|
Edit from the future: This discussion has moved on very far from its earlier stages. If you are just reading this thread for the first time it is recommended that you start by reading this blog post. It contains the most up-to-date version of this discussion. Edit from even further in the futureThis discussion has moved from this thread to its C-SPAM incarnation. Greetings D&D. With recent events in the GOP (to say nothing of the irrational behavior on display ever since Obama got elected) many posters here have often expressed confusion about the behavior on display. Often I have seen posters baffled by the sheer spite and inconsistent beliefs being proclaimed by various factions of the right wing. So I decided to make this thread to try and explain the inner workings of the most influential part of the modern right wing, Authoritarians. Rather than going the usual route when this topic is raised of trying to simply dismiss Authoritarians as simply ignorant or spiteful, I will here argue (and attempt as best as possible to demonstrate) that the usual treatment of this topic is too simplistic, too often speaking in cold academic descriptions. There is to me a completely coherent "method to the madness" of Authoritarians, and I will attempt here to lay out the inner workings of the mindset of Authoritarians, how they function in groups, the various sub-types of authoritarian leaders, what motivates them, and finally, how to anticipate (to a surprising degree) the behavior of Authoritarians. I will do so by first defining the terms I use in my own (mentally ill) mind to understand Authoritarians, and then using those concepts to examine recent US history as a way of elaborating on my meanings. I am doing this firstly because I have a rather unique perspective on the topic, and secondly because it is my firm conclusion that between now and the 2016 elections there will be a significant (probably dramatically so) increase in the aggression and irrationality of the right wing in this country. For reasons that I will do my best to explain and elaborate on, I have concluded that between now and the 2016 elections we will see bigots drop their mask and start getting real. Much of the first few posts here will be culled from an already ongoing discussion in the Marriage Equality thread, however, the discussion has moved beyond the scope of that thread and is not really germane, so I am moving it here.. First off, let me make some caveats. I am not an expert nor do I have any higher education. I am a schizophrenic (full diagnosis Bi-Polar Type II Schizoaffective, PTSD, possible mild autism, depression) trans-woman (only recently out to myself) raised in a hardcore Authoritarian cult. I have only four years of proper education (High School) with the rest of my education being handled either directly at the cult or in home schooling under the supervision of the cult. My childhood was extremely painful and controlled. I did not have a social security number until I was 18 because social security numbers were the mark of the beast. I did not find out about the birds and the bees until two years after I entered puberty and was having erections. (I thought my erections where a curse from God for my impure thoughts and tried desperately to hide them). I have been involved in a variety of other cults and proto-cults in my adult life. I have also had the great fortune to be involved with some truly remorseless people that gave me an insight into just what humans will do to each other. (Many years ago I had a life insurance policy that named my business partner at the time as sole beneficiary, one of our mutual acquaintances repeatedly tried to pitch this business partner on killing me for the insurance money.) Of interest I am sure to some who may remember me I was a Kyoon-esque poster on these forums many years ago. My forums name back then was Truckin A Man and I used to spray Ron Paul/9-11 Truth/Anti-Vaxxer insanity on these forums (and early LF) back around 2007. (I have previously owned up to this before in the Conspiracy thread.) I also spent many years under a complicated delusion where the voice of the biblical prophet Enoch was giving me instructions to prepare for the final war between Heaven and Hell. I based major life decisions on Enoch's instructions (what jobs to take, where to live, who to befriend, etc). So yeah, take everything i say with a grain of salt. I am a crazy person. A self aware crazy person perhaps, but still a crazy person. Also, the style in which must of this is written is not meant to dehumanize or otherize the people I am describing. I am not trying to do anything but explain how I understand the people I was raised around. The manner in which this is written is more a consequence of my Schizophrenia more than anything else. Forums User Schizotek summed it up pretty well. Schizotek posted:And the capitalization thing people mentioned is just something schizos tend to do even when they aren't babbling about the CIA trying to assassinate them by slipping an empty Monster can underneath their brake pedal. It's "this represents a concept related to but not identical to this words textbook meaning, but I don't have a separate word for what I'm trying to describe so I'll turn it into a proper noun to distinguish that", as opposed to just trying to make it look scary. Normal people do it too but it's practically a schizophrenia trademark. Please bear in mind, this all comes from a weird spot in a schizophrenic mind, and it is really hard for me to put it all into a coherent form. Schizophrenia interweaves and ties things into a Gordian Knot, and finding a few strands I can tug at enough to elaborate on is rather taxing. So while this is all written in a pretty direct manner, it is just like, my opinion man. I recognize that there is probably no way to test any of this, and furthermore, it is written with an air of authority it does not deserve. (Such is Schizophrenia though, if I tried to properly caveat everything I would never be able to get myself to actually write it down.) I suppose this is something like what a Kyoon rant might look like if he actually took his meds. I recognize that nothing I say can be tested or proven and I'm not going to even bother trying to do so. I am just offering my (rather unusual) viewpoint on a portion of the population that I feel is not well understood. There has been some Academic research into the topic of Authoritarians, namely The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, (which is a pro-click free ebook by a real scientist, go read it) however there is not near as much study as one would hope. So I am going to try and describe Authoritarians groups from the inside and from a laymans perspective. One more brief caveat, I want to make it clear that I am not discussing Joe Shmedley white flight suburbanite or your average college Republican. I am discussing Authoritarians, which are a specific subset of the population. (Actual portion of the population is not known, but its probably not even in the double digits range percentage wise.) Authoritarians may be right or left leaning, however, in the US, left leaning Authoritarians (ex Anti-vaxxers, Homeopaths, etc) are essentially powerless, whereas right leaning Authoritarians have a disproportionate amount of influence over the GOP, for reasons I shall try my best to describe in this thread. I will be moving posts from the Marriage Equality thread over here as the thread develops to give new readers a bit of a chance to catch up. Once caught up I will do my best to explain more of my ideas. I will be happy to answer any questions along the way. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Oct 23, 2018 |
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Narrative.: The first concept i want to discuss about Authoritarians is what I call "Narrative". Contrary to the common view that Authoritarians live by the dictates of some unseen and vengeful God, they actually base their decisions/live their lives based upon a narrative of which a vengeful petty God is always a feature. Whether it be a Fundamentalist Zealot or an Objectivist shitlord, Authoritarians always have a narrative that determines everything they say, think, or do. Narrative is the true God of the Authoritarian, which is why what God actually says or does has very little practical worth. What Authoritarians care about is what God (Or for Objectivists the Free Market) should be doing according to the narrative. No matter what is actually happening, they will believe and behave as if the narrative is playing out exactly as they expected it too. Regardless of actual real world circumstances, outcomes, situations, or influences, Authoritarians always prize the narrative above all else. Narrative works on three primary levels (Grand, Outer, Inner) that I will describe in detail here. Grand Narrative: One of the curious things about Authoritarians is that no matter what form the narrative they live by ultimately takes, it will always conform nearly identically to certain (surprisingly narrow) details and themes. The names, characters, and settings may change, but the ultimate shape and themes of the story remains uniform. I call this the Grand Narrative. From start to finish, this narrative always follows the same path, to the same eventual conclusion, no deviations. This narrative has multiple sections and each section has certain expectations for behavior. For example, various Authoritarian Communist movements have believed themselves living in the "Dawn of a New Age"(the start of the Grand Narrative) and have conduced themselves as such. In contrast American Evangelicals believe themselves to be living at the "End Times", or the end of the Grand Narrative, and they base all their decisions on that perception. Understanding then what part of this universal story an Authoritarian thinks themselves living in is critical to understanding what decisions an Authoritarian is going to make, and why. Another curious thing is that no matter what situation an Authoritarian is born into, given enough time, they will ultimate create the Grand Narrative, no matter how hard they may try to avoid it. Owing to extremely complex and interwoven psychological factors Authoritarians use the Grand Narrative to provide succor for human emotional needs that they are otherwise unable to provide for. Thusly, inexorably, any Authoritarian will inevitable create a different version of the exact same story. Because the Grand Narrative is designed to meet subconscious needs and not address real world problems. While it is yet beyond me to tell the entire story from start to finish (Which I hope to someday be able to do, possibly in a Novella form) I can draw an interesting comparison here to demonstrate what I mean. I am certain that most readers here will be familiar with the Rapture story. Just in case though, the basic outline of the Rapture is as follows: "God (Yahweh) passes judgement on the world by sending the perfect man (Jesus) as a thief in the night to rescue his chosen people (selected for their innate merit of being true believers). Jesus takes his chosen into paradise (heaven), where they sit back and watch as the world collapses into torment without them. Once the world has been destroyed, the followers of Jesus will emerge as rulers in a new golden age." Important to note that this narrative appears nowhere in the Bible. It is rather cobbled together from a wild sample of sources that were never meant to be tied together .A Bible verse here, a stray bit of Jewish Mysticism there, a piece of occult errata there, etc etc. The rapture story is an example of the Grand Narrative, for even though it can be found nowhere in the Bible, Authoritarian Christians nonetheless have been able to find all the clues they needed to create it. Now we turn to Ayn Rand, one of (in my view) the most influential Authoritarian philosophers in the modern age. Don't be fooled by her Atheism or her constant harping about individual liberty, Ayn Rand was a bigoted zealot like any other and believed essentially the same things as any Christian Fundamentalist I can think of. As a result of this, Ayn Rand's philosophy and writings should reflect the Grand narrative, and I believe they do (although only piecemeal). Consider Atlas Shrugged. When you break it down, it is little more than a repeat of the Rapture story. "God (the free market) passes judgement on the world by sending the perfect man (John Galt) as a thief in the night to rescue his chosen people (selected for their innate merit of being Captains of Industry). John Galt takes his chosen into paradise (Galt's Gulch), where they sit back and watch as the world collapses into torment without them. It is assumed that once the world has been destroyed, the followers of John Galt will emerge to rule the world. So from this example I am trying to establish that no matter what narrative a given group of Authoritarians follows, in the end it generally contains the same specific themes and narrative structure, just with different names. I believe this explains why there is a noted intersection of Fundamentalist Christians and Libertarians. While it would seem from a surface reading that these two groups should be innately opposed (especially in light of Rand's almost Nietzchian venom for Christianity) the fact of the matter is that they are but minor variations of the same overall theme (Authoritarianism). Furthermore, as a result of phenomena I will lay out shortly, the blending of the two groups was always an inevitable reaction to Authoritarians losing the culture wars. Outer Narrative: The Outer Narrative is what a given Authoritarian (Or group of Authoritarians) claims to believe. "Jesus is Lord!" "Tax Cuts Increase Revenue!" "We are just a concerned citizens militia asserting our 2nd Amendment rights" etc etc. Whatever it is that an Authoritarian cannot shut the gently caress up about, that is the Outer Narrative. The Outer Narrative is not the totality of what an Authoritarian group believes. It is always rather the watered down version that is deemed acceptable for public consumption. Whatever it is that an Authoritarian proclaims as his sincerely held beliefs out in public is always going to be rather different from what gets discussed behind closed doors. Curiously, Authoritarians are completely oblivious to this fact. Each Authoritarian group believes itself the sole possessor of some great knowledge/insight/whatever that makes their group special and uses this as a justification to deliberately obfuscate their real beliefs. However, each Authoritarian group judges every other Authoritarian group solely by the other Authoritarian groups Outer Narrative. Another interesting facet of the Outer Narrative is how often it is used to shield the Authoritarian's beliefs from criticisms. Broadly speaking, attacking the Outer Narrative with facts or logic has little result primarily because you are not attacking what the Authoritarian really believes. This is why debating an authoritarian often seems so fruitless, it seems that nothing you say makes a dent. This is because you are not arguing against what the Authoritarian really believes, but rather a shell of it. So long as the next level of narrative (what I call the "Inner Narrative") is not directly threatened, an Authoritarian can keep it up all day. (Occasionally though while debating the Outer Narrative you will hit upon a line of logic that inadvertently refutes an aspect of the Inner Narrative and the Authoritarian will suddenly become incredibly hostile and aggressive, more on this later.) Inner Narrative: This is what an Authoritarian (or group of Authoritarians) actually believe. Inner Narrative are often closely guarded from prying eyes and seldom discussed anywhere someone outside the in-group may hear. (alternatively it will be discussed in a coded fashion using jargon). Examples of the Inner Narrative could be a council of elders of a Southern Baptist Church discussing their Pastors latest revelations from God, or a racist militia hanging out at Bill's house to drink beer and discuss the coming RaHoWa, or a politically active group of Ron Paul Libertarians discussing 9-11 Truth conspiracy theories in hushed tones at a restaurant. The Inner Narrative is always used as an over-arching justification for everything else the Authoritarian individual/group is engaging in. Arguing against the Outer Narrative is generally fruitless, as if you do prove an aspect of the Outer Narrative wrong, the Authoritarian will use the secret Inner Narrative to avoid any painful introspection. Inner Narrative's are generally very self centered (almost narcissistic) and place the believer in a central heroic role, the noble few "True X" struggling against an almost invincible opponent, on behalf of the ignorant (and probably unworthy) masses. The Inner Narrative is where the true sense of an Authoritarians value as a human being and purpose in life are derived from. Debate the Outer Narrative all you want and nothing will happen, because Outer Narrative's serve as a shield, a deliberately altered version of the Inner Narrative, so it is expected that parts of it will not hold up to scrutiny from unbelievers, because unbelievers are not ready to accept the more profound truth of the Inner Narrative. Inner Narrative's are always charged with intense emotion, and should you ever attack the Inner Narrative (even inadvertently) watch out! On occasion the Inner Narrative will leak out and rear its ugly head. This happens when the Outer Narrative ceases to be a useful shield and instead becomes a liability. I will use the infamous (and somewhat dramatic example) of "I AM A PRAYER WARRIOR" lady from Trading Spouses. Please watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8 This lady is a classic example of an Authoritarian under pressure. Over the course of living with another family (and outside the Authoritarian environment she was adapted too) this lady began to feel immensely insecure. Her Outer Narrative was falling apart as a result of interacting with diverse people she had no experience with. The caricatures she had been taught to believe in and the ways of bringing non-believers into the fold she had been assured would work had failed miserably. Moreso, she began to feel under attack, and her Outer Narrative (her professed beliefs) became a vulnerability instead of a shield. Any Authoritarian put into a situation such as this will eventually resort to the Inner Narrative as a defense mechanism. Granted, this particular example is a good bit more dramatic than what usually happens, however, it is nonetheless an accurate (if somewhat overwrought) representation. The out of control emotion and aggressive lashing out while shouting mentally ill nonsense is fairly typical. What this lady is demonstrating is a sort of psychotic break triggered from the stress of the Outer Narrative collapsing and the Inner Narrative asserting itself publicly. I would note here that what this lady is shouting is what she has actually believed all along and what has guided her decisions every step of the way in her life up to this point. (Also important is that she has functioned reasonably well up to this point in an Authoritarian environment, when taken outside that environment her mal-adaptations and inability to change become clear, but that is another article sized discussion)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
This applies very directly to Freeprepublic.com's trend towards radicalization and explains the real social function of the occasional purges serve. Compaction Cycle: The Compaction Cycle is a major factor in how Authoritarian groups function and is my term for an unrecognized (but very important) constant low level cycling of individual Authoritarians through a variety of different Authoritarian groups. The Compaction Cycle is primarily important because it describes the trend towards radicalization in Authoritarian groups, and even provides something of a barometer than can be used to measure the likely pace at which a given Authoritarian groups is likely to radicalize. (That is, a way of determining the speed at which a group is radicalizing completely independent of any action they are taking or rhetoric they are using.) This cycle is also important because it is a major factor in how Authoritarian groups build common ground with each other when they are looking for allies. (It also plays a large role in the cross pollination of various strings of Authoritarian thought.) To explain this facet of Authoritarian behavior I will call forth the metaphor of a snowball. Specifically, a snowball made of that wet slush poo poo that is right on the border between being frozen and being a puddle. If you have never gotten a chance to play with such a snowball then let me elaborate. By snowball standards they are heavy, awkward projectiles that travel slowly and are easily dodged. Even when you do hit something with such a snowball, the effect is minimal, usually a wet *punt* sound. This snowball then is a metaphor for the average Authoritarian group when it is not under pressure. Unwieldy, awkward, not terribly effective, but can still get the job done. Put an Authoritarian group under pressure though, and things change. Let us return to our wet snowball. If you take it in both hands and compact it, you will squeeze out a surprising amount of water. You will then be left with an ice ball. Although much smaller and having less total mass, an ice ball is a nasty projectile. Fast, accurate, hard to see coming, and can leave a hell of a bruise. To take this example a bit further, if you drop your new ice all in a pile of snow and scoop it all up, you will now have slush ball with an ice ball core. A better projectile than you started with, but not as good as the ice ball by itself was. However, if you compact this new ball down, you will squeeze out the water, and be left with an even larger ice ball. Now you are creating a dangerous weapon indeed. And you can keep adding on layers of ice so long as you have a supply of snow, eventually getting a baseball sized projectile of solid ice that can really gently caress something up. Even though you lose much mass every time you compact the ball down, as long as you have a snowbank handy to keep dipping your ice ball in, you can keep adding more total ice. Now back to Authoritarian groups. An average Authoritarian group is like our slush ball. A mixture of hard and soft members, since when forming Authoritarian groups are like an annoying new guild in WoW. ("LAID BACK FAMILY GUILD THAT RAIDS AND PVP'S RECRUITING ALL LEVELS AND ROLES PST) They will accept anyone willing to pay lip service to the groups ideals. When not under pressure or threatened, Authoritarian groups are much more relaxed. All such groups when under pressure however, start to drive softer members out. Stress rises, tempers flare. Rhetoric becomes harsher, group identity becomes more important, aggressive members start to scrutinize for any perceived flaw in the tribe. Eventually someone (or a group of someones) finds themselves on the wrong side of an internal dispute. It could be there fault, it could not be, doesn't really matter. In the end they were guilty of the sin of not spotting the group think forming fast enough and they are driven out. This can be seen in Freep's purges of all non McCain/Romney supporters once those candidates had locked the nomination in. With the "softer" members (or water in our slushball) compacted out, the remaining members are more radical overall. While the overall mass, or number of members has decreased, the remaining members are the ones who have proven themselves to be the most competent at falling in line and will prove less likely to disagree with the group think in the future. They have become like the Ice Ball. The metaphor does not end here though, because we need to consider what happens to those outcast members. Most of the time (80% or so if I had to guess) they will go on to join another group. Since they are Authoritarians they will join another group that also follows the Grand Narrative. (While I would like to mention that this is how you get 9-11 truthers that become UFO nuts that become Objectivist Shitlords and then wind up being 9-11 truthers again over the course of a long enough period of time, I want to stay mostly with the Freep example.) The Freep members that join some other online Conservative community will be quite a bit more shy about rocking the boat. They will be more sensitive and more alert for changes in the tribes group think. They will find themselves drawn to the new groups hardliners and will become more hardline themselves. Often, Abused becomes abuser, and when the new group finds itself under pressure, the formerly outcast member will be among the most vicious attackers of whoever winds up as the new groups scapegoat. The overall trend here is that Authoritarian groups swap members more often than many realize, and one groups rejected softie becomes the next groups hardliner. Just like our slush ball, the weak are driven out and the ice remains, then more members are added and the cycle repeats until eventually everyone is either a hardliner or has stopped associating with Authoritarian groups altogether. I feel this is a good explanation for what we observe in the modern GOP. In raw numbers GOP voters/supporters are in serious decline, but the remaining members are rapidly becoming radicalized. Because of the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP over the past 40 years the less hardcore Republicans are being pressed out of group after group until they either become hardliners themselves or find no home in the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Allright, now I want to try and get into some stuff that builds on what I have thus far described, and in doing so I attempt to shed some light on what is widely regarded as a confusing chapter of recent American history, the Cliven Bundy Ranch showdown. First off I want to describe a character that appears in many variations of the Grand Narrative. For sake of simplicity I will label this character the "Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ: This character archetype is a near universal thread in many Outer Narratives, which is why I consider it to be a part of the Grand narrative. I want here to draw attention not to the popular Left Behind representation of the Anti-Christ, but to what this character represents. The Anti-Christ is a charismatic leader practically worshiped by his followers. The Anti-Christ always has a hidden agenda though, and is himself (almost always a male, curiously enough) merely a front man for a darker, organized, malevolent force. The Anti-Christ then is to be opposed at all times and at all costs, because whatever he is doing, no matter how seemingly benign, is always part of some larger plot designed to trick the masses into killing themselves. Now we come to a really meaty concept, what I call "Narrative Convergence". Narrative Convergence: When Authoritarians perceive a threat (which is often) their first instinct is to strike at the jugular with overwhelming force. It does not matter how insignificant the threat really is or how wide the gap in power between them and their target is, they want to hit a vital spot with every ounce of force they can muster. The goal is to establish dominance by firstly destroying the threat and any trace of it, and secondly, having witnesses so that other potential threats learn their place. Authoritarians are always look for a big dramatic battle, they are looking for every conflict to go down like the final battle of a Lord of the Rings trilogy. Fierce, fast, big, that is how an Authoritarian wants to fight every battle be it a swordfight or a debate. With this in mind Authoritarians have been absolutely nonplussed with their steady losses in the culture wars. Despite their attempts to create cartoonish caricatures to fight with, they have found no real solid target to aim their aggression at. While the internal groupthink at this point is certainly strong enough that they all now agree that these devilish liberal strawmen exist, every time they try and go out looking for them they find very little. This is a bit like that robot planet on Futurama where the entire planet goes out hunting for humans every night and always comes back empty handed. Distinctly aware that they are losing the culture wars but unable to get the big battle they inherently crave, the long term stress has lead many Authoritarians to do something unusual, seek allies. Typically minor differences in the Outer Narrative are sufficient for an Authoritarian group/individual to reject associating with each other beyond what is minimally necessary. ( Obligatory Emo Phillips bit here.) However, the pressure of losing the culture wars has forced many Authoritarians to become more willing to compromise on elements of the Outer Narrative so long as the Grand Narrative remains intact. That is to say, in seeking to find common ground with each other (like any other group of people) Authoritarian groups have started to become more closely knit than seen in previous years, and the factor that unites them is the Grand Narrative. Whatever differences in Outer Narrative exist are slowly being discarded so long as the over-arching themes of the Grand Narrative are preserved. (The Compaction Cycle also plays a role here as Authoritarians that have been members of other groups often serve as bridges between various factions.) In other words, the Outer Narrative's of many Authoritarian groups are converging on the themes of the Grand Narrative. (Thus my labeling this process "Narrative Convergence".) The clearest example I can think of what I am trying to explain here is what has happened to Obama. We are all familiar with "Obama Derangement Syndrome" at this point, and I want to explain where this animus comes from. It isn't explicitly racist, although Obama's race certainly contributed greatly to the initial impulse that drove a previously slow process of Narrative Convergence into a rapid one. (If one recalls the way Authoritarians behaved during the Clinton Presidency I believe it is easy to see the momentum was already building, Obama's blackness merely accelerated an already ongoing process.) Recall my earlier definition of the archetype of the Anti-Christ in the Grand Narrative: "The Anti-Christ is a charismatic leader practically worshiped by his followers. The Anti-Christ always has a hidden agenda though, and is himself (almost always a male, curiously enough) merely a front man for a darker, organized, malevolent force. The Anti-Christ then is to be opposed at all times and at all costs, because whatever he is doing, no matter how seemingly benign, is always part of some larger plot designed to trick the masses into killing themselves." In short, as a result of Narrative Convergence, Obama has become the archetype of the Anti-Christ to a wide range of Authoritarian groups. This is how Obama can be a Commie/Muslim/Kenyan/Illuminatti/Marxist/Reptilian/ad infinitum trying to implement Sharia Law/Socialism/New World Order Population Reduction/ad infinitum all at the same time, and no Authoritarian bats an eye at the inherent contradictions of being all those contradictory things. Because all of those things and all of those agendas are part of the Archetype of what I call the Anti-Christ. To Authoritarians they are not contradictory, they are complimentary. (The minor differences in Outer Narrative are no longer important so long as the Grand narrative is preserved.) So to all Authoritarians, Obama has become a willing front man for a more sinister agenda. A Charismatic face for the purest, vilest of evils. As a result, every action Obama is taking must somehow be a plot and must be opposed at any cost. Authoritarians have so thoroughly convinced themselves of this fact at this point that they are now willing to die on each and every hill and take each and every battle to the bitter end, because they feel they must do so in order to survive. With these ideas in mind, please watch this brief video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCc0rdZd0Ec Next up, I will describe what I call "Convergence Breakthrough Events", or the phenomena of emotional outbursts where Inner Narrative's are temporarily abandoned in favor of the sudden emergence of a new Narrative Convergence, which is what I believe explains the Bundy Ranch affair.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Let me post this next bit and I will answer some questions. This is a post that sort of kicked this whole thing off in the Marriage Equality thread and was originally written March 1st, right before some of the predictions started to really pan out.Prester John posted:Allright, here goes. My perspective on what Gay Marriage means to hardcore Fundamentalist types. But first, let me clarify that the people I will be describing are not mainstream Christians, but they are the people that influence mainstream Christians rather heavily. They are the Glenn Beck of Christian thought, and the regular Evangelicals would be Fox News in this poorly constructed simile. Much like how Beck gives voice to the deepest crazy impulses of the Republican ID while Fox News profits by dog-whistling to the crazies (Example, Fox will imply Obama is a sekrit Mohammedan, while Beck comes strait out and says it), Fundies scream the craziest poo poo you have ever heard (out of sight of the casual observer) while people like John Hagee profit by writing only moderately less insane books with this crowd in mind. Much like the Tea Party, (that fundies have been increasing their influence in of late) while comparatively few in number, Fundies have an outsized influence on the larger Evangelical movement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Like, what sort of battle would they envision having and winning, other than a literally apocalyptic religious one? I'm having trouble coming up with something in recent history that would satisfy them. Honestly they just want a giant fight that they win. They don;t give much thought to *HOW* they will win, because according to the Grand Narrative, they will win by default as long as they fight. Authoritarains cast themselves in a central heroic role in their Inner Narrative, and the Grand Narrative always tells them they have already won. Rather than trying to find a way to win the battle in front of them, Authoritarains try to find enough courage to follow the path laid out in front of them. God has already won the war, they are just fulfilling their role in it as best they can. So what Authoritarians want is a fight, as big as possible. They assume that as long as they fight hard, they will win. (Sort of a boostraps mentality) TYhere is no deeper thinking beyond "FIGHT BIG". For an example of this look at the 2013 shutdown crises. They got themselves into a gigantic pitched battle with no clear battle plan or strategy, merely trusting that if they just fought hard, it would all work out. Additionally, since Authoritarians always assume they are going to win if they fight hard, the loss in 2013 was a massive betrayal. They were winning that loving fight but that coward Boehner chickened out. The lesson Authoritarians took away is that they needed to become more extreme and fight even harder next time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Some of this stuff is characteristic of non-authoritarians as well. Most people have inner and outer narratives; is it what those narratives are that you think determines whether they're authoritarian? Most politically oriented groups, tend towards extremes over time. Is it because those groups are always authoritarian in nature, because authoritarians enter those groups, or because the most passionate members drive the direction of a group, and passion and extremism are often correlated? Is extremism interchangeable with authoritarianism? Really good questions. I think that what defines an Authoritarian primarily is an avoidance of introspection at a subconscious level in conjunction with what I call "Binary" or strict black and white thinking. Everything else follows more or less logically from that. But to answer your question more directly, I think what defines an Authoritarian in this sense is not the presence of an Inner/Outer Narrative, but the fact that the Outer Narrative conforms to the Grand Narrative, and the Inner Narrative places the individual at the center of a dramatic conflict between good and evil. As far as extremism goes, in my perception most anyone under enough stress over a long enough period of time can become an extremist, so I don't think extremism and authoritarianism are interchangeable. They are however, frequently co-occurring, especially currently. This drive towards extremism occurs naturally in my view, but at a generally slower pace. The stress of the loss of the culture wars, the constant fear mongering from the right wing noise machine, and the presence of a bunch of prophecy being fulfilled from the standpoint of many Evangelical's (in conjunction with a number of other factors I will try to explain as the thread goes on) has accelerated the Compaction Cycle/Narrative Convergence to the point where we can clearly see various authoritarians getting more extreme by the year.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:"X can't fail, only be failed" is a recurring joke in political discussion for a reason, and this explains it nicely. On a related note I would like to explain what "If at first you don't succeed, try try again" means to an Authoritarian. When defeated, what an Authoritarian does is try to do the exact same thing again, but to invest themselves more emotionally in the outcome. Authoritarians believe that the reason for their failure is almost always not being motivated enough/trying hard enough, and their answer is always to try and whip themselves up into a bigger frenzy next time. They are following the Grand Narrative and the Grand Narrative always says if you lose its because you didn't work hard enough. In practice, this means every defeat will only make them more strident, more aggressive, and more shrill as time progresses.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Bringing this post over from the Marriage Equality Thread because it was a really good question.Aleph Null posted:I was raised in a Southern Christian family and I am old enough to remember the anti-christ panic over Clinton quite vividly. Even had some talks about how Hilary was the anti-christ and Bill was just the false prophet. All of these things, in addition to a long term Narrative Convergence caused by desperation more than anything else. Also, this is mostly coming from Boomer Authoritarians, who lived their whole lives being told that the Apocalypse was going to be within their lifetime, and now they are much older and not really thinking about what sort of a planet they will leave behind to the next generation. I would argue that as a result of Movement Conservativism, the Boomer generation has never really been thinking about the next generation, and I would argue that an examination of Boomer political trends bears this out. Boomer Authoritarians have lived their whole lives as if they were going to be the last people on Earth, and now they have an excuse to justify all those decades of selfishness. (At least the Fundie types.) If this were happening in a vacuum then fundies would still freak out about Gay Marriage (as it is literally the worst thing ever) but it would be limited in scope. Authoritarian groups have become much more connected now though, and worse, the Koch brothers have no problem in funding Authoritarian candidates, even though I do not believe they qualify as Authoritarians themselves. The Koch brothers are an interesting facet of this. Their Father was one of the original founders of the John Birch Society. At one point the JBS had become very embarassing to be associated with publicly, and yet, they had shitloads of money they were willing to hurl at Canservative candidates. Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater basically used the JBS to further their own political goals while using the machinery of the GOP to publicly tarnish the JBS because they were a liability to be associated with publicly. A genuine cold calculated smoke filled back room conspiracy, if you will. We know this, because Bill Buckley wrote a tell all about it decades later. William F. Buckley Jr posted:
Basically this all started to happen once before, but Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater were successful in fighting it off through back channels. This time the GOP is not organized enough to fight this off, so instead they tried to hold on and steer this beast. They have loving failed hard. Edit: This video is super loving important to understanding the often overlooked struggle between actual right wingers and the Authoritarians that eventually seized control of the GOP. Barry Goldwater had a massive feud with the religious right for many years, that he won. (While at the same time sucking money out of them for his own political goals.) The money shot is "Abortion is not a Conservative issue" coming out of the mouth of the man credited with creating American Conservativism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3WZlWhQbns Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Gyre posted:PJ, what's the best way to debate with authoritarians? As you said, logic doesn't seem to get through to them. I've asked fundamentalists before to point to actual reasons why God is against homosexuality, because if there are no reasons then either God is increasing suffering for no reason or the fundamentalists are wrong. They simply ignore me. Honestly, the only method I have had success with isn't very pretty, but it does work (in the long run). You basically have to figure out what the Inner Narrative is, and then attack that. Then when they lose their poo poo remain calm no matter what. If there is any hope for them, they will later apologize and may have some introspection/guilt over their temper that leads them to develop a bit. Beyond that, you are arguing with a brick. (I'm not saying this is the only/best way, but it is the only method I personally know of that has even a tiny track record of success.) This all works best if you have the debate in public where their inevitable over reaction is witnessed by enough people that they can't just later deny it to themselves. Edit: Let me throw in a bit of my own story here. When I was a jackass Authoritarain posting in these forums as Truckin A Man it was (ironically enough) the helldumping I received in conjunction with very publicly losing a bunch of bets I made on Ron Paul's performance in the primaries (that resulted in a ban) that started to snap me out of it. I hated each and every one of you fuckers for months and lurked here constantly, seething. I was determined to find a way to win, a way to prove you all wrong. However, as my ego started to recover a bit I started to read the early LF posts (before LF went batshit) and the directness/harshness of the way those arguments were made appealed to me. I wanted to prove many of those arguments wrong, but was unable to even argues against them in my own head. It was then that I started the long process of maturing beyond my authoritarian mindset. (The process however, took years.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Great to hear from you again PJ, and it's always nice to see you're doing better from your original posts when you first entered the shelter a few years ago. *Usually* male, but I think they will make an exception for Hillary. (Actually it was a debated fundie thing back during the Clinton years that Bill was the False Prophet and Hillary was the actual Antichrist.) From here on out though, every Democratic President is going to be the Anti-Christ. The Narrative will converge on that idea long before they even enter office at this point. Comedy Option: *Hillary is Transgender* conspiracy theories fire up like they have for Michelle Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:So basically the grand idea is the individual, political institution, organization, or religious viewpoint that authoritarians place absolute faith in and adjust their entire worldview around? The Inner Narrative is really what drives the train, so to speak. The Outer Narrative is the public friendly version of the Inner Narrative, and the Outer Narrative always conforms to the Grand Narrative. As for how Authoritarians are created, I am not a psychologist by any means, but based on my observation, childhood trauma from "loving" authority figures that a child must depend upon seems to be a key ingredient in most Authoritarians I have known. (Not all though, I have known a few people from regular backgrounds that fell into authoritarianism later in life, usually as a result of prolonged deprivation and stress.) Enough Fear can smack someone temporarily into being an Authoritarian as well. I would hold up the post 9-11 bloodlust that spread across the US as an example of this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The grand narrative sounded like more than that in your description, in that it wasn't just something for the outer narrative to conform to, but also something that provides external sustenance to the inner narrative? For instance, how an authoritarian will overlook any flaw in a leader they've decided to adhere to, because the leaders flaws don't really matter so much as how the leader satisfies their own internal needs? This is a really good viewpoint, and I will have to think this over for awhile. Thanks for giving me a new way to consider this. You are right though, Authoritarians prize emotional satisfaction from their chosen leaders over pretty much anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Would you say Authoritarians differ in any significant way in their emotional and social needs from a non-Authoritarian, or are they largely the same and they merely find satisfying those needs easier with Authoritarianism for whatever reason? Deep down they have the same needs as anyone else. Totally normal people in terms of needs/wants/desires. However the manner in which they go about meeting those needs is very different, largely because it is predicated on a set of assumptions about the world that are wildly different from non-authoritarians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The study that this is drawn from classified "Authoritarians" into ones basically satisfied with the status quo, which it called "right-wing", and ones focused on changing the status-quo, which it called "left-wing". So Stalin, Beria, etc. were (probably) right-wing Authoritarians, whereas groups like the RAF, SLA, many death squads, etc. were left-wing Authoritarians. I have described mostly right wingers because that is what I have direct experience with, but I assume left wing authoritarians are similar. To me the difference between a Left Wing Authoritarian and a Right Wing Authoritarian would be where they feel they are in the Grand Narrative. Left wing Authoritarians believe they are at the "Dawn of a New Age" (or beginning) portion of the Grand Narrative, which means thy must tear down everything old to make way for the new. Right Wing Authoritarians believe they are living at "The End of Days" (or end) portion of the Grand Narrative, and feel that everything old must be preserved against the new. I imagine in a vacuum each group functions similarly, just in the US Left Wing Authoritarians have no [power, because the Democrats are not stupid enough to court them. And this I think is a major difference between the two parties right now. The GOP has created a group of Authoritarians (although not deliberately, they were just going for easy votes) over the past five decades with poo poo like the Southern Strategy and incorporating fundie social values into the GOP platform. The Democrats after the sixties severed all ties with their brief flirtation with Left Wing Authoritarians types. (The Weather Underground, various Anarchist groups spring to mind) So there just is no equivalent in the Democratic party for a Ted Cruz coming out against gay marriage in his Presidential Candidacy announcement today. The only thing I can think of that would be equivalent is if Elizabeth Warren came out and said "You know what, Vaccine's are causing autism" which just is not going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Krotera posted:Would Scientology be a good example? PJ's thoughts ring pretty true to my experiences. I think Scientology is a good example of what I am talking about here and I would agree most cults operate like this. In Scientology's case the real Grand Narrative is not revealed until much later in the process than normal, but the existence of the Grand Narrative is held out as a carrot to entice members to keep spending money so that they can get that special snowflake feeling of "knowing the truth". Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Was the "Final battle in the LoTR" a joke comment, since the final battle was a crazy person destroying themselves and the greatest evil that had consumed them? I was thinking more along the "Battle of Five Armies" thing. Or the "Battle at then Black Gate". i guess was technically wrong though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
site posted:Yeah, I'll freely cop to being a socialist totalitarian because at the end of the line everyone is a totalitarian/authoritarian of some sort if they're into politics. All of these narratives apply to every one of us. I don't quite agree with your overall thrust tsa, because I think I am describing a specific cluster of behaviors rather than a single defining behavior. However, please keep posting. You are giving me new angles to consider this all from. Also, thanks to everyone's responses so far. Edit: tsa Here are some examples of actual material from the curriculum system the cult I was raised in used. Firstly, this is an actual promotional video. This is what they think will convince people to put their children into one of their schools. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBUw4iWepk0 Here are some examples of my actual workbooks from the cult school. I think these demonstrate the overall thrust of the program as well as the "Church-Birch Nexus", or the intersection between Authoritarians, Wealthy Conspiracy minded Conservatives, and Christian Fundamentalists.         I think there is clearly a big difference between this and advocating that vaccines should be mandatory. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
site posted:You quoted me but addressed tsa so I'm not sure who you're talking to, but thanks for putting those up oops, just pretend that oversight did not happen :iamafag:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
I am putting these videos up as evidence of the developing panic about Further, this poo poo is kind of scary, as this is a bunch of Inner Narratives starting to leak out and that is a sign of when Authoritarians are not planning AT ALL for the future anymore. Being honest in public isn't a concern when what the non-believers no longer matters (because they will all soon be dead anyways). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkppobulT_U This rear end in a top hat is a judge. A loving judge is openly opining on the steps of a State Capital that he might have to die soon because Gay Marriage. (Bonus hilarious speaking in tongues/crazypants rebuking of "unclean spirits" audible in the background) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q-7t26fdfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhS-YQzcy5I If you only watch one of these videos, watch this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6txm8QTtc Calling it now, by August we will have a "Fundie Freakout" Megathread. Hopefully this all stays at the level of "hilarious idiocy" and does not go beyond that, fade5 posted:
I prefer the feminine, but I am only very recently out and its not a huge deal to me, honestly. My user name is suggestive of being masculine anyways and its not a huge personal concern of mine if someone uses the "wrong" pronouns. Thank you for asking though, and thanks for suggesting the A.C.E thread to people. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
katlington posted:I think a cool example of that was Netanyahu having a meltdown on tv, crying, "The Arabs are voting! The Arabs are voting!" during this past Israeli election when he thought he was going to lose. I agree. Speaking of netanyahu, I think his recent speech is a good example of a couple of things I am trying to describe here, let me just pick one for the moment though. Recall that National Review (when it was under Bill Buckley's control) was once an arm against the Authoritarian takeover of the GOP. Now however as a result of the "Compaction Cycle" they have become overtly Authoritarian, to the point where they attacked Rand Paul for not clapping enthusiastically enough during Netanyahu's speech. Further, the very act of scrutinizing each other so closely as to attack someone for simply not looking enthusiastic enough during a prolonged standing ovation is quite reminiscent of how North Koreans are scrutinized when they cheer for the Dear Leader. I think this could be interpreted as the Compaction Cycle functioning very actively at even the highest levels of the GOP at this point in time. Certainly at least there was a Narrative Convergence around the idea that Bibi is the "True Leader of the Free world".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:I know it's a bit early, but can someone set up a mirror of PJ's posts so I can link non-SA people? I missed this earlier, but I will port them over to my blog later tonight and put the link up here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Would you agree that everyone has an Inner and Outer Narrative? Everyone? No, there are plenty of people who really do believe what they profess, hell, there are plenty of people who will not shut up about their beliefs. There are other people I have known who simply do not operate or think in a way that would allow the sort of Inner Narrative I am describing. That said, sure, there are plenty of people who do have an Inner Narrative for one reason or another, but that alone would not be enough to make them Authoritarians. To me people are very complicated creatures and different people are indeed processing reality and thinking in really different ways from each other. There is nothing wrong with this and I think it is a really charming aspect of humanity. Edit: I have the first 4 posts of this thread now converted over to my blog, which you can check out here. Thank you all for your interest in this topic and the desire to spread my ideas around, you all know how to flatter a girl. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:You mentioned Cliven Bundy. I am still interested in that. I is appalling to me that he is still alive, let alone a free man, despite point guns at the police, and two of his goons gunning down police in cold blood. Meanwhile, someone else who evaded taxes is strangled to death by the NYPD, and other acts of police brutality are routinely committed against black people. The government has no reservations about violently putting down a protest like Ferguson but they are afraid of Cliven Bundy. The government has tanks and helicopters. They should have killed him if he resisted like they killed unarmed black people with their hands up. I've been working on a big explanation of my view on Cliven Bundy, and I hope to have it up later today. I'm also trying to dig up a bunch of videos of specific things that occurred during the Cliven Bundy affair to demonstrate exactly what I am talking about. If I had to guess though, one of the big reasons for the odd hands off approach has been that there was a real chance of that event triggering widespread civil disorder among Authoritarian's across the country. Those people *OPENLY* talked about putting the women on the front lines so that the world would see them gunned down first. They were not loving around, that was a real attempt to start a real civil war. Honestly I think it was handled pretty well by just refusing to give them their dramatic battle and letting them turn on each other. Edit: ^^^Wow, thbank you McAlsiter! You have just given me a new way to think of this for the next time I try to explain these ideas. Really awesome post. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Morroque posted:Something makes me wonder about the theoretical nature of the inner narrative. I can see the point in how a grand narrative or an outer narrative might be shared amongst a given authoritarian group, but, at least from my understanding of things so far, an inner narrative must be an intensely personal thing. Just how much is the inner narrative shared? Is it a thing which circumstances force people to collectively realize independently of each other, or is a truth about oneself that authoritarianism just aligns with out of convenience? Inner Narrative's are often realized as a sort of personal revelation. The result of what is to an Authoritarian "soul searching". An Authoritarian in psychological pain caused by unmet human emotional needs will latch onto a personal Inner Narrative that brings apparent relief. Ofttimes these are during period of intense struggles in an Authoritarian's life. Consider the "Born Again" process of Evangelicals. They suddenly find all the answers they were seeking, and they are often guided to those answers during prayer surrounded by a group of strangers that are suddenly intensely interested in them as a person. The attention is flattering, and the pain is real, and the acceptance of the Inner Narrative *DOES* bring real relief to an Authoritarian. Authoritarians live in a constant state of anxiety/fear, and because they have never developed sophisticated thinking, they struggle to calm themselves in a complex world. Inner Narratives serve often as a salve. It is easier for an Authoritarian to think of themselves as a character in a story that centers on themselves and their personal choices having an impact in a holy battle. Fundies for example think that Satan and God personally fight over who gets their soul at the end of their lives. God demands obedience, Satan sends people to trick and deceive you into losing your salvation. God will protect you no matter what if you obey. You can feel safe and never fear so long as you know what God's commands are and follow them to the letter. This all ties into another area I'm going to try and explore but I still haven't quite figured out a way to translate into relateable terms yet. But let me describe it this way. There are certain Pillars of belief that an Authoritarian accepts subconsciously, certain base assumptions that exist beneath the level of active awareness and have never been consciously examined by the Authoritarian. There are several of these Pillars, but the most important one I call The Pillar of Perfect Safety, which is the premise that the Authoritarian must never feel at risk or afraid of anything. A great deal of Authoritarian behavior stems from this idea that they must be able to feel perfectly safe at all times, and a key feature of Inner Narrative's is how safe they make the Authoritarian feel, no matter what. As an example of this I offer what is one of the most popular Bible passage among Authoritarians, Psalm 23. (Here presented in the translation most favored by Authoritarains, the KJV.) I think in this passage you can see echoes of the Pillar of Perfect Safety tying in to the Inner Narrative. quote:The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:The major difference between those idiots on Tumblr and actual Authoritarians is how all-encompassing their Grand Narrative is. For Tumblr, they merely have an incorrect position that they're varying degrees of passionate about, they don't attribute everything bad in their lives as a consequence of racism. If you asked a Freeper why his pizza was late, he'd find a way to blame Obama. The Tumblr idiots are capable of thinking outside of their professed issues, Authoritarians are not. Yeah, while Authoritarian characteristics certainly exist across the spectrum (and I personally find most Tumblr SJW's insufferable) I don't think what happens on Tumblr is quite the same, for reasons already discussed. I have considered however that many young Authoritarians have started to turn into MRA's and the like as a result of the diminished power of traditional Authoritarian structures within the Millennial Generation, and though I haven;t followed it closely enough to be sure, I think #Gamergate might be an interesting case study of trends among young Authoritarians. This though is just a thought I've had and I haven;t really run it down enough myself to really conclude one way or the other. After some thought I think I have found a good example of a self styled "Anarchist" Authoritarian in Stefan Molyneux. Let me just put up a couple examples here. This is a video by a critic of Molyneux and his "DEFOO" concept (Depart Family of Origin) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TPwjUmS7Vw And here is the man speaking for himself about why democracy is insane and immoral and will always fail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAbYlFqut4
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is this a young authoritarian MRA? One post isn't really enough to tell, but to me it certainly seems similar to what I was trying to describe with "I AM A GOD WARRIOR" lady. An Outer Narrative that become a liability (rather than a carefully constructed shield) and the Inner Narrative emerged as a result, putting himself at the center of a dramatic moral battle and wishing to see his opponents hurt as much as possible for a slight against his "identity", etc. "It is only by force of will and self-determination that I don’t let those people immure me in self-doubt and regret." <----- This rejection of introspection is really the telling bit to me, as is the apparent anger that he was even put in a situation where he felt the need for introspection.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Rapid Narrative Convergence Event: This is a complicated concept, so please bear with me here. Rapid Narrative Convergence Events (Hereafter abbreviated R.N.C.E.) are so named because they occur very quickly first off. Secondly, these are essentially one-off self contained events that occur within the context of a larger Narrative Convergence, but are themselves too short lived to be a trend in and of themselves. They are a symptom of differing groups of Authoritarians being under long term stress, a sort of relief valve for pent up rage and fear. These are dramatic events in which several different groups of Authoritarians temporarily suspend their own Inner Narratives in exchange for a new (and very short lived) Outer Narrative. These happen only in the presence of a mutually perceived threat to the tribe and last only so long as the threat lasts. As soon as the threat ends, so does the R.N.C.E. (As a result, as soon as the threat ends, Inner Narrative's suddenly reassert themselves, and the once united Authoritarian groups fracture quickly as they squabble over power.) This is my explanation of what occurred at the Bundy Ranch, and to a certain extent, what caused the 2013 shutdown. There are several factors that must be in place for an R.N.C.E. to occur. These are
A Rapid Narrative Convergence Event typically plays out thusly:
Alright, with all that said, let me relate this all to the Cliven Bundy affair, step by step. 1.) There has been an ongoing Narrative Convergence in this country for decades, but that especially kicked in to high gear after Obama's election. Of Particular note here is Alex Jones, who was once a mortal enemy to Neo-Cons but now as a result of the Convergence gives Michael loving Savage 45 minute long televised blowjobs. 2.) 2012 was a massive defeat for Authoritarians. First off, they hated Romney. the entire 2012 Primaries was a desperate search by the Authoritarian wing of the party to find anyone *ANYONE* but Romney. They did not like having to support him as their Champion, and only did so with the promise that he would win. When he lost, they were beyond loving pissed. 3.) Onto this scene emerged Cliven Bundy, and he was almost too perfect. An old style Patriarch who had been farming his land forever and struggling mightily against the encroachment of the Federal Government. To Authoritarians Cliven Bundy was an instant symbol of an innocent time lost, a man unable to understand the changing world around him about to be over run by a cruel and sadistic government. An echo of a better time choosing to die on his feet rahter than live on his knees. (Needless to say, it was very easy for Authoritarians to project themselves in to Bundy's situation.) 4.) This is where the "Narrative Convergence" comes in. The Cliven Bundy story was broken originally by Alex Jones, who speaks to one group of Authoritarians (notably, the militia movement). From there Drudge picked up the story and it went viral in Tea Party circles (Another group of Authoritarians, notably the religious flavor.) Shortly thereafter Hannity picked it up, and Hannity speaks to a moderately less extreme group of Authoritarians. (Hannity's entire career is based around being a less talented Authoritarian version of O'Reilly.) This is a really crucial point in forming the feedback cycle that everything hereafter derives from. Authoritarians who are nominally in opposition to each other all agreed on a universal narrative. 5.) People start demanding action be taken to defend this noble Patriarch and his family. "ACTION NOW" becomes the battle cry. In particular Authoritarian Militia groups, long itching for an excuse, start to show up to defend the Bundy Ranch. Emotion swells and soon there is a public display that resembles a full blown psychotic break from reality. 6.) As support rolls in (both in material, financial, and people) the militias organize loosely under the direction of Cliven Bundy with organization support from the Oathkeepers. They draw a clear line in the sand and aim guns at the federal agents. The militias behave as if this is the dawn of a new civil war. They become openly fatalistic and begin jovially talking about "None of us is going to make it out of here alive". They discuss putting the women on the front lines so that the "Whole world will see" them getting brutally shot down by the feds. 7.) There is never a clear plan or idea for winning, because most do not expect to win a tactical victory. They are there to die fighting in the New American Civil War. Eventually, claiming to have been instructed directly by the voice of God that morning, Cliven Bundy leads the charge (on a tractor I believe) that results in the Feds backing down. There was no plan for the Feds actually surrendering. 8.) Within days the Inner Narratives assert themselves and there are several armed standoff's in the camp that very loving nearly result in free fire zones. It becomes suddenly clear that the militia's now own an easily defendable and impossible to supply hunk of useless desert in the middle of summer. Morale plummets, all but the diehards leave. And now, some videos to illuminate what I am talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYsK3DnW4Ug https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uEXkmMealE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A5QtrfnnWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtDNPIIOsM Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Zodium posted:Was (the reaction surrounding), say, the Benghazi incident an example of a RNCE? I wouldn't quite say so, that was just Fox being Fox, more or less. There was never a chance with anything Benghazi related for a big fight. I think the key point of an RNCE is there must be a hill to die upon, so to speak. The 2013 shutdown was though I would argue. (And in fact, the defeat suffered there probably fed greatly into the Bundy Ranch RNCE) You had the recent defeat of the 2012 elections, the terror of creating a whole new Government social program (Obamacare) that it was agreed would never be undone once it had taken root, the various factions of the Tea Party "Listening to their constituents" demanding the fight until they forced the hand of GOP leadership into the fight, no clear plan to win once they got into the fight, and now massive infighting crippling everything in the House. (Although this did not emerge until after the midterms, but there was still a threat of being primaried up till that point. But now with their position secured and with no immediate threat the various Authoritarain factions of the House can't agree on the color of poo poo suddenly.) Edit: Also during the shutdown there was a period where control of the House had moved away from Boehner and into Ted Cruz's hands. Even though this was never formalized in any sense, it was evident that Ted Cruz was calling the shots early in the fight to make sure that it turned into a gigantic battle that lasted. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Slaan posted:
Thank you, that is extremely flattering. (Actually, thanks to all the compliments in this thread, it really means a ton.) I've been writing ever since i was 8 or so when I started my first "novel" (Which was little more than a Narnia fan-fic.) When I was around 10 or so I read Tom Sawyer and my parents were thrilled with that, and since old books were above suspicion in their view, they bought me a massive collection of Mark Twain material, which I read voraciously. I became enchanted with the idea of a wandering person who honestly reported his experiences like Mark Twain did in A Private History of a Campaign that Failed and Life on the Mississippi. I always admired his brutal honesty and started writing diaries and the like while young and experimenting with social commentary pieces when I was in High School. Ever since then I'm always writing in my head and constantly experimenting with ways of expressing complex ideas. I think Mark Twain also gets credit for helping me pull out of the cult mindset. If my Fundie parents only knew what they were giving me when on my 11th Birthday they got me a Twain collection that included many of his private letters and a complete edition of The Mysterious Stranger, The War Prayer, and To the Person sitting in Darkness. Prior to that my political reading had all been Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, and I was beyond blown away by the ideas in those pieces and started to question things as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:The idea that the federal government walking away from a confrontation with that swine might have been an act of "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake" at least takes some of the sting out, I guess. If I had to guess I would imagine e the FBI is collecting a fat pile of data on everyone who was physically present and everyone who contributed to that. The best way to fight an Authoritarian is to never give the Authoritarian the battle they want. Pick a few up here and there over the years nice and quiet while they are out grocery shopping. Connect the dots between groups, figure out the funding mechanisms, figure out who has a stash of child porn on their computer, etc etc. Basically just drag it out nice and quiet, meanwhile there are assholes still sweltering out in that desert and they are draining very limited funds from various militias. Also, whatever agent came up with the idea of leaking an impending drone strike to the Oathkeepers pulled off a  Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:So what IS going to happen in the 2016 primaries, when there's an inevitable battle between the Tea Party GOP candidate vs. the establishment GOP candidate (Jeb Bush). I've been pondering that a great deal myself. Honestly I think it depends on Ted Cruz, as odd as that sounds. When I look at Cruz though and his actions he does seem to have zeroed in precisely on Authoritarians of the kind I am familiar with and is appealing directly to them. While other candidates are Authoritarians, they are at least trying to appeal to what they think of as the broader GOP base. Cruz though....I don't think he is an Authoritarian as much as he is a Goddamn sociopath with a Messiah Complex that has figured out exactly how to manipulate Authoritarians. (Warning, Schizophrenic trying to predict the future follows) My overall expectation is that the SC Gay Marriage decision will whip the Fundies into a frothing loving rage, and I do expect that rage to transition over first into the broader Authoritarian movement of the GOP Primary Voters (Tea Party, basically), and from there into the GOP leadership. Assuming that does indeed occur it would in and of itself cause an explosion of irrational behavior and maybe even another RNCE (or two). Certainly Inner Narrative's are starting to be broadcast more openly among the religious right than I can really recall seeing the past, but that does not yet mean too much. (Although the sudden raft of "religious freedom bills" masking bigotry seems to parallel my expectations, but that might just be regular old cynical politics, time will tell.) I would hazard a guess that there will be Narrative Convergence around various "End of Days" themes. I could see "This is America's last chance to get an election right before God destroys us" coming from the fundies turning into a general "This is America's last election if the GOP does not win" becoming a big point of agreement. I would also expect to see constant attempts to find every possible hill to die on, (proto RNCE's, but most will simply not catch on widely enough) basically people trying to martyr themselves in creative ways. If there is indeed a rash of rage, and *IF* indeed Cruz is some sort of Sociopath that has glommed on to how to play Authoritarians towards his own goals, then he might just be able to latch on to that rage and become its Champion. In that situation, Cruz may actually win the Nomination, or at least go from joke candidate to serious contender with one good debate performance. I have been thinking a great deal about Cruz, and at the risk of really going out on a few limbs here, he does seem to be playing it perfectly for now. I also study strategy games as a hobby and love to study different styles of play in different games. Cruz seems to me like a talented positional Chess player. He makes excellent moves without a clear plan until an opportunity arises, then he lunges at it. If there is no good oppurtunity, he just positions more peices in places they will most certainly be useful and waits. He does seem to be playing his peices perfectly at the moment to boost his Authoritarian cred with his Presidential announcement. His announcement at Liberty is perfect because its obvious flaws (the students were forced to be there) does not register as a concern for Authoritarians, and even if it did, a single five second clip of applause would be enough to convince an Authoritarian that every kid wanted to be there. However, to non-authoritarians the move seems kind of petty and dickish, and people are giggling about it. And that might well be his goal. When I was a shithead Conspiracy Theorist my CT friends would occasionally ask my opinion on this or that emerging person in the movement, and I would go and research the person for them. I used to have an oft used quip of "Well I don;t know if I accept their claims yet, but all the right people are laughing at them". What I meant was, the ridicule directed at Conspiracy Theorists would legitimize them in my eyes. Cruz being laughed at right now, to the mind of an Authoritarian, seems petty and childlike. It also indicates fear and makes them invest themselves emotionally in Ted Cruz. by being the first out the gate he has guaranteed both plenty of ridicule of the variety that will legitimize him in an Authoritarian's eyes, and plenty of time for Authoritarians to invest themselves emotionally in him before another candidate comes along to sweep them up. Cruz does have a major flaw in the general though, he is a positional chess player, and the modern Democratic party has started to learn to play Go. Go style thinking beats Chess style thinking, in my observation. Cruz would get ultra slaughtered in the General. If you are interested in the idea of Chess thinking versus Go thinking in terms of conflict, I recommend this awesome documentary about that very subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMNaULHLH9c Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Morroque posted:
This is an excellent post, let me try to answer some of this before I go bed off for bed tonight. Having given it some thought I think there was a critical flaw in Altameyer's social experiments that he would have been largely blind to. authoritarians do not adapt very quickly or very well (especially not the "follower" types he described) and they do not function well outside of established social orders they are already familiar with. So Altameyer's experiments were all about a bunch of strangers doing essentially creative activities, which would cause the average Authoritarian to clam up and go into Observation Mode. I can honestly think of situations where I have seen people that were nominally leaders in Authoritarian groups sort of shut down and just passively accept whatever if the situation they were suddenly faced were sufficiently outside their experience. Authoritarians depend on previously established social relations and existent hierarchies in order to function. Authoritarian groups also do not typically add new members too quickly so as to not upset the already existing social order. In my view then, Altameyer's experiments would have been dramatically skewed because his experiments were really testing the rate at which Authoritarians adapt without an existing hierarchy, and not really how Authoritarians behave in their self selected environment. "Furthermore, the Republicans are not evil demigods who are using the authoritarian voting bloc as a means to advance their calculated plans, but are instead bumbling fools who went with the authoritarians as easy votes and now are paying the price for it by getting torn apart from the inside." This is a really excellent point and yes, is what I have been trying to communicate. I want to really highlight this because I feel that when the GOP started to court Authoritarians they were just courting the easiest suckers around and had no real concept of the fire they were toying with. And now, in the words of Ted Cruz, the GOP's "Whole World is on Fire!" As far as where the authority comes from, that is a fantastic question, let me sleep on that one. You are basically asking "What makes God, God?" I will need to think this one out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Hmm, considering the reaction to the term "Authoritarian" I will try to get together a more precise term of exactly whom I am talking about here. In the interest of ending the pedantic quibbling would another term be more acceptable? I am open to any other suggestions. I simply used Authoritarian because it roughly fit my internal model and seemed to jive with Altameyer's work. I do personally take some pleasure in seeing that there are people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around exactly who it is that I am attempting to describe, as it indicates to me that they have never really had to encounter what I call Authoritarians in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
a slime posted:Does this mean that the radical right's current flavor would never survive becoming mainstream? What happens as they continue to grow in power and influence? I understand that isn't the point---I was raised in a very similar environment to you (all the way down to the schooling, born in Garland TX heyooo), and I understand exactly what you mean when you say their battle is not meant to be won. But they do seem to be gaining in number year over year. What happens when they win? It is my perspective that owing to the Compaction cycle, the absolute number of Authoritarians is increasing, but the total number of people willing to associate with them (and the GOP by extension) is on the decline. As for happens when they win? Well I don;t think they will, simply because the culture wars are shifting against them (which is a major factor in what is driving Narrative Convergence). But presupposing they did win (Lets say total takeover of the House, Senate, Supreme Court, Presidency, and State Governors) they would quickly move to implement their agenda so long as there was a perceived enemy to unite against. AS soon as the threat of that enemy is gone (or at least the perception of the threat) Inner Narratives would assert themselves, alliances would fracture, and infighting would grind everything to a halt. See for example the current Congress. During the last Congress they were remarkably united and sent worthless bill after worthless bill as fast as they could. (They were first united by the threat of Obamacare, then by the threat of being primaried from the right as a result of the fallout from the failed 2013 shutdown) In the midterms they achieved a remarkable victory, they "won" objectively and in their own minds. And as soon as the new Congress is sworn in, BAM! Inner Narratives reassert themselves and they can't agree on jack poo poo because everyone is too busy squabbling. In short "Authoritarians never fight to win, they fight to have a big fight. If they win it is by accident. Authoritarians have no idea how to use a victory." Alternatively, if Authoritarians seize control with a visible enemy to unite against that is not quickly defeated, whelp. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
meristem posted:This thread is cool. It reminds me of Jost's "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", that meta-study from back in 2003 that correlated conservatism to high death anxiety and intolerance of ambiguity and need for closure. So, I'm curious: Prester John, have you read that study, and if so, what do you think about it? I have not read this study, but I would like to. Does anyone have a link?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Zodium posted:We need more PJ posts. I'm still interested in knowing more about Narrative Convergence and RNCEs. It's interesting that not all Republican-related events, like Benghazi, are within the scope. You said that the cardinal trait of an RNCE was that there has to be a metaphorical hill to die on, but how do Authoritarians groups determine that this event has a hill, but this other one doesn't? The two primary attributes of an RNCE is 1.) Authoritarian groups that are nominally opposed or distrustful of each other agreeing on a plan of action for perceived mutual defense, and 2.) a clear way to have a dramatic showdown over the issue. In the case of Cliven Bundy there was a literal hill to die upon. In the case of the 2013 shutdown the hill was metaphorical, but there was a way to force a dramatic standoff, and they took it. With Gay Marraige Fundies would loving lvoe to have an RNCE over this, but there is no clear cut way to grind the SCOTUS to a halt short of blowing up the building, (and they are not that extreme at the moment) so there can be no RNCE. Big Dramatic standoffs with clearly defined sides and a Good vs Evil Narrative are how Authoritarians want every fight. An RNCE occurs only when there is a way to get their big dramatic fight. Absent that, regular Narrative Convergence continues apace until a "hill to die upon" appears.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Thank you for this. I think doing this would be a good idea. I'm interested in exploring how the definition fits certain fringe groups on the American left (I myself am on the left). The thread has mentioned SLA, maybe some anarchists, and certain apocalyptic environmental groups as fitting the definition, and that seems reasonable. Give me a few hours to write up a more nuanced, detailed description of the particulars of who I am describing. As a general note: For the record I am more than happy to discuss (or attempt to) the specific traits of Authoritarians as near as I can identify them, but please leave the sniping and such out. I believe that many here are asking questions in good faith and are having a hard time identifying what I am talking about likely because they have no relevant real world experiences to relate it too, which is IMO, a good thing. (It does seem that people so far who have similar background or experiences to my own grasp exactly who I am talking about, for example.) Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
These are my personal benchmarks for identifying what I label Authoritarians. None of these is individually enough, and a given group/individual does not need to possess every single one of these attributes either. There are plenty of examples of one or more of these attributes applying to a given non-Authoritarian individual or group. That said, an Authoritarian individual/group will possess most if not all of these traits. Binary Thinking.: Everything either is, or isn't. A thing is either good, or a thing is evil. Black or white. Zero or One. Shades of grey do not exist. Differential Cognition: Differential Cognition is the process via which a given thing (Person, object idea) can only be understood in opposition to another thing. The entire world is only understood through the filter of how things are different from one another. In addition, these differences must be understood as making one thing better than another. For a simple example, two different types of chocolate. One Chocolate will be "better" than another for whatever reason in an Authoritarians mind. (The reasons why don't really matter and are subject to personal taste, and on an unimportant topic like "Is Nestle better than Hershey's" open debate is actually fine in an Authoritarian environment. Only topics that relate to the Narrative in some manner have to be identical. You can see this in Freep where despite the remarkable groupthink, because there are no clear signs on high about Cannabis, debate is tolerated.) An Authoritarian only understands the world by how this thing is different from that thing. They cannot perceive similarities to anywhere near the extent that they can perceive dissimilarities. Rather than "Compare and Contrast" Authoritrains can only "Compare BY Contrast". Differences in a thing from another thing must be graspable and understood in order for that thing to exist to an Authoritarian's mind. Furthermore, once these differences are identified, a judgement will be ruled on which is "Better" and which is "worse". Rejection of Introspection: Authoritarians do not possess introspection, do not develop Introspection, and become highly agitated if they are put into a situation where Introspection is called for. Inner Narrative's often serve as a method to deflect any potential painful introspection. If say a Fundamentalist Christian is feeling guilty over wronging someone, they simply confess their sin, in their heads, to God, and then they experience genuine relief from the guilt, and introspection is avoided. Alternatively, the victim of an Authoritarians misdeed could simply be dismissed with a Just World Fallacy. Victory by Destruction of the Enemy: All Authoritarian models for changing society always involve destruction of an identified other and nothing else. "If we just got rid of "X" everything would be fine". When I was a Conspiracy Theorist I believed that simply eliminating the Globalists and getting out of Humanities way would more or else fix everything. When I was a David Icke loving UFO nut merely destroying the Reptilians (and their agents) would have resulted in humanity raising its vibration to a heavenly level that would fix everything. When I was a Fundie I believed that converting all the unbelievers (or destroying them) would fix every problem on Earth. Objectivists believe that getting rid of all regulations would result in the emergence of a new golden age of prosperity for all. For racists crime/social ills would disappear if we just stopped coddling blacks/illegal immigrants (Or killed them all). No thought towards actual policy or the reality of a given situation is ever given. Much like all authoritarian battle plans boil down to "Fight Big Fight Hard" all Authoritarian strategies for fixing societies ills involve "destroy the other". Nothing is planned of beyond that. There is no "Well what do we do when we win?" because that question is pointless. If they win, they have already won, you see? They believe that the simple non-existence of whoever(or whatever) they choose as their enemy would result in a natural order emerging (or reasserting itself) and harmony would ensue. In short the "One weird Trick that will give us everything we want" is always "destroy the enemy". (And the way to destroy the enemy is always"in a big battle") Pillar of Perfect Safety: Already mentioned (and there are other Pillars but I do not yet have words for them) but let me elaborate here. It is not "The Pillar of Safety", it is "The Pillar of Perfect Safety". You must not be merely safe or reasonably safe, you must be made immune from each and every threat possible. No matter how small, no matter how remote, no matter how tiny a threat, if Authoritarians perceive the threat, they will act to destroy it utterly. Consider the freak-out over ISIS and how they are going to come here and kill us now any minute, despite the tiny size of ISIS and the fact that they have no way of coming over here. But Authoritarian's want to treat ISIS as if it were a mortal threat just as deadly as Nazi Germany and they actively scream for us to "glass the Middle East". Safety must be "Perfect" to the Authoritarians perceptions. A Deliberately misleading Outer Narrative: Not merely the existence of a more socially acceptable Outer Narrative, but an Outer Narrative that has been designed to shield the Inner Narrative from exposure and criticism. Outer Narrative's are often designed to woo in new converts by getting them to accept what are regarded as "simpler" forms of what the Inner Narrative actually is. Let me give a personal example here. When i was still posting as Truckin A Man on these forums I had a very popular thread about my experiences truck driving. At the time, I was also a UFO nut who believed in the Reptilians and desired to save us all by exposing them. I decided that this board was super special/important because Enoch told me so, and I went about trying to use my name recognition to convert this board to the existence of the Reptilians. But I recognized simply coming out and saying "4th Dimensional Blood Sucking Reptilian Aliens are the secret masters of the world from their Moon Base" was a bridge too far, you all were not ready for that yet. I had to break it down into baby steps. So I started posting UFO related threads and documentaries. I remember a specific Documentary about UFO's that I didn't particularly like or agree with, but I felt it was "simple" enough that it could "open some minds" here, so I posted that and tried to argue on its behalf. (Got a month's probation for that one, as by that time the mods were getting sick of my poo poo.) Absence of Nuance: Authoritrains do not understand nuance or even the concept of nuance. As a result, they never develop sophisticated thinking. Pillar of Maximum force: Underlying much of Authoritrains solutions to every problem is to hit *thing* with as much force as possible. There is no concept of a proportionate response, just throw everything we have at it right the gently caress now! While nukes are not the solution to every type of problem, nukes *WOULD* solve every problem if used correctly. (For example, if all gay people were rounded up into one location you could nuke that location and fix the gay problem forever.) Authoritrains believe that using anything less than the maximum amount of force you can is a sign of weakness and an invitation to be attacked by your enemies. Belief in innate Superiority This is pretty straightforwards, an Authoritarian group always believes it is somehow innately superior to all (or virtually all) other groups. Examples, White Supremacists, Fundie Christians, Objectivist "Captains of Industry", Scientologists, etc etc. Unchageable God: Whatever the concept of "God" is for an Authoritarian group, God cannot change, you can only change yourself to be more aligned with God. While personal communication with God may or may not be possible, God will never change, God will only change you to be more like him. There are a few others I would like to add to the list but I am finding it hard to explain them just yet, but I think this might help narrow things down a bit. Tell me what you guys think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
twodot posted:What's your evidence that Ted Cruz is an Authoritarian and not just a self interested rear end in a top hat? Ted Cruz is appealing specifically to Authoritarians and exclusively the Authoritarians in the party, but I do not personally think he is one. Ted Cruz did however trigger an RNCE with the 2013 shutdown though, and he understood Authoritarians well enough that he did it on purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 23:16
|
|