The Authoritarian Personality

[Adam Strange]

An interesting article on authoritarian personalities by V.L. Talanov.

http://sociotoday.narod.ru/avtoritar.htm

[HolyKnowing]

Bob Altemeyer wrote a whole book about them. The first person diagnosed posthumously was a certain German dictator. But it's wrong to study evil personalities past a certain point. I'm waiting for the day people write books and articles outlining good personality types, for personal development.

In the Catholic religion I grew up with we were taught to always find heroic characters to imitate and that it's a mortal sin to think the bad guy is ever cool.

[Metamorph]

Bob Altemeyer wrote a whole book about them. The first person diagnosed posthumously was a certain German dictator. But it's wrong to study evil personalities past a certain point. I'm waiting for the day people write books and articles outlining good personality types, for personal development.

In the Catholic religion I grew up with we were taught to always find heroic characters to imitate and that it's a mortal sin to think the bad guy is ever cool.

Nothing is wrong to know, what's wrong is not knowing good. Always just study good first. Evil is just its absence and should make itself clear enough. Evil is not some grand inscrutable mystery. That's how people end up thinking the bad guy is cool in the first place.

I think people can't write books and articles about good personality types because, well, look at Jung. Esoteric Hı̇tlerist, pseudoscientific racist, nihilist, the works. The whole idea of "the shadow" is also that the Devil is somehow good. But mainstream psychology is garbage and as far as I can tell Jung based his ideas on Aristotle anyways. So going back to whoever made the idea first will probably give you a better psychology than "Some people are talkative, and they also seem oriented towards physical rewards! Other people are quiet, and they entertain themselves in their heads! Some people are neat, and they also have good impulse control! Usually, people who are chronically anxious and depressed don't have good impulse control and are slobs!" Captain Obvious level psychology.

[Pyretta VauxDevil]

The whole idea of "the shadow" is also that the Devil is somehow good.

Or that what we refer to as tHe DeViL is just something human, that we don't wish to reflect on, which makes it have even more power over us, but why do I bother.

[Metamorph]

Or that what we refer to as tHe DeViL is just something human, that we don't wish to reflect on, which makes it have even more power over us, but why do I bother.

Are you a nihilist? I know it's normalized here due to Jung. Jung's idea of "God" is not what any traditional person would've called God. He only believed in ideas in the collective unconscious. Jung was a Nietzschean who was looking to the irrational to try to save him from the meaninglessness of nihilism. He liked religion as an idea, but I don't think he really believed in it. Read his Wotan essay. He describes Wotan as basically being the mental equivalent of an appendix or other vestigial organ for the German nervous system. If what he wants is some kind of religious zeal, he gets that just as easily from the idea of the Devil as from the idea of God. That's why he promotes working with the shadow and the whole pathei mathos idea (he did not use that term, but other Satanists do. I have never seen any kind of traditional religion member promote it though, no matter what else I might criticize about some of the popular ones.)

The Devil can't make you do anything. No one needs "shadow work."

[RBRS]

>Most of human history comprised of dynastic, hierarchical and authoritarian regimes
>Suddenly some homos start crying about muh humanitarianism
>A few centuries of parliamentary regimes
>Suddenly democracy becomes an absolute dogma, history is over and liberalism is the end stage, and the unnatural/evil is that which opposes it. Authoritarianism (that has been far more prevalent in history) suddenly is an unsustainable policy and authoritarians are few, unnatural specimens

Democracy and humanism already are a waste of time. I wish most of you live long enough to realize this. It's also absurd and incoherent in it's relationship with power, most if not everything encompassed within it is nothing more than an appeareance.

Democracy is when you don't see the officer's face, only just the boot on your face.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Most people have authoritative traits. Authority is only bad if I'm the one that doesn't have any authority. <ewg>

"He seems to be very reasonable and not an Umbridge and will use his authority responsibly and fairly - let's give him a lot of power" = manipulative tactic used to be king of the universe.

And so far, it's working. For me.

[RBRS]

Most people have authoritative traits. Authority is only bad if I'm the one that doesn't have any authority. <ewg>

"He seems to be very reasonable and not an Umbridge and will use his authority responsibly and fairly - let's give him a lot of power" = manipulative tactic used to be king of the universe.

And so far, it's working. For me.

Take authority for what it is. If you challenge authority you need to accept the possibility of being persecuted, even if it's soft persecution. It is as legitimate for an existing order to persecute threats to it's existence as it is for the opposition to take action against the structure. Both are legitimate or ilegitimate in the extent to which they relate to what reality has to offe.
Both polar opposites are inevitable in any given society. The rightfulness of one or the other will usually be defined by personal animosity, and always relative rather than absolute, because although there's absolute facts, it is almost impossible to find a stable, absolute and secure axiom onto which to build an ethic model to justify this or that action, thought or anything.

Humanists left and right are too childish to accept such a fact and thus have a problematic relationship with the exercise of power, which deems it impossible for purely legitimate democratic states to exist.

Liberalism will never be applied in it's principles, there's no possibility for a liberal system to be legitimate in it's own conditions ever.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Of course, but that works both ways. My point was I don't really see the world in terms of who has authority vs who doesn't but it depends on what you are talking about. I don't fear the police or Real World Authorities because I don't do anything for them to arrest me on and I don't live my life as a criminal to be punished. And because I'm white and privileged I guess.

I'm sure I've pissed off some people/authority figures who simply hate homosexuals just *wishing* I was evil and they could punish me though. LoL

If you challenge authority you need to accept the possibility of being persecuted.

Authority is often simply the upkeeper of a status quo. Not one person can "challenge authority" but if enough people do, the authoritative person will act like everything is okay now and that they've always agreed with you. Some people have the mistaken belief an authority person can fix something shitty about their own personal life.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have noticed that this place has people who are willing to bow towards authority.
Could be mb Normie subs

[RBRS]

I have noticed that this place has people who are willing to bow towards authority.
Could be mb Normie subs

I have found very few users who are not highly submissive to both the social and political structures that surround them, but admitting that is another thing. One should take a look at speech and see if it perfectly aligns with the interests of their owners to see their submission.

To recognize how authority works does not necessarily mean you submit to it. The opposite is even more plausible. But if you throw a molotov cocktail at a public building, don't be surprised when the media demonizes you, the state attacks your group, charges you or even makes you dissapear.

[RBRS]

Of course, but that works both ways. My point was I don't really see the world in terms of who has authority vs who doesn't but it depends on what you are talking about. I don't fear the police or Real World Authorities because I don't do anything for them to arrest me on and I don't live my life as a criminal to be punished. And because I'm white and privileged I guess.

I'm sure I've pissed off some people/authority figures who simply hate homosexuals just *wishing* I was evil and they could punish me though. LoL



Authority is often simply the upkeeper of a status quo. Not one person can "challenge authority" but if enough people do, the authoritative person will act like everything is okay now and that they've always agreed with you. Some people have the mistaken belief an authority person can fix something shitty about their own personal life.

No. Too many social and polítical institutions are dependant on the collective ethos and status quo. The masses are obedient to the rulers and follow their lead as long as the lead gives a little bread and a little circus. The moment institutions turn unstable regimes will persecute threats to it's existence.

Most will think the exact same thing as everyone and then think their opinions are theirs lol.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have found very few users who are not highly submissive to both the social and political structures that surround them, but admitting that is another thing. One should take a look at speech and see if it perfectly aligns with the interests of their owners to see their submission.

To recognize how authority works does not necessarily mean you submit to it. The opposite is even more plausible. But if you throw a molotov cocktail at a public building, don't be surprised when the media demonizes you, the state attacks your group, charges you or even makes you dissapear.

This condition needs n > 1.

[FreelancePoliceman]

The historian Lewis Mumford believed that whether a society was democratic or authoritarian was a result of the way technologies and resources present in that society are used. As a general rule, the more advanced technology becomes, the more authoritarian a society becomes. People here may be interested. Here is a brief summary of/introduction to his views.

[Metamorph]

The historian Lewis Mumford believed that whether a society was democratic or authoritarian was a result of the way technologies and resources present in that society are used. As a general rule, the more advanced technology becomes, the more authoritarian a society becomes. People here may be interested. Here is a brief summary of/introduction to his views.

I disagree with him. All societies are inherently authoritarian. People were just as authoritarian when they were sacrificing people to the dark gods as they are now. I would probably be more prone to agree with the cyberpunk people that technology makes individuals more free in most cases which is probably why technology seems to be being artificially restricted. People believe in progress, so they need to see a simulacrum of progress, but really understanding things isn't pushes to the masses, it's restricted from them. If we had progress, where's my rockets to Mars and beyond the solar system, where's my biological immortality, where's psionics being some mundane thing, can I visit the higher dimensions they talk about in modern physics (I am mostly convinced there is exactly one higher dimension besides time and not 11 or 42 or whatever,) can I spend all my time either learning science or other things I want to do like going to performances?

The answer to that is no, because technology is being deliberately restricted, and it's being deliberately restricted because it doesn't actually make society more authoritarian. Only the specific things that help authoritarians are funded. If you google how to build a bomb, you will end up on many lists. If you google how to make drugs, you will end up on many lists. Many other things that are less bombastic than those will put you on lists. It would be true that technology made society more authoritarian if authoritarian structures were inherently needed for technology, but that's not true. I have a brain, you have a brain, people reading this hopefully have a brain, we can learn things, and if everyone spent their time learning things instead of just distracting themselves all the time this society would probably not exist in the dystopic form it exists in.

[ouronis]

Lol, not surprised by these results at all.

[DogOfDanger]

The whole idea of "the shadow" is also that the Devil is somehow good.

No, the shadow is simply an aspect of the personality, recognizing it is just recognizing the truth, nothing more. Ideally it's meant to be integrated, not indulged - reconciliation with the truth is good. The shadow is a real part of you. The shadow is the part of you that you have hidden ... Letting that come to light is good, this way you can integrate that and dissolve it. Nowhere does Jung imply that you should indulge in and be consumed by the shadow.
The first example of this that comes to mind is with sex - very often males with serious antisocial sexual issues are extremely sexually repressed in their attitudes and in how they live their lives. They have no positive outlet... no open acknowledgement of the human need for sex. The need doesn't go away, it's there beneath the surface, it's just been smothered... but you can never really smother your instincts like that, the energy wells up. So you have this hidden underworld of maladaptive, antisocial sexual behavior that can develop. And the more kept hidden it is, the more denied it is, if this goes on for long enough... this is how you end up with extreme antisocial sexual behavior. The extreme and antisocial aspect is really inseparable from the smothering of the instinct. So this is an example of what it means to deny / fail to integrate the shadow. Now you would say the shadow is associated with Satan - but no, because recognizing the shadow is the path to reconciliation and ultimate liberation. It is the failure to integrate it that is the root problem. To deny the shadows existence is to lie about it.

[Metamorph]

No, the shadow is simply an aspect of the personality, recognizing it is just recognizing the truth, nothing more. Ideally it's meant to be integrated, not indulged - reconciliation with the truth is good. The shadow is a real part of you. The shadow is the part of you that you have hidden ... Letting that come to light is good, this way you can integrate that and dissolve it. Nowhere does Jung imply that you should indulge in and be consumed by the shadow.
The first example of this that comes to mind is with sex - very often males with serious antisocial sexual issues are extremely sexually repressed in their attitudes and in how they live their lives. They have no positive outlet... no open acknowledgement of the human need for sex. The need doesn't go away, it's there beneath the surface, it's just been smothered... but you can never really smother your instincts like that, the energy wells up. So you have this hidden underworld of maladaptive, antisocial sexual behavior that can develop. And the more kept hidden it is, the more denied it is, if this goes on for long enough... this is how you end up with extreme antisocial sexual behavior. The extreme and antisocial aspect is really inseparable from the smothering of the instinct. So this is an example of what it means to deny / fail to integrate the shadow. Now you would say the shadow is associated with Satan - but no, because recognizing the shadow is the path to reconciliation and ultimate liberation. It is the failure to integrate it that is the root problem. To deny the shadows existence is to lie about it.

The shadow exists, but it has no power over you, and therefore does not need to be "integrated."

[DogOfDanger]

The shadow exists, but it has no power over you, and therefore does not need to be "integrated."

No, this is just you simultaneously denying and acknowledging its existence - human instinct cannot be successfully smothered and repressed, integrating it means finding an appropriate outlet for it, not indulging in a maladaptive expression of it. Rendering human instinct powerless is just repressing it, this does nothing to channel it into a constructive outlet. Human instinct has power over you, you can't escape it or cause it to not exist. You still don't seem to understand.