Conservatives Without Conscience

PopHistorian

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Just wondering is anyone has read Conservatives Without Conscience and can comment on it? It's by John Dean, who was legal counsel to Nixon during Watergate. He says the current bunch is worse than Nixon's crew. It's #2 in sales at Amazon.com.

Brief review:
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/reviews/269
 
Hi Ad,

John Dean was recently on the Daily Show discussing his book. It was a very interesting interview. One quote I recall is he still considers himself a "Goldwater Conservative" which now puts him "left of center".
Have a listen...
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml?playVideo=71552
 
GAhhhhh - and I am reminded of why I no longer watch the Daily Show - this John Dean person could have explained what he meant, but Jon Stewart kept pulling him off of it with statements like, "aren't all politicians like this, I mean, this isn't the worst we've seen, and I'm sure it's not the worst we will see.....". SO frustrating - Stewart's position as a pathocracy apologist shines through very clearly here - (well, to me at least). Even with his comments about Cheney being evil, he still vectors off the points that Dean appeared to be trying to make - perhaps I'm hypersensitive, but I just wanted Jon to be quiet and let this man explain what he's talking about.

I am very curious to know what this 'body of information' is that John Dean came across that 'explained' the situation to him, the situation being a lack of conscience in leaders in the Republican Party today. Did he stumble upon a copy of Ponerology?
 
I heard him interviewed tonight on NPR's On Point. Very interesting. Dean uses psychological and sociological research into "the authoritarian personality" to show how the U.S right wing came to be what it is. He breaks the authoritarian types into "followers" and "leaders." Dean sees the leaders in terms we would call psychopathic. That's where the "without conscience" part of his title comes from. He sees the followers as the classic followers of fascism or fundamentalist religion.

I'd like to see the book. The interviewer kept pretending to be shocked by the suggestion that the U.S. is on the road to fascism, but Dean wouldn't back down on that point.
 
I saw him on the Daily Show and when he started talking about research and the study of Hitler, Mousilini, etc that hadn't reached the public and explains why Bush, etc act the way they do, I said to myself yeah Political Ponerology, which I had just finished reading. The next day I went to the store and skimmed parts of it, specifically the second chapter that includes the research he mentioned (from the quick skim of it, I didn't find any mention of psychopathy). Honestly, I thought I might find some reference to PP in there. :) Pulled the trigger tonight and bought it (just got home) since I kept thinking about what he had to say and the nagging feeling that this (a book coming out recently after PP and him saying what he did) is too much of a coincidence to let go. I plan to read it in the next couple of days and outline here what he wrote in comparison to Political Ponerology.

His Oped about why he wrote the book
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dea_060710_how_conservatives_ha.htm

Another interview about the book with Keith Olbermann
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/

Here is the clip of just the interview with him from the Daily Show
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/conservatives_w.html
 
Anart, you could listen to John Dean's On Point appearance here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/07/20060717_b_main.asp The host, Tom Ashbrook, is much better than Stewart is at letting him talk.

FYI, John Dean was Richard Nixon's White House Counsel during Watergate. It was his testimony that spilled the beans about the coverup. In the interview he said that even Nixon had way more conscience than Cheney!


anart said:
GAhhhhh - and I am reminded of why I no longer watch the Daily Show - this John Dean person could have explained what he meant, but Jon Stewart kept pulling him off of it with statements like, "aren't all politicians like this, I mean, this isn't the worst we've seen, and I'm sure it's not the worst we will see.....". SO frustrating - Stewart's position as a pathocracy apologist shines through very clearly here - (well, to me at least). Even with his comments about Cheney being evil, he still vectors off the points that Dean appeared to be trying to make - perhaps I'm hypersensitive, but I just wanted Jon to be quiet and let this man explain what he's talking about.

I am very curious to know what this 'body of information' is that John Dean came across that 'explained' the situation to him, the situation being a lack of conscience in leaders in the Republican Party today. Did he stumble upon a copy of Ponerology?
 
Thanks - listening to it now, and, yes, it is much more 'listenable' =)
 
Mike said:
I plan to read it in the next couple of days and outline here what he wrote in comparison to Political Ponerology.
Thanks, Mike. Looking forward to reading about what you find. Was wondering if this might be part of damage control following PP. Anything coming from a big publishing house seems unlikely to be an actual ray of unadulterated light. But, as the C's said, "All is of value if examined with an open mind and proper perspective." And it's not like the PTB don't make mistakes -- it just seems best to figure that they usually won't.
 
anart said:
GAhhhhh - and I am reminded of why I no longer watch the Daily Show - this John Dean person could have explained what he meant, but Jon Stewart kept pulling him off of it with statements like, "aren't all politicians like this, I mean, this isn't the worst we've seen, and I'm sure it's not the worst we will see.....". SO frustrating - Stewart's position as a pathocracy apologist shines through very clearly here - (well, to me at least). Even with his comments about Cheney being evil, he still vectors off the points that Dean appeared to be trying to make - perhaps I'm hypersensitive, but I just wanted Jon to be quiet and let this man explain what he's talking about.
Yah Anart, its frustrating when my peerage looks to Jon Stewart as an activist in the media when he's quite obviously just an entertainer. He avoids the "scary" stuff and pokes fun at the politics without any real analysis. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if the life of his child and wife had been threatened in order to keep him "in line".
 
In Chapter One the picture Dean gives of the history of Conservatism is that it had its initial development in the 1940's in response to those that opposed FDR's 'liberal' big gov't policies and believed in inequality, yet had no consistent set of principles (that I could determine) . He paints the history as the initial formulation and then the corruption of the ideology that seems to point to the ponerization of the movement or a movement that was already perverted. My emphasis unless I specify otherwise.

pg 12 The work of conservative scholars, which had commenced in the late forties, although inconsequential at first, did serve to create a foundation for modern conservatism, and a philosophy was developed from scratch. (My comment: See the quote below from pg 171 and comparison to what Laura wrote)
pg 13 Early conservative scholars sought to establish the conservative tradition in America, often doing so by turning history upside down.
pg 7 In retrospect the only things that tie all these early thinkers together are a dark view of human nature, their strong dislike of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, and an outsized fear of communism. This is about as close to "classic" conservatism as it gets.
Pg 9 Burnham did believe that conservatism could be described and defined, and in 1959 he did so... Burnham found that conservatives believe:
2) Human nature is corrupt, and therefore conservatives reject all utopian solutions to social problems. 5) Direct democracy must be rejected because people are not well informed and are easily mislead.
Pg 10 The conservatives of Burnham and of an entire generation of conservative intellectuals has virtually disappeared as a functional political force, because if proved unable to stand up to waves of demagogues, bigots, fanatics, malcontents, and assorted populists who have claimed the label for their own extremist aims. [...]
As these works show (but certainly do not concede), conservatism has too often been perverted by small minds, which has enabled any number of extremist forces to subvert its authentic principles. (My comment: He spells out it's principles as he sees them, when describing Goldwater's philosphy)
Pg 13 Most conservatives, in fact, oppose equality...
Pg 17 Barry Goldwater defined conservatism for my generation and several others. Incongruously, many former Goldwater conservatives have been instrumental in reshaping conservatism, but in doing so they have abandoned the senator's own philosophy and the sense of conscience that anchored his thinking.
Pg 18 I have always thought of these fundamentals -- draw on proven wisdom of the past; do note debase the dignity of others; maximize freedom consistent with necessary safety and order -- as conservatism's "paragon of essences," and have considered them broad enough to address a wide range of issues...
Pg 23 Today's conservatives -- especially social conservative, as opposed to intellectuals and the more thoughtful politicians -- define themselves by what they oppose, which is anything and everything they perceive to be liberal.... Antipathy to liberalism has been present from the outset of the conservative movement but it only became a powerful unifying influence in the early 1980's.
Pg 29 While the core meanings were cosidered to include "a resistance to change" and "an acceptance of inequality,..."
Pg 30 More specifically, the study established that the various psychological factors associated with political conservatives include (and here I am paraphrasing) fear, intolerance of ambiguity, need for certainty or structure in life, overreaction to threats, and a disposition to dominating others. (My comment: writing about a study done in the 90's of the core ideas of conservatism since the 1950's)
Pg 36 Both social conservatives and neoconservatism have overwhelmed the conservative movement and the Republican Party...
Dean doesn't seem to see his definition of conservatism from it's outset doesn't match his own personal definition. Especially if one of the "authentic principles" was inequality and the "human nature is corrupt." The two definitions of Burnham remind me of Leo Strauss. The chapter was kind of hard to decipher.
 
In Chapter Two, Dean uses the work of two individuals to describe why conservatism changed into authoritarianism: Stanley Milgram (his experiments where an authority figure encourages a subject to induce fake shocks to an actor. Discussed some in this thread http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1279 ) and social psychologist Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba. I will give a small peice of information related to Milgram below where I look at what was written about the authoritarian follower in more detail. Altemeyer brakes authoritarians into two categories: followers and leaders. He identifies followers by how they score on a multiple question scale and measures their authoritarianism using what he calls the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) scale. The tests show that "both men and women may score high on the RWA scale."
Pg 53 Altemeyer characterizes right-wing authoritarians as "especially submissive to established authority"; as showing "general aggressiveness" toward others when such behavior "is perceived to be sanctioned" by established authorities; and highly compliant with "social conventions" endorsed by society and established authorities.
More on the right-wing authoritarians followers below.
The authoritarian leaders he calls social dominators because of their social dominance orientation (SDO), which he also measures using a multiple question scale. Social dominators are what we would call a psychopath.

Pg 57 It was only a decade ago, and laregly by accident that social dominance orientation theory was discovered to be such a powerful tool to study authoritarian leaders.[...]
Social Dominace orientation suggest and underlying personality that is "characterized by...traits of being hard, tough, ruthless, and unfeeling toward others..." [...]
Men are more typically social dominator types. Testing shows that the social dominators believe equality is "a sucker word in which only fools believe." [...]
Political Ponerology said:
Pg 127 Our natural world of concepts... strikes the psychopath as a nearly incomprehensible convention with no justification in their own psychological experience.
Pg 58 Dominators are prepared to "proceed with relatively little moral restraint," for they agree with statements like "There really is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'; it all boils down to what you can get away with," and "basically people are objects to be quietly and coolly manipulated for your own benefit."
Pg 59 Empircal data bears out such as "relatively power hungry, domineering, mean, Machiavellian, and amoral, and holding 'conservative' economical and political outlooks.
Political Ponerology said:
Pg 138 Their world is forever divided into "us and them"; their little world with its own laws and customs and that other foreign world of normal people that they see as full of presumptuous ideas and customs by which they are condemned morally. Their sense of honor bids them to cheat and revile the other human world and its values at every opportunity.
Altemeyer also describes another class of individuals as Double Highs (score high on both the RWA and SDO scale). Psychopaths, but Altemeyer sees them as different from SD's.
Pg 59 These dominating authoritarian leaders are the individuals whom Altemeyer refers to with good reason as "particularly scary."
Pg 60 It seems that two authoritarian streams converge in them to produce a river of hostility, particularly regarding rights for homosexuals and women. [...] Typical social dominators are not particularly religious, but Double Highs resemble right-wing authoritarians in their strong religious background. [...] "They think of themselves as being religious and they go to church more than most people do, but they believe in lying, cheating, and manipulating much more than the rest of the congregation does," [...]Double Highs are also dogmatic. While an average social dominator does not typically embrace "grand philosophies or creeds," Double highs do.
Pg 61 Not given to hyperbole in his scholarly work, Altemeyer has nevertheless repeatly likened the traits of Double Highs to those of Hitler, [...]
This mention of "scary" and different than the normal SD reminded me of what Laura posted on this thread. http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2357
Mouravieff goes off on his own theorizing (where I have inserted the three dots) without having a clue that he has just described a psychopath. - a failed Organic Portal.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the blatantly anti-social type at all though psychopaths do, regularly and repeatedly and predicatbly, commit anti-social acts. They aren't always illegal.

Now, there is another type that Mouravieff discusses ...

Mouravieff said:
The case we are to study is that of a man I whose highly developed motor centre entirely dominates his emotional centre. In this type of man the latter is awake and even quite developed, but it is under the sway of the motor centre and as a result it is richly nourished by usurped sexual energy.

As in the fourth case, the intellectual centre is not entirely asleep: the negative part of this centre is paralysed but the positive part is completely under the domination of the motor centre. That is why this type of man feels no doubt. This fact provides him with extraordinary strength and endows his psyche with a suggestive, hypnotic dynamism.

This type of man includes fakirs, sorcerers, magicians: volkhvy in Slavonic. Though unbalanced in its development, this Personality has lost all its anarchistic characteristics: it is subjected to an iron discipline exercised by the motor centre in the place of the magnetic centre, with the 'I' of the body predominant. This kind of man can acquire certain powers, but their nature differs from that of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which interior men acquire.

A magician's power - that of a Cagliostro, Rasputin and their like - is based, as we said, on excessive development of the motor centre, which dominates the other two. The working of the intellectual centre is reduced to what is strictly necessary to ensure vital needs and to elaborate projects; its negative part is smothered, and this is what leads to the absence of doubt. The emotional centre is not only not smothered but is rather well developed. However, this development is unbalanced, as it is not the result of correct discernment of [creative] from [entropic] influences, but of the accumulation of those of the latter whose action, although different in quality, lies parallel to the [creative] influences.

Lastly, an overgrowth on the psyche is formed on the right side of the emotional centre of this type of man 1, which shows all the characteristics of an impure or black magnetic centre. While the magnetic centre formed of [creative] influences is a subsidiary organ enabling esoteric development, this black magnetic centre formed by [entropic] influences can clearly not be oriented towards esoteric goals.

Shaped by [entropic] influences whose action runs parallel to the [creative] influences, the orientation of this black magnetic centre is automatically directed towards objectives limited to within the perimeter of exterior life. These objectives are well known; money, women, and power in all their forms.

Evidently the black magnetic centre, instead of sending man forward towards the second Birth and so towards the union of his Personality with his [higher centers], emphasizes and crystallizes the 'I' of the Personality and inspires it with the strength it needs to impose itself on other Personalities who are in an unstable inner state.

It is important to know that this human type exists, especially for those who have an inclination for esoteric research and who begin by looking for the 'marvellous.' While awaiting an encounter with a guide, their Personality is wide open to the influences emanating from this type of man, and they may easily fall under his sway.

Besides giving birth to magicians, this type of man gives rise to false prophets, false Christs, and even the Antichrist.

It is curious to see how much these false prophets, magicians and "christs", impressed themselves on the imagination of the men - and even more of the women of the past. It is the same today.

For there is a type of human being who declines all moral responsibility for himself or for those to whom he is in duty bound. One comes across this type quite often, always trying to find someone else to shoulder his responsibilities as long as this someone else possesses some kind of authority, earned or otherwise. These people are open to any form of hypnotic suggestion and practically ask to be hypnotized. They are of good faith, but they search for the 'marvellous' because they are too weak or too lazy to undertake esoteric work successfully.

And the Wolves devour them finding justification in the fact that they are only the 'scourings of humanity.'

But this is not true; for 'scourings' who are converted can become key figures on the esoteric chess-board.

Mental apathy and emotional inertia are responsible for tipping man down the slope of least resistance even when armed with the best intentions, especially if he justifies himself for his human frailties by finding them normal, particularly on the sexual plane.

The error of conception committed in this case lies in the fact that an important esoteric rule has been overlooked: that it is imperative for the seeker to be constantly active. He must always keep the initiative, beginning with the search for and choice of a guide and later in the work he accomplishes under the latter's guidance.

In a word, when participating in this work, he must be a subject, and not an object.

This is a necessary condition for this kind of work. If it is not sufficient to provide the whole effort the neophyte must accomplish in his search on the Way, it is always enough to allow him to escape from the claws of the Wolves. Initiative, vigilance, a critical mind, observation and discernment ... these different aspects of the seeker's active state, are diametrically opposed to the passive drowsiness of one who plunges head down into the jaws of the 'wolf' full of condescending compassion towards sceptics because: thus spake Zarathustra.
Now, the distinction Mouravieff has made is that this second type DOES have the emotional center which the psychopath - as a failed OP - does not have. And that means that such a type is quite different - and maybe even scarier - than the garden variety psychopath.

I also think that such individuals need to constantly "feed" on creative people so as to fuel their activities.
 
In Chapter Three and Four, Dean gives examples of SD's and Double Highs he has noticed in goverment, how they operate, and how he sees the country in the current situation. His observations and examples he gives of the various individuals background and behavior are pretty interesting and eye opening. Won't quote here specifics about individuals since each case and picture of them wouldn't be justified with just a few quotes.

Dean makes a similar comment to what Laura wrote about negative selection. Dean provided an example where a lawyer and other's left the Justice Department due to "the administration's disregard for the law" after this quote.

Pg 168 When a president embraces a concept, though, it gains legitimacy throughtout the federal establishment, as political appointees--those several thousand men and women who serve at the pleasure of the president, head up various departments and agencies, or work on the White House staff--follow their leader. Depending on the president (or in the case of the current administration, the vice president), varying degrees of dissent are tolerated in the decision-making process, but once policy is set, political appointees are expected to carry it out or leave. This is what happens within an authoritarian government.
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm Lobaczewski: Pathological processes have historically had a profound influence upon human society at large due to the fact that many individuals with deformed characters have played outstanding roles in the formation of social constructs. It is helpful to have some background on this. Dr. Lobaczewski writes:
Brain tissue is very limited in its regenerative ability. If it is damaged and the change subsequently heals, a process of rehabilitation takes place thanks to which the neighboring healthy tissue takes over the function of the damaged portion. This substitution is never quite perfect thus some deficits as regards skill and proper psychological processes can be detected, even in cases of very small damage, by using the appropriate tests. [...]
Some characteropathies play an outstanding role as pathological agents in the processes of the genesis of evil on a large social scale. [...]
Militaristic poses and a general's uniform overcompensated for his feelings of inferiority and effectively cloaked his shortcomings. Politically, his insufficient control of emotions and factors of personal rancor came into view. The old Iron Chancellor had to go, that cunning and ruthless politician who had been loyal to the monarchy and built up Prussian power. After all, he was too knowledgeable about the prince's defects and had worked against his coronation. A similar fate met other overly critical people, who were replaced by persons with lesser brains, more subservience, and sometimes, discreet psychological deviations. Negative selection took place.
Laura said:
Notice this last term: "negative selection took place." That is to say, a defective head of state selected his staff, his government, based on his own pathologically damaged worldview. I'm sure the reader can perceive how dangerous such a situation can be to the people governed by such a "negatively selected" cabal. The important thing to consider here is what effect this had on the social constructs under the rule of such individuals.
His perspective on the current situation:
On page pg 175-176 he talks about the typical 'liberal' mainstream argument about terrorism and the blowback affect, using the goverment myths of bin Laden and 9/11 to show Bush and Cheney's errors. Two quotes:
Pg 175 But we face another very serious threat: namely, that our own governments terrorizes us so much that we are willing to give up the ideals of democracy in exchange for reducing our fear. This threat to democracy seems well understood by Osama bin Laden and his troops.
Pg 176 This is exactly is happening in America today, Bush and Cheney are being sucker punched by Osama bin Laden.
No fear used by presidents administrations prior to Bush/Cheney:
Pg 171 Among the most troubling of the authoritarian and radical tactics being employed by Bush and Cheney are the politics of fear. A favorite gambit of Latin American dictators who run sham democracies, fearmongering has generally been frowned upon in American politics. Think of the modern presidents who have governed our nation -- Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton -- and the various crises they confronted -- the Cuban missile crisis, the war in Vietnam, Iran's taking of American hostages, the danger in American students in Grenada, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the terrorists bombmings as the World Trade Center in 1993, and Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma. None of these presidents made the use of fear a standard procedure or a means of governing (or pursuing office or political goals). To the contrary all of these presidents sought to avoid preying on the fears of Americans. (His emphasis)
Compared with quoted below from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm and 'UFO's and the National Security State' by Richard Dolan the above is complete crap. If anything, the fearmongering has gone from being somewhat covert to fully overt.
Laura said:
What is interesting at this point in Lobaczewski's discourse is his indication that this pattern repeats itself again and again in history: a pathologically brain-damaged individual creates circumstances that condition the public in a certain way, and this, then, opens the door for the psychopath to come to power. As I read this, I thought back to the last 45 or 50 years of history in America and realized that the "cold war," the nuclear threat, the assassination of JFK, the antics of Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, the manipulation of Americans via the media, were just such characteropathic conditionings that opened the door for the Neocons and their nominal puppet, George W. Bush, who can certainly be described as "a clownish psychopath who makes no bones about his pathological vision of super-American rule." We can even see in the cabal that is assembled around George W. Bush, the same "negative selection" of advisors and cabinet officials as Lobaczewski described were assembled around Kaiser Wilhelm.
So, we begin to understand just how important this "science of evil adjusted for political purposes" may be and how much understanding we, as a society, lack. In order to understand exactly how an entire society, even an entire nation, can become a Pathocracy, we need to understand a little bit about the types of individuals that make up the core of such a "conspiracy."
A plug for Democrats?

Pg 179 In short, fear takes reasoning out of the decision-making process, which our history has shown us often enough can have dangerous and long-lasting consequences. If Americans cannot engage in analytical thinking as a result of Republicans' using fear for their own political purposes, we are all in serious trouble. I am sure I am not alone in worrying about the road that we are now on, and where the current authoritarianism is taking the country.
Pg 184 But time has run out, the next two or three election cycles will define America in the twenty-first century, for better or worse. (My comment: Last line of the book)
Here he seems to substitue Republicans (conservatism) for authoritarianism. And tacitly points that the solution to the problem is the Democrats who are just as responsible for where the country is going. A SOTT comment points out the issue of Democrats here http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/friendly/signs_20060721_friendly.html#AmerikatheBeautiful and the issue of what has happened and is happening with voting manipulation and fraud is absent. Also see the note at the bottom about mention of Al Gore.
SOTT said:
Comment: Does anyone actually believe that the Democrats will change anything?
Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq. Democrats continue to support the occupation of Iraq. Democrats supported the fascist laws passed by the Bush administration, as well as the illegal imprisonment and torture of US citizens. Democrats support Israel's invasion of Lebanon and Gaza.
The problem goes WAY beyond just George W. Bush and the Republicans.
Yeah right, not there yet.
Pg 180 Are we on the road to fascism? Clearly we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.
His use of the word misguided above raises questions. His is missing or omitting the nature of psychopathy, the nature of the 'authoritarian leader.' He is insinuating that the authoritarian leaders, those in charge, are merely messed up, confused, mistaken (he quotes someone describing Cheney using this word and doesn't explain how this quote from the same page is possible - "An examination of Cheney's career reveals that it is marked by upward mobility and downward performance." pg 159 ) and making serious errors, just making ill-advised choices, don't understand their goals, and don't have a plan. How about they are accomplishing exactly what they wanted.

All this studying certainly didn't stop it from happening.
Pg 180 The study of authoritarianism began during the Holocaust, as scientists could not understand why people in Germany and Italy were tolerating, if not supporting, Hilter and Mussolini. They wanted to know if that sort of blind allegiance could develop in the United States. Accordingly, they set about the task of finding out what types of people were susceptible to authoritarian leadership. After a half century, they have found answers, which I have outlined in this book.
In reference to Laura's quote below from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm, yep first they would have had to study blind allegiance or supplement the knowledge gained from Germany and Italy to become even more effective, etc. as metioned above.
Laura said:
More importantly, consider the fact that your government knows how you think only too well. In fact, they have CREATED your thinking processes!
This quote seemed to come out of the blue on the last page of the book and the first time any percentages were used and why I decided to talk about the authoritarian followers here.

Pg 184 "Probably about 20 to 25 percent of the adult American population is so right-wing authoritarian, so scared, so self-righteous, so ill-informed, and so dogmatic that nothing you can say or do will change their minds," Altemeyer told me.
Which is amazingly similar to what Laura wrote. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski_2.htm
Political Ponerology said:
We can also include within psychopathic categories a somewhat indeterminate number of anomalies with a hereditary substratum...
We also meet difficult individuals with a tendency to behave in a manner hurtful to other people, for whom tests do not indicate existing damage to brain tissue and there is no indication of abnormal child-rearing background. The fact that such cases are repeated within families would suggest a hereditary substratum.[...]
Such people also attempt to mask their different world of experience and play a role of normal people to varying degrees... These people participate in the genesis of evil in very different ways, whether taking part openly or, to a lesser extent, when they have managed to adapt to proper ways of living. These psychopathies and related phenomena may, quantitatively speaking, be summarily estimated at two or three times the number of cases of essential psychopathy, i.e. at less than two per cent of the population.
Laura wrote: Here I want to comment that, if we speculate the actual number of psychopaths to be around 6 percent - or even just 4 percent as Stout claims - then these other "people" Lobaczewski is talking about could be as frequent as 12 to 18 percent of the population. That would mean that the total number of psychopaths plus "almost psychopaths" would be 16 to 24 percent of the total population. However, it is obvious that the statistical spread can be different in different countries at different times. We will look at that issue further on.
Their behavior towards people who do not notice their faults is urbane, even friendly. However, the same people manifest a pre-emptive hostility and aggression against persons with a talent for psychology or proper knowledge in this area.
They are relatively less vital sexually and therefore amenable to accept celibacy; that is why some Catholic monks and priests often represent lesser or minor cases of this anomaly. They are the chief factor which inspired the anti-psychological attitude traditional in Church thinking.
The more severe cases are more brutally anti-psychological and contemptuous of normal people; they tend to be active in the processes of the genesis of evil on a larger scale. Their dreams do not lack a certain idealism similar to the ideas of normal people. They would like to reform the world to their liking but are unable to foresee more far-reaching implications and results. Spiced by deviance, their visions may influence na
 
Thanks for all this, Mike. I saw Dean again on CNN last weekend and he mentioned discovery of this surprising "body of research" that practically made it sound like he stumbled upon Political Ponerology or something. But, no such luck. Is there contact info on the book? I couldn't find any on the web. I'd have no problem pointing him to PP myself. Maybe he could be one of those people who should read it ASAP.

The C's on Gore, regarding information that would interest the public, in Session 010914:

A: Gore is pushing buttons on Capitol Hill.
Q: What does Gore have to do with anything? He lost the election. Well... (A) He had this Lieberman as his
running mate. What kind of buttons? Huh. (L) Is he pushing buttons to expose, or pushing buttons to
expose?
A: To suppress.
Q: Well, that's the damnedest thing I ever heard.


I had forgotten that Gore had "neocon democrat" Lieberman on his bill!
 
No contact info from the book. The only contact info I could find is at the bottom of this link (contact the author link, not email address). I searched for about 45 min for contact info back before I bought the book and this is all I found.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dea_060710_how_conservatives_ha.htm

I intended to email him about PP, but forgot to do so. Thanks for the remind.
 
Back
Top Bottom