thread but someone copied and pasted this thread there i think: Amerikwan Shamanto 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.
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.
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 textsI 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
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 onI 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