New Show: MindMatters (RIP Truth Perspective)
- Thread starter Approaching Infinity
- Start date
Thank you crew for the latest Mind Mattets episode, I've enjoyed a lot watching it. The subjects that are being discussed during the show are extremely important to know especially when one is living in a ponerized and histericized society like we do currently.
It doesn't matter how bad it gets out there, there is always a choice, always. I'm starting experiencing a subtle peer pressure from my coworkers since almost all of them took the jab and me and just a few of my fellow co-workers have chosen to not take it. When you go at work you feel the tension and the fake smiles and shallow interactions from those coworkers. And I accept it, they've made their choice i made mine, we aren't on the same wavelength, who gives a flying pig about that, I'm not looking nor needing their approval nor anyone else's besides I'm not facing alone this ponerized and distorted reality the PTB are trying to push on everyone's throats. There many people like me, I have been blessed to find this community which for me is a refuge, a home and you guys are my brothers and sisters, my tribe and that's enough for me to keep me going forward and onward.
It doesn't matter how bad it gets out there, there is always a choice, always. I'm starting experiencing a subtle peer pressure from my coworkers since almost all of them took the jab and me and just a few of my fellow co-workers have chosen to not take it. When you go at work you feel the tension and the fake smiles and shallow interactions from those coworkers. And I accept it, they've made their choice i made mine, we aren't on the same wavelength, who gives a flying pig about that, I'm not looking nor needing their approval nor anyone else's besides I'm not facing alone this ponerized and distorted reality the PTB are trying to push on everyone's throats. There many people like me, I have been blessed to find this community which for me is a refuge, a home and you guys are my brothers and sisters, my tribe and that's enough for me to keep me going forward and onward.
In the midst of all these "oh my God!!" developments that we continue to read about and experience, more or less directly and to one degree or another, there are times when it seems easy to fall into a bit of trepidation - with the thoughts and feelings that its just 'me' - facing the tyranny. Alone. In one respect that's exactly what they want - for us to feel isolated and alone with whatever fear they are trying to engender in us; whatever separateness and division they are trying to induce. But as you so well stated, there are many people like you, like me - and like us - who are blessed enough to know that we are all in the same proverbial boat - and paddling, navigating, sailing, breaking bread and using a compass aimed at the same destination.
To really know this for one's self, and share this understanding, is a heartening thing indeed I think.
In another respect I'm not 100% certain that the moments of deep concern we sometimes have are too negative a thing if we can make some use of them and allow those times to forge something more resolute, more devoted, more intelligent, more integrated, more awake - and even stronger as a result. We're here to learn some lessons after all, and one of those lessons would seem to be that growth, by necessity, is sometimes painful. But the goodness in this is in seeing how much more we can become for ourselves and for others as a result of looking at things as they truly are. And by that I don't mean to say that we should shoulder things by ourselves more to become stronger necessarily. Only that this feeling or experience can afford us something of an opportunity. And it may help us as we take turns, each and all of us, drawing on our new found strengths when it is helpful, and perhaps necessary, to do so.
Regarding this show:
www.sott.net
which much of what was being discussed was somewhat known (experiments et cetera), and it was damn sobering to listen, bringing up a few thoughts also.
Harrison, somewhere you used the words/idea (I think) of a 'morality switch' - which has the potential to go both ways with people, and then the idea of Peterson's negative visualization, which reminded me perhaps of the idea of what the Stoics looked at, looking at the worst that could happen, and this might include looking at what a person is capable of doing themselves. I get where you were going with that, it is difficult.
Example here, and it is not exactly visualizing ones own capabilities as Peterson suggests, although it might be:
When (think in the case of Battalion 101) it was cited that less than 20% of the people participated. Well that is shocking in itself, and interestingly that with today's medical decrees, it seems that near 80% of the population are actively participating in one way or another - oh it is not the same as the other, yet it is self inflicting, and there is the beginnings of separations of bonds between people, even their children, and where that could lead for the 20% is a slippery slope. Moreover, this brought up a SoTT article looked at today (similar to that Harper's magazine's 1941 article on Who Goes Nazi):
www.sott.net
From an experimental standpoint (how ever it could be set up), what is the percentage of doctors today who would switch and who would not. If they were told, let's say, that this vaccine is a miracle and the science really does agree that it will save lives, it is not unreasonable that they would suggest it and administer it - if safe this would be logical. Perhaps it would be close to 100%. However, like now when they are told that an unapproved vaccine experiment must be used on all the citizens (and surly they are not so stupid that they can't see other doctors waving caution flags), is it 80% who will not even question common sense, in fact it seems like there is a high number that will get angry with those not adhering? Don't know, this might be close, or perhaps it is more in alignment with that fascist reality of 50% shown in that article. With the number of physicians know in the area where I live, that 80/20% number might be spot on from what can be seen. Good grief.
In the discussion (electrical shocks), there were those numbers whereby "experts" predicted that less than 1% would carry out a deplorable act on another person (vs. the reality), and whereby students themselves predicting that woman would not at all do such things, that in fact they would be at 0%, when in reality it was 100%.
So much for experts and students, and this is a big reason for the red flags that should be apparent from our media and authority systems, which their bloody perditions and corrupted statistics provide more than a view of this reality.
Okay, all chilling to consider, yet thank you for the show and how you presented it, which was not easy.
Ps. 180 degrees away, that T-shirt, Elan, well that is great - Irreducible complex
MindMatters: Finding Your Red Line: Lessons from Milgram and the Holocaust
As things continue to get worse culturally and politically, it pays to ask oneself how far one will go. What are the limits to my obedience to authority? At what point do I become what I hate? To avoid becoming a monster, the first step is to...
www.sott.net
which much of what was being discussed was somewhat known (experiments et cetera), and it was damn sobering to listen, bringing up a few thoughts also.
Harrison, somewhere you used the words/idea (I think) of a 'morality switch' - which has the potential to go both ways with people, and then the idea of Peterson's negative visualization, which reminded me perhaps of the idea of what the Stoics looked at, looking at the worst that could happen, and this might include looking at what a person is capable of doing themselves. I get where you were going with that, it is difficult.
Example here, and it is not exactly visualizing ones own capabilities as Peterson suggests, although it might be:
When (think in the case of Battalion 101) it was cited that less than 20% of the people participated. Well that is shocking in itself, and interestingly that with today's medical decrees, it seems that near 80% of the population are actively participating in one way or another - oh it is not the same as the other, yet it is self inflicting, and there is the beginnings of separations of bonds between people, even their children, and where that could lead for the 20% is a slippery slope. Moreover, this brought up a SoTT article looked at today (similar to that Harper's magazine's 1941 article on Who Goes Nazi):
'Follow the Science': Doctors joined the Nazis in droves
I'm still reeling at the stupidity of whoever at Scientific American decided to give a green light to publishing an article, "Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy," by Allison Hopper. The absurdity of tarring critics of Darwinism with...
www.sott.net
From an experimental standpoint (how ever it could be set up), what is the percentage of doctors today who would switch and who would not. If they were told, let's say, that this vaccine is a miracle and the science really does agree that it will save lives, it is not unreasonable that they would suggest it and administer it - if safe this would be logical. Perhaps it would be close to 100%. However, like now when they are told that an unapproved vaccine experiment must be used on all the citizens (and surly they are not so stupid that they can't see other doctors waving caution flags), is it 80% who will not even question common sense, in fact it seems like there is a high number that will get angry with those not adhering? Don't know, this might be close, or perhaps it is more in alignment with that fascist reality of 50% shown in that article. With the number of physicians know in the area where I live, that 80/20% number might be spot on from what can be seen. Good grief.
In the discussion (electrical shocks), there were those numbers whereby "experts" predicted that less than 1% would carry out a deplorable act on another person (vs. the reality), and whereby students themselves predicting that woman would not at all do such things, that in fact they would be at 0%, when in reality it was 100%.
So much for experts and students, and this is a big reason for the red flags that should be apparent from our media and authority systems, which their bloody perditions and corrupted statistics provide more than a view of this reality.
Okay, all chilling to consider, yet thank you for the show and how you presented it, which was not easy.
Ps. 180 degrees away, that T-shirt, Elan, well that is great - Irreducible complex
Ps. 180 degrees away, that T-shirt, Elan, well that is great - Irreducible complex
Ain't it kewl?! (If a little nerdy
). And available from this forum's very own Revolt! clothing site:
Irreducible Complexity - Revolt!
Premium T-shirt - 100% cotton. Direct printing on garment. FRONT print S M L XL 2XL 3XL 4XL 5XL Width, cm 45.70 50.80 55.80 60.90 66.00 71.10 76.30 81.20 Length, cm 71.12 73.66 76.20 78.74 81.28 83.82 86.36 88.90 Sleeve length, cm 18.40 19.70 20.90 22.20 23.50 24.80 26.00 27.30 S M L XL 2XL
www.revoltwear.net
Yes. irreducibly kewl!
Was looking into something often talked about on your shows, so don't mean to jump in to the tread and drift it, however had actually not checked up on Bob Altmeyer when the below was written:
and should have, in that Bob had been busy with John Dean last year, wherein they both collaborated together to pen Authoritarian Nightmare as can be read about in Psychology Today. There also seems to have been no redefinition, and apparently the term RWA is still just that, as the conclusions point to:
Dean makes the statement of why he sought out Bob:
Dean further posits:
By October 2020, a good four months after the book was finished up, Bob chimed in here with the following from his own site:
Well, November 3rd has come and gone and y'all know what happened - is happening. However, the timing of the book was rather splendid, if one is a democrat, and was surprised that Bob; and I liked Bob's past work and should read his new book, would engage with Dean (who is often featured on CNN) in what was clearly a political timed release. I'm a little disappointed, yet will get over it.
As a reminder in terms of Dean, Rep. Jim Jordan said, "Dean pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice 45 years ago" (he did no time and who liked Nixon anyway) and seems to be "coming in to enlighten the Judiciary Committee on obstruction of justice."
Dean kind of reminds me of this Ritter character from this old movie, yet of course, he is not an Authoritarian Nightmare like Trump (past tense), and as far as I know Dean was not in the CIA, so really could not say whether or not Dean himself has ever taken on some of those covert authoritarian traits. No, Bob would correct that thinking if it was made.
Many matters have undergone interesting flips at times.
And coming at the disintegration of Western society from another historical, cyclical and more analytical angle...
MindMatters: Cliodynamics and the Secular Cycles of History
It was actually the other way around. Less than 20% didn't participate.
Bob's RWA work is misleading and one-sided. He denies the importance of leftwing authoritarianism. Check out the show with Tom Costello for a corrective:
My bad, "didn't" was the words missed. Thanks for catching that.
Yes, seems evident, although not wanting to through the baby out with the bath water, Bob has done some good work. He did say in his original work that "I’ve always called it right-wing authoritarianism rather than simply authoritarianism in acknowledgment that left-wing authoritarianism also exists," although in his latest book it was very politically aimed and timed at the right from the "left-wing" authoritarians that Bob himself acknowledges.
Listened to the show you guys did on Cliodynamics, which raised many important parts and asked some excellent questions - and helped to answer a few concerning our history and our now. Overall though, comparing these cycles in different times and given technological leap out of the industrial age, it all seems complex with so many aspects to it all.
And yes to another show on Stoicism, there are sure to be some things to round out in further discussion.
That's interesting, because in his earlier work he acknowledged that LWA used to exist, but not anymore:
I wonder if the reason he didn't find them is because his test is designed with the premise that authoritarianism is a rightwing phenomenon.
Noted, is that what Bob initially said was from page 46 (pdf copy), and he further states in the same paragraph:
Yes, only when overthrowing the establishment it seems - and the establishment is fully entrenched now (guess they always were entrenched in the background) having just overthrown the last administration figurehead (in the U.S.). So, perhaps in our present times he writes as if the RWA shoe cannot fit the left side ever, and yet as you say below in answer:
Agree with that, and good to point it out, hence things seem to get muddy depending on who is in power and one's own view, and Bob's aim seems to have been to never paint the traditional left of centre in that RWA light per se (although there are allowances).
His original writing often looked to Nixon (and Bush), so when he recently joined John Dean, who also served under Nixon and helped to topple him, being the official record, one can see in his latest chapter on RWA ("Nightmare"), Trump and his supporters were naturally in the RWA crosshairs. And yet in his last sentence above referencing submitting "to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment" - kind of what Trump promised his supporters (swamp et al.), then perhaps by Bob's own words, those more RWA followers would be left-wing authoritarians
. However, as Psychology Today pointed out of what Bob/Dean said "(they say Donald Trump himself would be a good example of this type of Double High)" which seems to cement the RWA type. Well, the Donald certainly was/is something - unwelcomed by the establishment at that.
Lastly, Bob mentions (same page):
Yes, only when overthrowing the establishment it seems - and the establishment is fully entrenched now (guess they always were entrenched in the background) having just overthrown the last administration figurehead (in the U.S.). So, perhaps in our present times he writes as if the RWA shoe cannot fit the left side ever, and yet as you say below in answer:
Agree with that, and good to point it out, hence things seem to get muddy depending on who is in power and one's own view, and Bob's aim seems to have been to never paint the traditional left of centre in that RWA light per se (although there are allowances).
His original writing often looked to Nixon (and Bush), so when he recently joined John Dean, who also served under Nixon and helped to topple him, being the official record, one can see in his latest chapter on RWA ("Nightmare"), Trump and his supporters were naturally in the RWA crosshairs. And yet in his last sentence above referencing submitting "to authorities who want to overthrow the establishment" - kind of what Trump promised his supporters (swamp et al.), then perhaps by Bob's own words, those more RWA followers would be left-wing authoritarians
. However, as Psychology Today pointed out of what Bob/Dean said "(they say Donald Trump himself would be a good example of this type of Double High)" which seems to cement the RWA type. Well, the Donald certainly was/is something - unwelcomed by the establishment at that.Lastly, Bob mentions (same page):
And I wonder if the reason was the power in influence of Frankfurt School. Adorno, one of the first academics researching authoritarianism, was one of its pillars. And Altemeyer build on his work. Perhaps it's worth noting that:
It's quite likely that those high ranking schools were up-to-date with then most 'progressive' trends.
Around the same time, there was much more balanced research done by politically incorrect Eysenck who became a witch hunt victim and was heavily criticised by Adorno and Rokeach, among others.
From F Scale to Phobias
The idea of an "authoritarian personality" is not a myth. It just so happens to exist primarily in those who wish to diagnose it in others.
europeanconservative.com
Part of the problem may come from the persistence to perceive the left-right dichotomy in a linear way. It serves well the propaganda and turning people against each other, so it still is a bit of a sacred cow. But I think that spatial or circular representation matches the reality much better.
Political spectrum - Wikipedia
A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions [...] Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and included other axes[...]
[Eysenck] believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists (Nazis) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the left–right axis.
Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research
The interpretation of tough-mindedness as a manifestation of "authoritarian" versus tender-minded "democratic" values was incompatible with the Frankfurt School's single-axis model, which conceptualized authoritarianism as being a fundamental manifestation of conservatism and many researchers took issue with the idea of "left-wing authoritarianism"
Another pic from a long gone website:
So the whole authoritarian thing is more fluid, approaching the extremum from two sides while sharing some personality traits all the way.
FWIW...
Yes, seems so.
On Eysenck's leaning above:
[Eysenck] believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists (Nazis) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the left–right axis.
Kind of like, underneath the mask of either something binds them (control being one) - same coin, opposite sides.
Just finished watching this one and agree that it's an excellent show. I'm working with a segment of population that's immigrant from poorer countries at the moment and it's obvious that lying and cheating to get the absolute most out of a deal is a heavily conditioned way of life for many of them. Further more if I soften and give them a bit of a break, they don't stop applying pressure - more like they play that softening as an advantage to push. This game brings them no shame at all even if I catch onto them and call them on it. Initially I was feeling indignant about it at times though now I see it as more of a game and on occasion have been able to share a laugh with them about it.
Concurrently the temporary rental I'm in is on a commercial lease where some of the same families are hiring land to park shipping containers that they are filling with goods to send home to poorer relatives. I'm often astounded at what I see go past on the trucks going to these shipping containers. Mostly it's stuff that those of us who have lived with more prosperity would consider junk. But in discussions with the people on how the stuff is being used back home by relatives, both for personal use and trade, there is a very steep learning curve about how serious things can get and what people are doing to survive. I think this population with the conditioning of growing up in a poor country are probably much better situated to survive an economic crash more comfortably than many Australians.
Overall I'm thankful for the experience.
This week, on MindMatters:
MindMatters: Is Liberalism the New Totalitarianism? A Conversation with Ryszard Legutko
MindMatters: Is Liberalism the New Totalitarianism? A Conversation with Ryszard Legutko
