The Authoritarian Personality

This will be a book review, or, more precisely, a TL;DR of a book, for (you). I've read several threads lately that bemoan the lack of proper theory threads lately, so I'll try (again) to make digestible an otherwise long- and boring-ass book for my beloved community of leftypol. Bumps of interests, intelligent questions, screen-caps, etc. will be much appreciated. Let's begin.

Let's start with the most important thing:
>I'm a regular leftypol faggot, and why should I read your shit book TL;DR?
Good question, faggot. This might help you to better undestand:
1. the absolute state of Zig Forumstards;
2. the absolute state of your reactionary relatives;
3. and probably, your own background.
>What do I gain from this?
Understanding. Better debating skills. Theory to act upon…

Background info to the book:
Some intellectual faggots (Jews, communists, psychoanalysts, sociologists, socialists, progressives, "plain democrats", and the mixture of all of these) who would otherwise face purging in Nazi Germany escaped to America. They took up the task to analyze contemporary (1947-1950) U.S. society based on their experiences and derived theories of European fascism. Their self-imposed tasks were to:
1. determine whether there was a threat of fascism in the US;
2. identify the main trends and mechanisms of fascism (worldwide);
3. identify the reasons for fascism.
To complete these tasks, said faggots employed first and foremost (at that time cutting-edge) sociological methods: surveys of 2k+ people, and interviews of 'extremes' [high scoring and low scoring individuals based on their closeness to fascistic ideals], based on the surveys. Two thirds of the book is sociological in nature: they meticulously lay down the methods used, the theories behind the questionnaire, the reasons for their questions, their own errors, and the data that seem to support their theories.

I will, for better or worse, leave out the sociological-technical shit, and focus on the actual findings.

The structure of the book:
Each chapter is structured in the following way:
1. general introduction;
2. reasons for the questions in the questionnaires/personal interviews;
3. presentation of the findings.

Except Adorno does a qualitative reading of said data, from a philosophers POV.

Let's begin.

Attached: cover.png (322x500, 53.03K)

Other urls found in this thread:

theauthoritarians.org/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Let's start from page 44, titled, The contrasting ideologies of two college men.

(Note: this chapter compares a non-prejudiced individual to a highly prejudiced one, the details of the former I'll leave out, because of obvious reasons.)

It is established that the authoritarian personality (AP, henceforth) can not but think in terms of "ingroups" and "outgroups". There's a contradiction in his (own) attitude toward
Think of regular poltard: "Jews [outgroup] are clannish, too intelligent, etc." – while he implies that these qualities lack in his [white] [in]group.
The Zig Forumstard sees a lack within his ["white"] ingroup, but detects these qualities outside ["Jews"].
Read: if the Zig Forumstard's ingroup [whites] are clannish, intelligent, powerful, etc. – it's a good thing; if the "outgroup" [Jews] has these qualities, it's a bad thing.

Here, the authors detect some of Zig Forumstard tendencies:
(a) stereotypy – the tendency to mechanically subsume things under rigid categories;
(b) the idea that groups are homogeneous units which more or less totally determine the nature of their numbers. (This places the responsibility for intergroup tensions entirely on outgroups as independent entities. The only question asked is how outgroups can change in order to make themselves acceptable to the ingroup; there is no suggestion that the ingroup might need to modify its behavior and attitudes.)
(c) The tendency to explain group differences in terms of "blood strain" – how quick a temper a man has depends on how much [ingroup-blood] he has in him.
(d) Favoring total assimilation.
(e) Tendency to think of groups in terms of their coherence and in terms of a hierarchical arrangement with powerful ingroups at the top and weak outgroups at the bottom.

Attached: cde19635ca264641a1f08dbf3b43a120a50d90216b2033552c07a4ee341d0fd9.png (625x773, 142.53K)

The typical Zig Forumstard's attributes
We are all familiar with their picture of the Jew: scheming, super-intelligent, yet dumb, smelly, etc.; while their ingroup has a "legitimate" claim to power. Yet, the pol/tard/ believes that
This different form of weakness in the ingroup is
>seen as a sort of struggle between David and Goliath, in which the clean-cut, straightforward younger man loses only because of the overwhelming power and lack of scruple which opposes him. This imagery of persecution is expressed not only in [the Zig Forumstard's] political thinking but also in his discussion of himself and his life. There is a clear note of self-pity in his remarks.

>What [the Zig Forumsyp] seems to be trying to tell us is that in so far as his ingroup might appear to be weak at anytime, this is due only to persecution by an outgroup [jooz] that is momentarily and unfairly strong. It is important to note further that his feelings of being persecuted do not lead to sympathy for other persecuted people nor to any inclination to eliminate persecution generally, but only to the thought that justice would consist in his group becoming the powerful one. Here, as is typical of people with persecution fantasies, [polyp] believes that he – his group – is essentially strong but is at the same time in a weak position; he can solve this dilemma only by attributing evil (dishonesty, unfairness, and so on) and undeserved power to his opponent. His desire to be attached to the same kind of power which he decries in the outgroup is expressed in his wanting to be "close to the center of things," and "know about the background" of important daily events, to be in on "the secret committees."
To sum it up: what the Zig Forumsyp feels persecuted about, what he experiences as an outside tyranny, he does not oppose on a doctrinal level. No. He wants these same things for his perceived "ingroup."

Attached: aB0rqGx_460s.jpg (460x455, 18.24K)

Our Zig Forumsyp
[basic_nature_of_capitalism.txt -> jooz]
>However much objective truth there may be in this view, the significant point is that [the polyp] considers the state of affairs he describes as, if not desirable, inevitable. Given this kind of social organization, then the thing to do is to "go up," "to open doors," to be "on the inside," and this is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology. He wants to belong to or be "in with" the ruling group.
The polyp is an inherent critique of Capital itself: he does not question its basic dimensions, its thrust, its legitimacy – all of these he sees as "human nature." Therefore, he can only come up with a single solution: "My kin should be THAT, not YOURS." [Regardless if this is factually correct or not…]

>It is not so much that he himself wants to dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so participate in their power.
God_Emperor.jpeg
It is the same power-mechanics that he wishes he held, more precisely, his "ingroup" held.

Attached: 345.png (537x613, 195.96K)

It is plain that the /biz/nessman's desire for money and pleasure is
>not fully accept by him as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist.
Fellow faggot perceives spontaneously the world around him ("correctly," "as-is"), and his take is: it's not my rules, it's society's rules… (How else could we explain the "wagie" meme on /biz/?)

Quote from one of the interviewees:
“There is something different and strange about Jews…” Leads us to "the hypothesis that what [anti-semitic] people say against [Jews] depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual characteristics of [Jews.]"
>For example, when the belief that [Jews] possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he supposes [Jews] to have.
That is to say that Zig Forumsyp believes that jooz control everything. He does not doubt the omnipotency of said outgroup, but wishes his ingroup held that power!

Attached: 1-35-29.png (320x291, 85.2K)

That's pretty interesting, OP. Thanks for sharing.

We are at page 94.
Literally: the Zig Forumsyp's fantasy about the Jews is not just so paradoxical that it couldn't be actually real, but this (his perceived) paradox fuels him to be more attuned to this contradictory cause.

The researchers conclude that for an anti-Semite it is impossible to
>to experience [Jews – the outgroup] as individuals. Rather, each Jew is seen and reacted to as a sort of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group.
Their reference to "good/neutral Jews" is doesn't lessen their anti-semitism, but strengthens it, as a semi-empirical fantasy of theirs.
Even more Earth-shattering conclusion of theirs is that Zig Forumsyps are not capable of individually experiencing "out-group" individuals, which leads them question whether this broken person is a proper individual (meaning: someone capable of unique, personal experiences) or not! They mechinically

Now we'll turn to interesting bits… psychology and such.

Attached: 1546546437363.jpg (638x1000, 86.38K)

trikes are dumb?

In progress, comrade.

Trikes are stultification.


Our writers conclude:
>It is possible, for example, that [anti-Semites] are unconsciously struggling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbearable in [Jews].
The Zig Forumsyp that so much hates the intrigue, etc. in Jooz wishes his ingroup would have that quality, and so on, meanwhile ACTUALLY having it, despising it, yet (since society does not despise it officially) hiding it.

The following question arises:
>Why does the concern with power recur so often and in so many forms [in the Zig Forumsyp's psychic life]?
The answer lies in the incapability of the Zig Forumsyp:
>There is an aversion to (or: incapacity to understand) the idea that the basis for resolution of Jewish-Gentile conflict lies primarily in the total social organization – and therefore in the dominant groups in the society – and only secondarily in Jews themselves.
Literally: capitalism does a thing, polyp transfers that onto an ethnicity, meanwhile despising it, YET wanting it!

Attached: 434733.png (506x915, 41.91K)

Thanks for the effortposting

One hypothesis is that this represents
>an attempt on the part of the [Zig Forumsyp] to resolve an inner moral conflict by externalizing or projecting his own immoral tendencies; [his] inner conflict is replaced by a new conflict between groups: the sterotypically moral "we" and the stereotypically immoral "they."
To sum up:
>Numerous trends underlying anti-Semitic ideology are suggested by the present scale results: stereotypy; rigid adherence to middle-class values; the tendency to regard one's own group as morally pure in contrast to the immoral outgroup; opposition to and exaggeration of prying and sensuality; extreme concern with dominance and power (fear of Jewish power and desire for Gentile power); fear of moral contamination; fear of being overwhelmed and victimized; the desire to erect social barriers in order to separate one group from another and to maintain the morality and the dominance of one's own group.

This leads us to the concept of the "ethnocentric" person.
If we do it: good; if you do it: bad.
[Data shows that views on Negroes, Minorities, Patriotism, and Anti-Semitism, etc. scales indicate that these trends are closely related, that people are notably consistent in their acceptance or rejection of general ethnocentrism.]
In other words:
>A primary characteristic of ethnocentric ideology is the generality of outgroup rejection. It is as if the ethnocentric individual feels threatened by most of the groups to which he does not have a sense of belonging; if he cannot identify, he must oppose; if a group is not "acceptable," it is "alien." The ingroup-outgroup distinction thus becomes the basis for most of his social thinking,' and people are categorized primarily according to the groups to which they belong.
These result in pseudopatriotism:
However,
>the superior American "we" breaks down when the context shifts to intranational affairs. It seems, that the individual who has a pseudopatriotic conception of America in relation to other nations actually regards most of America as an outgroup: various religions, non-whites, "the masses," too-educated people and too-uneducated people, criminals, radicals, and so on, tend largely to fall in the outgroup category.
The paradox of the Zig Forumsyp knows no bounds: his "ingroup" turns out to be in itself contradictory, a mirage.

[now comes the juicy part!]

Attached: 00b2039f826be21f6c9b38c6d083e50341bcb2afa872add8d72cbdb12cdc5553.png (488x463, 21.52K)

cheers


The writer says, and I quote:
>The social world as most ethnocentrists see it is arranged like a series of concentric circles around a bull's-eye. Each circle represents an ingroup-outgroup distinction; each line serves as a barrier to exclude all outside groups from the center, and each group is in turn excluded by a slightly narrower one. A sample "map" illustrating the ever-narrowing ingroup would be the following : Whites, Americans, native-born Americans, Christians, Protestants, Californians, my family, and finally – I.
If any of you faggots are familiar with Zizek, and especially with his re-returning appreciation of Claude Lévi-Strauss, you MUST be familiar with the latter's commentary of an amerian-indian tribe on the verge of becoming a class society.

Honestly, this part shocked me. Reread, please, comrade, the above greentext! Now compare it to Zizek's reading here:

Attached: map1.png (2916x4602 212.9 KB, 226.16K)

Moving on, and refocusing on OP book:
>the ethnocentrists' inability to approach individuals as individuals, and to their tendency to see and "prejudge" each individual only as a sample specimen of the reified group[;] their experience of interpersonal relations involves, so to speak, the same stereotypy as their opinions regarding groups generally. The inability to identify with humanity takes the political form of nationalism and cynicism about world government and permanent peace. It takes other forms, all based on ideas concerning the intrinsic evil (aggressiveness, laziness, power-seeking, etc.) of human nature; the idea that this evil is unchangeable is 'rationalized by pseudo-scientific hereditarian theories of human nature.''' The evil, since it is unchangeable, must be attacked, stamped out, or segregated wherever it is found, lest it contaminate the good.
(Literally: orcs vs. humans.) Yet, allow me to inject my Marxist criticism: All, except Adorno, among the writers are (basically) liberals. For me this appeal to "permanent peace" (vs. class warfare), and the "inability to identify with humanity" (vs. identifying with exploited class vs. the ruling one) reeks of bourgeois ideology. I should note, that Adorno does not challenge these ideas (while he continuously does in his other texts), IMO out of pure pragmatism of the book's "project" or "problematic": "Is America turning fascist or not?"
(More on this later!)

The content of outgroup resentment is:
…
The
>stereotypy, the illogicality, the large number of outgroups, the consistency of outgroup imagery[, etc.] - all these point to things in the psychological functioning of ethnocentrists.
We are lead to believe that the Zig Forumsyp is psychologically… pathological.

NOW TO THE JUICIEST PARTS!

Attached: maximum brainlet.png (474x711, 90.48K)

I've read the book and its really just Marxist revisionists crying about strong centralized government.

There is nothing "rightwing" about authoritarian governments.

What actual contribution has the Frankfurt school contributed to the struggle of the international proletariat? none.

Attached: DSvoAglUQAAuRtn.jpg (500x363, 56.17K)

"no"
Thx for the bump, tho, faggot!


ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ
THE POLYP'S PARENT'S AND CHILDHOOD!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We establish the following scales, attitudes towards parents and children, upon which the questionnaire was based:
>1a. Idealization of parent(s): overestimation of qualities and status, expressed in essentially external behavioral patterns, conventionalized generalities, or undifferentiated „all’s well” attitude.
vs.
>1b. Objective appraisal of parent(s).
>2a. Victimization (quasi-persecution) by parents: neglect, including failure to give proper discipline, unjust discipline; „picked on”; unfair: resents preferring of rival sibling or spouse, etc.
vs.
>2b. Genuine positive affect: some reference to (positive) psychological qualities; individualized characterizations.
>3a. Submission to parental authority and values: respect based on fear
vs.
>3b. Principled independence.
>4a. Ego-alien dependence-for-things and support on parents: exploitative-manipulative „getting”; externalized relationship.
vs.
>4b. Love-seeking dependence-nurturing-affliction toward parent(s). (Dependence for love.)
>5a. Ingroup orientation to family as a whole; e.g. emphasis on family heredity and „background”; homogenous-totalitarian family vs. rest of the world; aristocratic superiority of family, etc.
vs.
>5b. Individualized approach to members of the family.

Attached: sherlock.png (681x560, 49.06K)

This shocked me, because it rang so true. The Zig Forumsyp, and also, God Emperor Trump, for that matter:
>(1) idealize the expressed characteristics in generalized and undifferentiated, conventionalized terms which primarily glorify external features of physical appearance or overt behavioral conduct rather than involving the more internal aspects of their personality.
Trump: X,Y,Z is a "great guy." Such a character. Very handsome. (On the other hand: "Jeb is a mess!")
>the stereotypical conception of parents in the high scorers [repeats] the same description for [their parents], differentiating only the physical characteristics.
This, in the interview material actually turned up like so:
Read: if you are a Zig Forumsyp, you literally can't differentiate between your parent's inherent and external qualities, always preferring to give details about the latter, since it's most accessible to anyone!
An aspect of looking at your parents from the outside enters:
Here comes Trump overload (p.346.):
>The outstanding features in the above quotations from high scorers is the use of superlatives in the description of parents, such as "excellent man in every way," "best in the world," "most terrific person," etc. If more detailed and specific elaborations are made at all, they refer to material benefits or help given by the parents. Where there is no readiness to admit that one's parents have any weakness in them it is not surprising to find later an indication of repressed hostility and revengeful fantasies behind the mask of compliance.

Attached: 1529111317968.png (866x900, 93.88K)

I need to make this absolutely clear. There are several examples (quotes from actual interviews with people) that show that people who are "low scorers" (meaning: they are not authoritarian/fascistic) tend to be critical of their parents in a way that treats them as simultaneously outsiders ("my mom is very controlling of my life") and insiders ("we generally get along with mom"), while the critical dimension and love is still maintained; meanwhile "high scorers" (meaning: authoritarians/fascists) CAN NOT differentiate between inside and outside, leaving them with outwards descriptions: "such a great guy," etc.

My Trump-meters went off the roof, tbh: "Jeb is a mess!"
Or, [The Clintons are] "great people," and so on…

Regarding the not-authoritarians ('low-scorers") it must be said that
>positive affect toward parents should be found more often where there is an objective evaluation of the parents rather than where there is resentment toward them. […] Positive affect toward parents is present more often in low scorers must be seen in conjunction with the results on glorification versus objective appraisal as discussed above.

p.347. "Victimization"
(Note: a returning theme for Adorno, who, believe it or not, posits victimization as the standard subjective position of people under late-capitalism way before Zizek does.)
>Feelings include complaints about being neglected, unjustly disciplined, picked on or otherwise unfairly treated, especially in rivalry situations within the family. Eight of the high-scoring women interviewees showed this attitude, often in conjunction with glorification of the parents. Not only do low-scoring subjects express disagreement with their parents more freely, but there is evidence in the records that when they disagree they have the strength to follow their own way, though often not without paying the price of conflict and guilt.
Read: Zig Forumsyps are, at best, semi-autonomous; still entrapped within the Oedipal setting.

Submission to parental authority
>Related to glorification of parents is an attitude to be characterized as submission to parental authority and values out of respect based on fear. Its opposite has been designated as principled independence. [M]ay be closely related to submission to authority in general. And submission to authority, in its turn, has the broadest implications for social and personal behavior both toward those with power and those without it.
Meaning, that Zig Forumstard loves to suck [insert big person name here], because he had the very same experience in childhood, regarding his parents.

Attached: ef5d2cd336ea78a7ac0519bc2a181af51cdd20cac68ad7a4c48125de7b1b301b.png (625x773, 110.98K)

What could exemplify this more than the fact that
>They identify themselves with the punisher and even seem to enjoy punishment.
freud.jpeg

Dependence on things vs. dependence on love
>The assumption was that typical prejudiced subjects want to be taken care of like children; that they want to exploit their parents as they want to exploit other people; and that, not being self-reliant, they need support and comfort, first from the parents and then from parent-substitutes. This dependence, however, is neither focused nor conscious;' it is rather a need for the help of others in getting things; the persons from whom things can be gotten may equally well be parents, or the "leader," or anyone else who seems capable of offering tangible support.
Would it surprise you that the person who finds Mussolini/Trump/Hitler/Hirohito/etc. compelling, would be suffering from a kind of infantilism? Compare it to non-Authoritarians:
Read: someone who is not fascistic is actually capable to meet persons as persons, to have relationships, while someone who lacks that capability sees these people as only means to gather stuff, making his contacts interchangeable.
Actual quote:
>When [the latter] attitude predominates, human relationships come to be regarded as one form of "making a deal."
Trump.

Attached: a92bf7932e44fc30260b488b12af31ba32908a3546a2924689e27fd583317434.jpg (558x614, 23.49K)

I feel like this just pathologizes fascism and obscures its economic basis.

has it occurred to you that pathology is material and itself has a material basis?

I think this is a superb analysis of modern nazis and their world view. I didn't know this book was still so relevant.

Base and superstructure motherfucker.

The book starts with sociology, and so does my TL;DR. Later, Adorno addresses the economic basis. Stay tuned, stupid christ-fag.

Hear, Hear.

It is. Read it. Skip the sociological shit (that was inserted only for the Academy's sake, as to prove how their method is legit™.) The theoretical aspect of it is solid as my cock.


Ingroup orientation to family vs. individualized conception of family
There is a tendency among "high-scorers" (authoritarians) to overemphasize the socioeconomic status of family.
Read: what is happening in Venezuela. lol

But more seriously, and more tragically:
>The prejudiced subjects show little evidence of genuine love toward their parents. On the surface theirs is a stereotyped, rigid glorification of the parents, with strong resentment and feelings of victimization occasionally breaking through on the overt level in the interview material. Usually, however, only admiration for the parent is accepted by the subject. The underlying hostility has to be kept ego-alien for several reasons: it is too strong to be fully admitted; and it interferes with the desire to be taken care of by the parents. This conflict leads to a submission to parental authority on the surface and a resentment underneath which, although not admitted, is the more active under the guise of mechanisms of displacement.
Read: the Zig Forumsyp is a sad being, from a broken household. He DID NOT learn how to become an individual, he DID NOT learn how to relate to his parents, therefore he becomes a kind of semi-person: copying the same patterns from his childhood to all of his interactions.

Attached: d04.png (600x656, 74.92K)

Yeah but you can treat pathologies without communism/socialism. That's why liberals have adopted this, along with Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony, into their canon.

If you had any idea what those are you'd know i'm right.

Pathology come after the material base, the economic base - pathology is NOT part of the base, it is part of the superstructure.

Attached: 1.jpg (800x800, 112.66K)

(I ran out of brainlet.jpegs)

Sex, People, and Self
Let's start with the machos:
>[High scorer’s talk] about sex as though it were an ego-alien tension which has to be "relieved" for hygienic reasons. Thus, in the most intimate interpersonal relationships, he displays a utilitarian and (pseudo-) realistic outlook. The depersonalized attitude in this subject is drastically expressed by referring to his sexual partner as "something, [offering relief.]"
incel.mp3
BUT!
>Underlying disrespect for, and resentment against, the opposite sex, often hidden behind an externalized and excessive pseudo-admiration. [A]dmiration of women goes hand in hand with his conception of women as weak.
male_libfeminist.mpeg

Attitude towards present self:
>hardly any discrepancy between their image of what they ought to be and their conception of what they really are [!]
>inability for self-criticism connected to wishful denial of genuine causality: inheritance, luck, etc. [!]
The basic insecurity
>that lies beneath the overt denials and overconfidence of the high-scoring [Authoritarian] subjects may be a chief contributing factor in their exaggerated wish for property, in the sense of a conception of property as an extension of the self. There is property as an overlibidinization of money and property, per se.


I disagree wholeheartedly. (See my flag change.) At best we can accommodate 'them' better.


We're getting there (with Adorno).


Yes and no. With Zizek: "commodity fetishism" is an objective part of the base, yet it is absolutely constitutive of the superstructure, as such. This category (for instance!) proves your point null. We are literally living in a system wherein the (otherwise realistic) base/superstructure categorization is being INTERNALLY overcame.

Attached: DLpeX3OWkAAi8Lm.jpg (408x450 18.24 KB, 18.24K)

Lol, didn't even bother to read after that. Please read actual marxists you moron.

No books, no arguments. Apply yourself.

le wut?


p.595.
Projective questions
(Guess what, poltards project a lot!)

Here comes Adorno.

Attached: debc585ab512ad413162dc2fc4267d613365607a0ec769748eb206cbc324e868.jpg (720x636, 69.39K)

The fuck are you talking about? Do you think zizek originated the Base and Superstructure concept? Do you need proof that he didn't?

This fucking board sometimes.

American and European elites were tacit supporters of nazism for almost a decade due to fear of the USSR. There's nothing "crypto" about it. Also that's a blatant misrepresentation or the argument presented here. They don't love their parents. They merely pretend to.

Adding to this, even if we're charitable to zizek and take commodity fetishism as part of the base - that has NOTHING to do with how you don't like black people. Racism comes from the BASE, AFTER the BASE, it is part of the superstructure.

Very amateur understanding of ANYTHING, let alone marxism.

Reminder that Freudianism is unscientific bullshit, and The Authoritarian Personality was just the Frankfurt School projecting their own neuroses onto the wider population. Did they ever apply any of this analysis to Orthodox Jewish communities, or Israelis?

So what? The Authoritarian Personality wasn't talking about "American elites", it was talking about the average American household who - despite the abject failure of anything approaching a successful fascist movement in the US - were presumed to be a hotbed of fascism.

The real cause of the Nazis were Versailles and Weimar.

It's a shame that Adorno attached his name to this shit. He should have stopped at the Culture Industry.

Attached: 1501367209195.jpg (327x400, 23.99K)

Capitalism made the Nazis to defend itself from left wing opposition and restore profits.

Any thoughts on how this works specifically with the alt-right? It would be interesting to have some discussion on that topic.

Thanks for this thread OP, it's been a productive morning read.

You assume everyone was not Jewish…because of course Jews can't be fascists.

Thanks for the pseudo-bump.


Qualitative studies of ideology (Adorno)
The anti-Semite has a similar subjective structure as does the paranoid psychotic:
>While the paranoid is beset by an over-all hatred, he nevertheless tends to "pick" his enemy, to molest certain individuals who draw his attention upon themselves: he falls, as it were, negatively in love. Something similar may hold good for the potentially fascist character. As soon as he has achieved a specific and concrete countercathexis, which is indispensable to his fabrication of a social pseudoreality, he may "canalize" his otherwise free-floating aggressiveness and then leave alone other potential objects of persecution.

More on psychotic parallels:
>[Anti-Semite's] fantasies occur whenever stereotypes " run wild," that is to say, make themselves completely independent from interaction with reality. When these "emancipated" stereotypes are forcibly brought back into relation with reality, blatant distortions appear. (e.g. disproportion between the relative social weakness of the object and its supposed sinister omnipotence)
The Zig Forumsyp has lost all connection to reality, he prefers his persecution fantasies.

Example, from the interviews:
Meaning, according to Adorno:

He draws the following, radical conclusion:
>One cannot "correct" stereotypy by experience; he has to reconstitute the capacity for having experiences in order to prevent the growth of malignant ideas.
Meaning: the authoritarian-faggot is literally not a person, as such. He can not interact with people and "have an experience." When he does interact, he interacts with abstract categories.

Yet, contrary to the 'psychotic' diagnosis beforehand:
(One is reminded of Lacans synthome-period.)

Still, the
>delusion-like security [and certainty] which casts its spell over those who feel insecure… The more primitive their drastic formulae are, due to their stereotypy, the more appealing they are at the same time, since they reduce the complicated to the elementary, no matter how the logic of this reduction may work. The superiority thus gained does not remain on the intellectual level.
And one should add: this ''superiority" escapes to his imaginary level.

Several interviewees added that "although X ethnicity appears to me as such, I should know better…" To which Adorno comments:
>"Knowing better" is mentioned not infrequently by high scorers: they realize they "should" not think that way, but stick to their prejudice under a kind of compulsion which is apparently stronger than the moral and rational counteragencies available to them.

He reminds us that several interviewees proclaimed that they were "able to spot Jews on sight:"

Which lead him to detect
>a "problematizing" attitude [which] puts the resentful person in the position of one who is rationally discriminating; the assertion that all the Jews are alike transposes the "problem" into the realm of systematic and complete knowledge, without a "loophole," as it were; the pretension of being able unfailingly to recognize Jews raises the claim that the subject is actually the judge in matters where the judgment is supposed to have been pronounced once and for all.

Attached: 1548095064313.gif (645x773, 40.51K)

Quite frankly there is almost no point in trying to study reaction. It's extremely opportunistic and has no essence other than support for capital.

I deleted my previous question because I thought it was unclear.

Do we have any comments on how the alt-right innovates on the pathology of the authoritarian personality? Are there ways in which the current right is different than the right of the past?
It would be interesting to have some discussion on that.

How?

Reminder that "Freudianism" – as opposed to DSM-based "mainstream" psychology – does not pretend to be scientific. Just like "democracy" or "boxing" doesn't pretend to be scientific, yet both give results on a daily basis.
If you've read the actual thread, you'd know by now that this is objectively not the case.
What a tangent, should one say. Adorno (&co.) were NOT Zionists (Jewish-nationalists), in fact, they were communists (internationalists). What is your problem even, you confused motherfucker?

hurr

What the fuck are you even trying to talk about?

Yeah, and the "real causes" of the Armenian genocide were the falafel and tzatziki.

Give actual, concrete criticism, or fuck off, kindly.
I agree. It would be interesting to have an actual discussion about that, but it appears that pseudo-posters prefer to talk about Israel and veganism. Makes you thunk, no?

Daily reminder that a large portion of the actually existing working class is at the moment part of the reaction. Daily reminder that you are an useless idiot.

The funny thing is, IMO, is that the alt-right did not innovate a bit. They were captured by the hegemonic postmodern state of affairs, and thus pepe-the-frog (and so on) was born. The text in OP is a skeleton. The current historical conjuncture is the muscles.
Many. Gáspár Tamás Miklós calls these faggots "post-fascists," meaning that they can't really form coherent groups, can't apply discipline, and so on. TL;DR: The current nazi-scene is a Disney-fied nazi scene. It is what "reality" was to Baudrillard's simulacrum. They are, at best, an aftertaste, a late-commentary, a parodiy, a pastiche.
Here you go…

(may I finish with this shit?)

Attached: 17c13db8a9911d4a1ce9d34e64cb8d0c99ced979dd2a21fdbe551a0e98b9a87b.png (252x224, 104.46K)

This, it can mutate into whatever form but the results are the same - the preservation of the prevailing order.

Its not difficult to understand. It's imperialism and capitalism. The traditional Marxist definition of workers is antiquated anyways. First world proles as a class will never be socialist because it is simply not in their interest.

Go on you fucking cunt, I'm reading it and may use your ramblings as my own to pretend I've read the book. You're doing good job here.

Attached: 1548552042572-2.jpg (604x516, 27.92K)

denk u

>In terms of ideology, the anti-Semite's conflict is between the current, culturally "approved" stereotypes of prejudice and the officially prevailing standards of democracy and human equality. Psychologically, the conflict is between certain foreconscious or repressed id tendencies on the one hand and the superego, or its more or less externalized, conventional substitute, on the other. […] If the conflict within the individual has been decided against the Jews, the decision itself is almost without exception rationalized moralistically. It is as if the internal powers of prejudice, after the defeat of the countertendencies, would consummate their victory by taking the opposing energies, which they have defeated, into their own service. The superego becomes the spokesman of the id.
Meaning, that the Zig Forumsyp, torn between society's hegemonic self-legitimization (democracy) and his own pseudo-experience (since, we established above, that he is not a proper "self,") takes refuge in moralism: Jews are either bad or good.

>Viewed sociologically, the disproportion between guilt and punishment shows that to the extreme anti-Semite the whole idea of rational law has become a sham even though he dwells on orderliness and legalitarian niceties. He is ready to sacrifice his own ideology of equivalents as soon as he has the power to get the major share for himself.
>[Hence,] 'psychologically, the idea of eternal Jewish guilt can be understood as a projection of the prejudiced person's own repressed guilt feelings; ideologically, it is a mere epiphenomenon, a rationalization' in the strictest sense.
[My critique later.]

Adorno comments on the proportionateness of pole and middle-class anti-semitism:
>To the true proletarian, the Jew is primarily the bourgeois. The workingman is likely to perceive the Jew, above all, as an agent of the economic sphere of the middle-man, as the executor of capitalist tendencies.
>>To the anti-Semitic members of the middle classes, the imagery of the Jew seems to have a somewhat different structure. The middle classes themselves experience to a certain degree the same threats to the economic basis of their existence which hang over the heads of the Jews. They are themselves on the defensive and struggle desperately for the maintenance of their status. Hence, they accentuate just the opposite of what workingmen are likely to complain about, namely, that the Jews are not real bourgeois, that they do not really "belong." [The] Jew is likely to be regarded as the misfit bourgeois.
(We are entering the "base-superstructure" shit right here.)

Attached: c0fioyhb8j1z.jpg (1236x1896, 135.23K)

Now, Adorno questions the main structuring causation behind the rather ubiquitous link between personal psychology, social ideology, and the "actually existent:"
Commenting, that
So he lists two "aspects" (for anglos: reasons/causers for) political ignorance:
and

Attached: 4be3c90eekk01.jpg (650x488, 35.37K)

He concludes, that the authoritarian faggot, in order to conclude, that he
He must
meaning, he needs
>to employ two devices which contradict each other, a contradiction that expresses the impasse in which many people find themselves. These two devices are stereotypy and personalization. It is easy to see that these "devices" are repetitions of infantile patterns.

What are these, tho?
The basis for stereotypy are
>Rigid dichotomies, such as that between "good and bad," "we and the others," "I and the world" date back to our earliest developmental phases. While serving as necessary constructs in order to enable us to cope, by mental anticipation and rough organization, with an otherwise chaotic reality, even the stereotypes of the child bear the hallmark of stunted experience and anxiety. They point back to the "chaotic" nature of reality, and its clash with the omnipotence fantasies of earliest infancy. Our stereotypes are both tools and scars: the "bad man" is the stereotype par excellence. At the. same time, the psychological ambiguity inherent in the use of stereotypes, which are both necessary and constricting forces, stimulate regularly a countertendency. We try, by a kind of ritual, to soften the otherwise rigid, to make human, close, part of ourselves (or the family) that which appears, because of its very alienness, threatening.
The "traumatic kernel of this"

On the connection of base [e.g. culture industry] and superstructure [e.g. lived culture] (aforementioned in this thread:)
>Where the rigidly compulsive nature of the stereotype cuts off the dialectics of trial and error, stultification enters the picture. Stereotypy becomes stereopathy. This is the case in the political area where a firm bulk of ignorance and lack of any relation to the objective material forbids any real experience. In addition, industrial standardization of innumerable phenomena of modern life enhances stereotypical thinking. The more stereotyped life itself becomes, the more the stereopath feels in the right, sees his frame of thinking vindicated by reality. Modern mass communciations, moulded after industrial production, spread a whole system of stereotypes which, while still being fundamentally "ununderstandable" to the individual, allow him at any moment to appear as being up to date and "knowing all about it."

That other "device," personalization, is called upon by its opposite, stereotypy:

Though, they share a common trait:

Attached: cbd452ddfb105149ab21209b69a9c157b9f72a18caf17b464dfdc16fe90beffe.jpg (480x360, 9.58K)

Relating to the hegemonic democracy:
>The element of personalization that counts most heavily with the low scorers [non-Authoritarians] seems to be confidence, the idea that public figures are good, friendly fathers who take care of one, or of the ''underdog." It seems to be derived from an actual life relationship to one's parents, from unblocked positive transference. [C]onversely, the personal trait most appreciated by the high scorer [Authoritarians] seems to be strength. Social power and control, the ultimate focus of their identification, is translated by the personalization mechanism into a quality inherent in certain individuals.

Attached: 02-donald-trump.w700.h700.jpg (225x225 108.67 KB, 6.65K)

I spent some time as a Zig Forumslack before going left, if I have any disagreement with this book, this would be it. Personally I never had some great idealization of my family, my dad's shadow loomed over the whole family, there's been quite a few occasions where he's done threatening, stupid, terrifying things to us because the man's a narcissist and they'll fucking explode if their pride is wounded: he once nearly swerved our car off the road because my mom said he was driving too fast.

The fear is real though. There's been times where we were "too loud" or "weren't listening", and he'd scream that he "[wasn't] sure what [he] will do to you." Even if he was clearly in the wrong about how badly he reacted, he'd never out and out apologize, instead he would just buy us something, leave it in our room, and go about things wordlessly.

I never really got to do much, any hobby I expressed interest in (karate, fencing, even arcades) was either ignored or aborted when I seemed to be enjoying myself too much. We couldn't see a movie unless my dad wanted to see it. We couldn't go to places my dad didn't want to go to. There were strict restrictions on what we were allowed to watch or listen to, and we weren't ever allowed to mention them, even ironically.

All in all, I never had any glorification of my dad. He's the monster from my childhood, not the "picture perfect father" that I wish I had.

Otherwise this is a good post, but all of this takes this mocking, bullying tone. If you're willing to believe that Zig Forumslacks come from broken homes and that they're psychologically damaged individuals (which they are), then you're honestly just causing more psychological damage by sneering at them and mocking them for it. They need help is all.

(This is how far I've read the book. Will go on tomorrow.)


Notice how Adorno tries to undermine the very opposition between high and low scorers, in an attempt to say that this is a systemic issue.
contra:

…
MY CRITICISM
Contra Adorno, who, in this text, is under the spell of his fellow sociologically inclined co-authors, I believe that the "authoritarian personality" is NOT a semi- or pseudo-democrat. '''I believe that the fascist takes 'democracy' to its logical conclusion: the rule over the minority. I believe that the "authoritarian personality" can not but be rooted in the actual system it exists in. No matter how "liberal, tolerant, etc." a democracy is, it inherently gives the impression that whenever a majority becomes powerful enough, it is legitimized in its taking absolute power.

Yes, I'm familiar with the notions of brakes and counterweights as proposed by (liberal) democracy, yet I do not see how these idealistic prescriptions would last.

I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THAT "FASCIST PERSONALITY" IS THE "DEMOCRATIC PERSONALITY" TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION.
Weird, huh? Someone reading Adorno/Zizek/Lacan/Fig-Fag, without being their utmost followers. Moreover, I believe that my reading could be corroborated by Adorno's later texts.

As a communist, I honestly subscribe to Badiou's dictum: "Democracy is our [read: communist's number one] enemy."
If you still support "Democracy" in the 21st century, you are neck-deep in ideology. I propose that [bourgeois] democracy is what creates fascism. I also propose that "proletarian democracy," or, "organic," or "direct democracy," is nothing but the inner projection of this very system.

We either find a way out (without succumbing to self-mutilating socialist bureaucracies, and so on), or we are fucking dead.
We either go beyond the "democratic ideal" (cockhsott gang, prepare your salt), or we are ultimately fucked.

It is not just that democracy isn't "the answer" – it's worse: it is the enemy.

Attached: a28711fdfc1af176727789214b92eddf6a5505459051bf5bc726855297c91b7a.png (616x596, 67.38K)

I'd go much farther than that (with the authors, mind you:) I'd say that the current standardized culture industry creates stereotypical individuals incapable of understanding their own social conditions. I'm broadening what you are saying: I'm saying that up to 90% of leftypol posters are such damaged individuals. Not because of their family backgrounds, but because the fact that our "culture" (which is: an industry) objectively denies them the experience to reflect upon their own conditions (ontology).

We are so fucked beyond belief, you wouldn't know, comrade.

Attached: 151251.png (1103x562, 649.26K)

does it get any more undialectical?

We should make a poll to know if the board it's still mostly composed of ex Zig Forumsyps

read the thread

do you get any more gay?

Why does it matter? Do you read what I'm saying? It doesn't matter. The "direct-democracy" faggot and the "fascism with Hitler characteristics" faggot is the same under my conception, albeit they go in opposed directions: one says that we should as broadly as possible utilize the democratic ideal, the other says that we should stick to its basic premise. The former says democracy is good, yet we didn't really explore it to the max, the latter says that the effects of democracy is good and we should embrace them.

Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm saying that democracy creates the nazi, mate.

Attached: 3d585f745c9e36bc174e15aa269616262f10f84a163e674fbb42594622d3c76a.jpg (620x336, 41.21K)

I honestly think that Marx still got it right in "The Civil War in Frace" and we should still follow that model.

I do, i just wondered if the board it's still composed of people who used to be the stereotype of a Zig Forums user, seeing the entire thread is discussing such a subject.

Notice my flag? I think that neither Marx, nor Lenin got it right… Well, at least transposed to the current situation. They might have been right "backed then," but right now is a different situation.

To disprove my thesis pertaining to current events, you and I need to debate in the current setting. A mere Marx quote would not do, mate.


Lurkers gonna lurk.

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY! It's not stereotyping when we do it: The Book


You leave it out since the ridiculousness of the scale becomes apparent when we actually do look at it. The scale ends up painting any adaptive group behavior as pathological and bad. In classic Freudian fashion having a good relationship with your mother ends up somehow being a bad thing.

Attached: Racists_Are_Stupid.png (669x637, 563.77K)

Is communism an inherently authoritarian perspective?

...

isn't it just written to conflate Stalin and Hitler tho?

Authoritarian personality is schizophrenia.

The point is made perfectly clear even if you cross out the attempt at analogy, which I invite you to do.

Furthermore, abstracting through verbal constructs and weaving complex narratives filled with nuance and wrapping it all up in the warm embrace of authority figures is not proof or demonstration of objective complexity nor is it a complementing argument. We can deconstruct and psychoanalyze Sonic the Hedgehog for all eternity. That does not in any way illuminate the complexity of thought of the creator. All we are doing is constructing a mythology that conforms to our own perceptions. Or, like TAP puts it: "the hypothesis that what [anti-semitic] people say against [Jews] depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual characteristics of [Jews.]"

Attached: dt3.png (178x257, 104.62K)

Authoritarians are schizophrenics who can't handle reality. Sex with animals is a reality and the authoritarian schizophrenic aims to criminalize the real act of sex with animals. Therefore it is only justified to execute the authoritarian who commits the crime of existing upon themselves. Schizophrenics who legislate their fantasy should be killed.

hold up say the animal thing again

The persecution of the act of sex with animals is a telltale sign of delusion. For if a person persecutes reality, then they themselves must not be living amongst reality.

Killing people is also a reality. Should we legalize killing people?

It's already legal for the "dominant" schizos to kill people. Thats whats called authority.

Miss me with that imperialist shit.

That's what's called politics. The schizos are fighting for the authority to kill the people who plague their delusions.
The schizo thinks people who have sex with animals should die? The schizo is going to legislate for the authority to kill people for not harming anyone.

look i don't know where you are coming from, but could you elaborate on the animal fucking part? do you want to fuck animals? should people fuck animals? shouldn't we at least tell people to not fuck animals?

My favorite right-wing pathology is probably the edge. It's so easy to trigger them into reciting their violent power fantasies.

He's clearly trolling. The bit is that he complains about right-wing schizophrenics while being a schizophrenic himself. Haha.

meant for

If you say so, i did thought he might be a troll for a second.

Yes I do want to fuck with farm animals. Literally big farm animals like horses and cows.
There's already people telling us not to eat gluten or drink soda pop before bed, but it takes a real demented person to stop us or punish us for doing it.
Think about it what kind of person would take the opportunity to ruin your life because you chose to eat food with MSG in it? No different than the predators who would ruin my life for licking a cows ass.

ok

They're deluded terrorists just looking for a convenient reason to murder, torture and steal from people.
One day you could be eating twizzlers in the park and some monster with a badge jumps you, beats you up and locks you in a cell because some schizophrenic slammed gavel and decided the color red-3 would ruin people's lives.
Low and behold the faggots fulfilled their own prophecy where the "dangerous" act of eating twizzlers fell short.

Thanks for the effort OP I was turned off from ever reading this book because of the sociological crap but you have piqued my interest, especially about that point on Levi-Strauss's

No how about you stay the fuck away from our livestock.

Attached: wew.jpg (409x513, 58.77K)

Get some sleep christcuck, you look tired, i´ll take care of those thicc sheeps of yours

I'd rather have sex with live stock than dead saints. Religious necrophilia is not healthy.

I don't really want it legalized I want it decriminalized. I just want to fuck with farm animals because there is literally nothing wrong with doing it. That's why the schizophrenics created the laws to criminalize they had to justify their own delusions.

What branch of Christianity claims to do this again?

It's like saying "I'm hungry, so I'll make a sandwich" they're like "I don't like sex with animals, so I'm going to make a law banning it."
But they're like fat people who eat when they're not hungry they just do it because they've very bad spending habits and an eating disorder.

gas yourself kike

They're all preaching sucking Jesus penis or eating him out. One or another they're all slobbing some holy ghosts knob. This isn't even isolated to Christianity they've all got some bondage, humiliation and mad fetish garbage and all I wanted to do is have natural sex with farm animals.

just because they were jewish and explaining why people hate them for no reason it ain't jewish propaganda i think mate

You actually believe majority rule describes any currently existing country?

Anybody still got the vid showing the correlation between public opinion in the different income brackets and how voting in parliament goes?

My pleasure.

Cool thread, but I feel The Authoritarians also belongs here.
theauthoritarians.org/
You can download it 4FREE

There's also Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind

I don't think I'm widening the topic here, because as far as I can see, authoritarianism is a reactionary trait, tho God knows not every authoritarian is reactionary.

Regardless, I fully agree with the notion of categorizing reactionarism as an actual pathology, seeing as it stems from the reactionaries most deep-seated, unconscious… I don't want to say "memories" or "beliefs", as these imply at least some degree of awareness. I think "directive" is the closest I can get to these basal personality traits, which can hardly even be considered verbal. A reactionary's mind is shaped more heavily by the more primitive end of the instinct-imprinting-conditioning-learning axis, which, suitably, is more co-related with older evolutionary brain developments. In other words, they're more reliant on the r-complex and its more basic directives: us good vs them bad, new bad vs old good etc. It's a sensible enough mentality, provided you walk on all fours and/or lay eggs, but once the option of higher directives, i.e. the ones on the opposite end of the spectrum, are available, this reliance on the primitive end is detrimental at absolutely all levels. It's hardly to be disputed that learning is the most powerful form of epistemology, as it's the only one which provides self-awareness and metacognition, but unfortunately, the older the 4 parts of the spectrum are, the more strongly they influence our psyche. Every living being but the most horribly malformed specimens have instinct, which is the freebie knowledge that comes with your DNA, but way too damn few people are capable of actually learning on a proper, rational level. Obviously, humans are the only species which can be truly said to have all 4 forms of epistemology, but each individual has its own position in the instinct-imprinting-conditioning-learning spectrum. You can see where I'm going to: reactionarism (which, again, isn't monopolized by the right) is an atavic throwback, and reactionaries constitute the, shall we say, less fortunate side of the evolutive adaptation normal curve.

And before anyone brings up Autism Level, it's only a component of one's psyche, one which (supposedly) measures pure analytic capacity, and thus say little about one's position on the spectrum. There's no shortage of very intelligent people who nonetheless attach themselves to the most ridiculous notions, whether there's a material incentive for it or not. Which brings up the question, wouldn't people on the primitive end be more materially-minded than those on the advanced end, who would display increased concern for non-material pursuits? It's a logical argument, but it ignores the very traits which define the primitive end, which includes lack of temporal thinking, lower understanding of causality, and generally being more concerned with the here and now, whereas the advanced end can plan far more sophisticated means to achieve material success.

To sum it up, reactionaries fuck everything up for everyone – including themselves, on the long run – because they carry the mental equivalent of a vestigial organ, which does absolutely nothing but present a health hazard and/or mobility impairment. It would, presumably, eventually be bred out of the gene pool, or, since learning allows for meta-cognition, be somehow solved with technology, but while neither of those things happen, the affected species are saddled with this subset of members who not only don't contribute to its society, but actively hold it back.

Yes, I know I'm veering close to the old naturalistic fallacies of the very reactionaries I am criticizing, and I don't care. Reactionaries are holding mankind back, and only an extremist could try to deny it. The sooner we find the biochemical basis for it (assuming, of course that this theory hot take is right), the sooner we can move on not only as a civilization, but as a species.

Attached: 41NVKNO-I9L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (300x233 16.92 KB, 16.64K)

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, this overreliance on more primitive epistemology segues into reactionaries' virtually universal use of hierarchies as the sorting criteria for members of society, and their tendency towards social Darwinism, submission/dominance relations and, of course, authoritarianism itself. Cue the pecking orders of the animal world, and the hordes of mouthbreathers who assume their barely-repressed fetishes are the lynchpin of the human condition and the foremost issue in human society.