Bob Altmeyer's article on Trump

[Cosmos]

The last couple of months I checked Bobs Website a couple of times, to see if he has something to say about the election show right now in the US, couldn't find anything though.

Then two days ago SOTT carried a new article from Bob about Trump and his supporters:

https://www.sott.net/article/317397-Donald-Trump-and-authoritarian-followers

What suprises me though, is that he still thinks Trump could be outvoted and then things will be better.
When he published his last book about authoritarian followers he also believed (was during election time before Obamas first term) that Obama and co would change things into a better direction and I thought when I read it "Well maybe he has realized by now that things do not change with a democrat up there".

 

[Gaby]

What suprises me though, is that he still thinks Trump could be outvoted and then things will be better.
When he published his last book about authoritarian followers he also believed (was during election time before Obamas first term) that Obama and co would change things into a better direction and I thought when I read it "Well maybe he has realized by now that things do not change with a democrat up there".

Yeah, it is not only Trump, but the entire system which is authoritarian and pathological. So in that sense, there is implicatory denial there. Or maybe he was just trying to "cheer up" his public? In any case, it is really that bad, there is truly no "better" option. For people at large, the reality is far too horrendous to truly contemplate and accept. That is essentially the problem - denial in all its various forms:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/discern2.htm

There are different kinds of denial. First, there is literal denial which is the type that fits the dictionary definition, the assertion that something did not happen or does not exist. This most often occurs in very painful situations where there are conflicts of love: the wife would say that the husband could not have molested his daughter, therefore the child must be making it up. This also seems to apply to denial of the state of our manipulated reality. Our love for our parents, our need for their approval, is often transferred to our peers, our employers, and the State. To think about stepping outside of the belief system that makes us "belong" is just too frightening. It assaults our deepest sense of security.

The second kind of denial is "interpretative." In this kind of denial, the raw facts that something actually happened are not really denied - they are just "interpreted." If a person is reasonably intelligent, and is faced with evidence of phenomena that do not fit into the belief system of one's family, culture, or peer group, there is nothing to do but to interpret - to rationalize it away. "Swamp gas" and the Planet Venus given as an explanation for UFOs are good examples. [...]

The third kind of denial is termed by Cohen as implicatory denial where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are the psychological, political and moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement. For example, the idea that America is being run by a madman with designs on the entire planet is recognized as a fact, but it is not seen as psychologically disturbing or as carrying any moral imperative to act.

Studies have established five different contexts of psychological denial:1) perception without awareness, 2) perceptual defense 3) selective attention, 4) cognitive errors and 5) inferential failures.

In States of Denial, (Cambridge: Polity Press; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), Stanley Cohen remarks that "the scientific discourse misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon [...] a product of sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives."

 

[PhoenixToEmber]

"But let me not stoke your fears too high, for we do have to fear fear itself. There is a simple way out of this situation: Others can outvote them. But even though most of the American electorate says now that they would never vote for Trump, he'll become the next President if those folks stay home on election day. If Trump's opponents do not get as energized as Trump's very loyal followers are, his supporters will carry him on their shoulders to the highest office in the land."

What suprises me though, is that he still thinks Trump could be outvoted and then things will be better.
When he published his last book about authoritarian followers he also believed (was during election time before Obamas first term) that Obama and co would change things into a better direction and I thought when I read it "Well maybe he has realized by now that things do not change with a democrat up there".

I agree. The end of this article was disappointing, although the rest was insightful. It's almost as if he doesn't think Hillary and her supporters also fall into the same authoritarian category, and that the voting system isn't already rigged to always get an authoritarian candidate that serves the elite into office. Meaning the candidates' supporters among voters do not have to carry them on their shoulders to the highest office in the land, but the banking and corporate class have to hand pick the final two candidates, attach their puppet strings, and lift them there.

 

[Yas]

What suprises me though, is that he still thinks Trump could be outvoted and then things will be better.
When he published his last book about authoritarian followers he also believed (was during election time before Obamas first term) that Obama and co would change things into a better direction and I thought when I read it "Well maybe he has realized by now that things do not change with a democrat up there".

Yeah, it is not only Trump, but the entire system which is authoritarian and pathological. So in that sense, there is implicatory denial there. Or maybe he was just trying to "cheer up" his public? In any case, it is really that bad, there is truly no "better" option. For people at large, the reality is far too horrendous to truly contemplate and accept. That is essentially the problem - denial in all its various forms:

I agree, I think that denial in its various forms is certainly a BIG issue, besides the fact that there are psychopaths in power.

The third kind of denial is termed by Cohen as implicatory denial where there is no attempt to deny either the facts or their conventional interpretation; what is ultimately denied are the psychological, political and moral implications that follow from deep acknowledgement. For example, the idea that America is being run by a madman with designs on the entire planet is recognized as a fact, but it is not seen as psychologically disturbing or as carrying any moral imperative to act.

I think this type of denial is very common among seemingly aware people who somehow see what's going on but don't seem to care about it. I see a lot of that in the social media or when talking to people. It's kind of like a normalization of things and even a justification by saying "our government is utterly corrupt and they are madmen who only care about money and power, but that's just how things are so I'll just keep on with my life and let them be", "that's how politics work", etc... I think there's a lot of that in my country, where a lot of people seem to be resigned about what we have as politicians (who very often fit perfectly for a circus show instead of a parliament - even more than Trump in some cases), and they just shut off any indignation that this can awake by saying "that's just how politicians are", denying or being unable to see the implications of having such types in positions of power.

 

[Ruth]

Voting can be problematic as it can be rigged, pretty much in every part of the process. Strictly speaking, the closer the two candidates are, the easier rigging or fiddling with the result should be able to be concealed. They couldn't get away with it with Obama as the shear number of supporters took them by surprise.
If Hillary gets in it will probably be because both candidates are close, or percieved to be close by the public.
http://www.votefraud.org/josef_stalin_vote_fraud_page.htm

 

[Hesper]

I think this type of denial is very common among seemingly aware people who somehow see what's going on but don't seem to care about it. I see a lot of that in the social media or when talking to people. It's kind of like a normalization of things and even a justification by saying "our government is utterly corrupt and they are madmen who only care about money and power, but that's just how things are so I'll just keep on with my life and let them be", "that's how politics work", etc...

Right, it's essentially the 'I'll just stay asleep, thank you very much" response. We know how this usually turns out historically. And here we are, watching it all repeat again, but with even bigger weapons, dumber people, and almost completely unrestrained psychopaths.

Revealing the truth of the situation via SOTT, social media etc, which people ignore at their own peril, seems to be the opening for the 'prescriptive command,' which is one of the divine commands:

... In respect of the first command, God says "Be!" and the whole cosmos comes into existence. In respect of the second, He says to human beings, "Do this and avoid that, or you will fall into wretchedness". The first command is known as "engendering command", while the second is known as the "prescriptive command". All created things obey the engendering command, so in this respect there is no evil in existence. But when the prescriptive command - the revealed Law - is taken into account, then some obey and some disobey. People bring both good and evil down upon themselves in respect of the prescriptive command...

The engendering command is God's "desire" for creation... Nothing can disobey God's desire, but man and jinn are free to disobey the command whereby He prescribes the Law for them.

Since man follows the engendering command in any case, it is the prescriptive command which brings into existence the possibility of opposing God.

As the C's said, 'Science is most spiritual indeed!' And in this case, it seems so many people are still in denial, and have still fallen for the lie that the West was once great - either by being convinced that Trump will 'make it great again' or we can use our great institution of democracy to 'vote him out' and things will go back to being ok again. It's really interesting to see how many seemingly informed alternative writers fall for this, not just Altemeyer.

So I guess we still need to point out that it's all a complete lie. The West has always been an imperial, colonizing, genociding power willing to sacrifice everything to its selfish goals. In reality we are heading for a massive reset because our entire civilization has been ponerized, from top to bottom and back again. Best to move to Russia! Sad and ugly, but shoot I'd rather know reality than live in the world of wretched illusions.