[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / choroy / dempart / doomer / lounge / omnichan / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: dadb33e770219c7⋯.png (53.03 KB, 322x500, 161:250, cover.png)


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 /pol/tards;

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.


File: cde19635ca26464⋯.png (142.53 KB, 625x773, 625:773, cde19635ca264641a1f08dbf3b….png)


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

>ambition and power: whereas he criticizes [these] in the out-group, he regrets its lack in the ingroup.

Think of regular poltard: "Jews [outgroup] are clannish, too intelligent, etc." – while he implies that these qualities lack in his [white] [in]group.

>The problem for him is not how to eliminate an unequal distribution of power, but how to make sure that the bulk of power is in the right [ingroup] hands. Whereas a major fault of the Jews as noted above is their "clannishness" and their failure to assimilate, the existence of an unassimilated [ingroup stain] is "enjoyable." [F]or which Jews are blamed is seen as a virtue in the ingroup.

The /pol/tard sees a lack within his ["white"] ingroup, but detects these qualities outside ["Jews"].

>Both in groups and outgroups are thought of in the same general terms; the same evaluative criteria are applied to groups generally, and a given characteristic, such as clannishness or power, is good or bad depending on what group has it.

Read: if the /pol/tard'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 /pol/tard 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.


File: eca5a7245a38b56⋯.jpg (18.24 KB, 460x455, 92:91, aB0rqGx_460s.jpg)


The typical /pol/tard's attributes

>both power and weakness to the outgroup and only power to the ingroup.

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

>weakness, too, is existing in his ingroup, though in a different form.

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 /pol/tard'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 /pol/yp] 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 /pol/yp 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."


File: accaeb2aa596346⋯.png (195.96 KB, 537x613, 537:613, 345.png)


Our /pol/yp

>tends to think of the structure of any group as a hierarchy of power. It is not surprising therefore to find that he thinks of our total society as being organized along the same lines. In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, i.e., more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in economics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big capitalists.

[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.


>It was seen in [the /pol/yp's] discussion of politics that the power attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, the Civil Service, the OWl, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same thing himself.

It is the same power-mechanics that he wishes he held, more precisely, his "ingroup" held.


File: 89eeeaa69f01d4e⋯.png (85.2 KB, 320x291, 320:291, 1-35-29.png)


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 /pol/yp believes that jooz control everything. He does not doubt the omnipotency of said outgroup, but wishes his ingroup held that power!

>for each [anti-semitic] individual there are certain "nuclear ideas" – imagery of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding primary attitudes – which have primary emotional significance. However, these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions.


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


File: 395f9d6e009add2⋯.jpg (86.38 KB, 638x1000, 319:500, 1546546437363.jpg)


We are at page 94.

>The examination of the specific characteristics comprising the imagery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as a whole could have all these characteristics.

Literally: the /pol/yp'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 /pol/yps 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

>reinforce [the] established imagery.

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



trikes are dumb?


File: 76252f686ec5d2b⋯.png (41.91 KB, 506x915, 506:915, 434733.png)


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 /pol/yp 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 /pol/yp's psychic life]?

The answer lies in the incapability of the /pol/yp:

>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!


Thanks for the effortposting


File: 00b2039f826be21⋯.png (21.52 KB, 488x463, 488:463, 00b2039f826be21f6c9b38c6d0….png)


One hypothesis is that this represents

>an attempt on the part of the [/pol/yp] 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.

>Ethno­centric hostility toward outgroups is highly correlated with ethnocentric idealization of ingroups.

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:

>"we" are the best people and the best country in the world, and we should either keep out of world affairs altogether (isolationism) or we should participate-but without losing our full sovereignty, power, and economic advantage (imperialism).


>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 /pol/yp knows no bounds: his "ingroup" turns out to be in itself contradictory, a mirage.

[now comes the juicy part!]


File: 8980250b310affd⋯.png (226.16 KB, 2916x4602, 486:767, map3.png)

File: 1c8f889f4c1d6ea⋯.png (212.9 KB, 2916x4602, 486:767, map2.png)

File: e8eb6705e630ccb⋯.png (232.64 KB, 2916x4602, 486:767, map1.png)




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:

<Recall Claude Levi-Strauss's exemplary analysis, from his Structural Anthropology, of the spatial disposition of buildings in the Winnebago, one of the Great Lake tribes, might be of some help here. The tribe is divided into two sub-groups ("moieties"), "those who are from above" and "those who are from below"; when we ask an individual to draw on a piece of paper, or on sand, the ground-plan of his/her village (the spatial disposition of cottages), we obtain two quite different answers, depending on his/her belonging to one or the other sub-group. Both perceive the village as a circle; but for one sub-group, there is within this circle another circle of central houses, so that we have two concentric circles, while for the other sub-group, the circle is split into two by a clear dividing line. In other words, a member of the first sub-group (let us call it "conservative-corporatist") perceives the ground-plan of the village as a ring of houses more or less symmetrically disposed around the central temple, whereas a member of the second ("revolutionary-antagonistic") sub-group perceives his/her village as two distinct heaps of houses separated by an invisible frontier… The point Levi-Strauss wants to make is that this example should in no way entice us into cultural relativism, according to which the perception of social space depends on the observer's group-belonging: the very splitting into the two "relative" perceptions implies a hidden reference to a constant - not the objective, "actual" disposition of buildings but a traumatic kernel, a fundamental antagonism the inhabitants of the village were unable to symbolize, to account for, to "internalize", to come to terms with, an imbalance in social relations that prevented the community from stabilizing itself into a harmonious whole. The two perceptions of the ground-plan are simply two mutually exclusive endeavors to cope with this traumatic antagonism, to heal its wound via the imposition of a balanced symbolic structure. It is here that one can see it what precise sense the Real intervenes through anamorphosis. We have first the "actual," "objective," arrangement of the houses, and then its two different symbolizations which both distort in an anamorphic way the actual arrangement. However, the "real" is here not the actual arrangement, but the traumatic core of some social antagonism which distorts the tribe members' view of the actual arrangement of the houses in their village.

>The Real is thus the disavowed X on account of which our vision of reality is anamorphically distorted; it is SIMULTANEOUSLY the Thing to which direct access is not possible AND the obstacle which prevents this direct access, the Thing which eludes our grasp AND the distorting screen which makes us miss the Thing. More precisely, the Real is ultimately the very shift of perspective from the first to the second standpoint.


Do you get why I'm excited by this part? A sociologist-philosopher team finds the same reality as does an anthropologists. (pics related from latter's relevant pages from said book!)


File: 951c7a8e0535ec4⋯.png (90.48 KB, 474x711, 2:3, maximum brainlet.png)


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:

>[seen as] threatening and power-seeking. Accusations against them tend to be moralistic and, often, mutually contradictory. One of the main characteristics of most outgroups is that they are objectively weaker than the groups whom they supposedly threaten. Sometimes this weakness is perceived by the ethnocentrist, but this does not seem to lessen his sense of being threatened. The conflict as he sees it is between an ingroup trying to maintain or recapture its justly superior position, and an outgroup, resentful of past hurts, trying to do to others what they have done to it.


>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 /pol/yp is psychologically… pathological.



File: 0476ee21ad3d39e⋯.jpg (56.17 KB, 500x363, 500:363, DSvoAglUQAAuRtn.jpg)

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.


File: f072d70b61fcd7e⋯.png (49.06 KB, 681x560, 681:560, sherlock.png)


>I've read the book


Thx for the bump, tho, faggot!





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.


>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.


>2b. Genuine positive affect: some reference to (positive) psychological qualities; individualized characterizations.

>3a. Submission to parental authority and values: respect based on fear


>3b. Principled independence.

>4a. Ego-alien dependence-for-things and support on parents: exploitative-manipulative „getting”; externalized relationship.


>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.


>5b. Individualized approach to members of the family.


File: 84f85851bb1ff6b⋯.png (93.88 KB, 866x900, 433:450, 1529111317968.png)


This shocked me, because it rang so true. The /pol/yp, 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:

>Q: talk about your father

>A: He has a broad chin, masculine stature, very good image in the community.

Read: if you are a /pol/yp, 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:

>One of the high-scoring men describes his father as a "very, very fine man-intelligent, understanding, excellent father, in every way." Another says that his father "is always good to his family. Naturally, a kid would not think their parents had any weaknesses in them." Use of such terms as "naturally" or "of course"-the latter quoted above-reveals the element of conventionalism inherent in the mechanism of glorification.

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.


File: ef5d2cd336ea78a⋯.png (110.98 KB, 625x773, 625:773, ef5d2cd336ea78a7ac0519bc2a….png)


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: /pol/yps 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 /pol/tard loves to suck [insert big person name here], because he had the very same experience in childhood, regarding his parents.


File: a92bf7932e44fc3⋯.jpg (23.49 KB, 558x614, 279:307, a92bf7932e44fc30260b488b12….jpg)


What could exemplify this more than the fact that

>many of the '''high-scoring [authoritarian] men not only submit to discipline and punishment because there is no other choice left, but often find themselves in complete agreement with the administration of harsh punishment.

>They identify themselves with the punisher and even seem to enjoy punishment.


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:

>The kind of dependence on the parents expected to be characteristic of unprejudiced subjects, on the other hand, is the kind of dependence which people with an ability to love direct toward those for whom an object cathexis [Besetzung] has been established. The first type of person [Authoritarian] is more dependent for benefits and "things" – but at the same time he is less dependent on specific persons because of the ready exchangeability of objects.

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."



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.


File: 8ff47f13d1f311c⋯.png (74.92 KB, 600x656, 75:82, d04.png)


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.

>The high-scoring subjects show a tendency to magnify the status of their families in a way which enters and essentially modifies their entire conception of their families. We find both an insecure concern about status and an ardent wish to transmit the impression that their families had repute and prestige.

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 /pol/yp 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.



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.


File: ed620a96a7e997d⋯.jpg (18.24 KB, 408x450, 68:75, DLpeX3OWkAAi8Lm.jpg)

File: ed620a96a7e997d⋯.jpg (18.24 KB, 408x450, 68:75, DLpeX3OWkAAi8Lm.jpg)

(I ran out of brainlet.jpegs)


Sex, People, and Self

Let's start with the machos:

>The typical high-scoring [authoritarian] man apparently has a particularly strong need to conceive of himself as an ideal of masculinity.

>[He] rationalizes his failures. Sex relations tend to be isolated and depersonalized and thus to become peripheral rather than being integrated with the ego.

>[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.]"



>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.


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.


>you can treat pathologies without communism/socialism

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


We're getting there (with Adorno).


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

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.



>Yes and no. With Zizek

>With Zizek

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



No books, no arguments. Apply yourself.


File: 4fcf1cc082968c9⋯.jpg (69.39 KB, 720x636, 60:53, debc585ab512ad413162dc2fc4….jpg)


le wut?



Projective questions

(Guess what, poltards project a lot!)

>the relations between the various levels of personality are more fluid, the boundaries more permeable. The ego defenses of the lows are relatively more impulse-releasing: at best we find considerable sublimation, to perhaps a greater degree we find that impulses have been assimilated into the ego without being fully integrated-witness the recurring Projective Question category, "Conscious conflict and guilt." In the highs, on the other hand – and the analysis of interviews led to the same conclusion – the ego defenses are characteristically more counter-cathectic; there is less sublimation and more use of defenses such as projection, denial, and reaction-formation, defenses which aid the individual in maintaining a moral facade at the expense of self-expression and emotional release.

Here comes Adorno.



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.


The real cause of the Nazis were Versailles and Weimar.



File: d1637bc542e1b83⋯.jpg (23.99 KB, 327x400, 327:400, 1501367209195.jpg)

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



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



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



>Orthodox Jewish communities, or Israelis?

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


File: 3af055dfbeef0fc⋯.gif (40.51 KB, 645x773, 645:773, 1548095064313.gif)


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 /pol/yp has lost all connection to reality, he prefers his persecution fantasies.

Example, from the interviews:

>"I am not particularly sorry because of what the Germans did to the Jews. I feel Jews would do the same type of thing to me."

Meaning, according to Adorno:

>The persecution fantasy of what the Jews might do to her, is used, in authentic paranoid style, as a justification of the genocide committed by the Nazis.

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:

>[These] are symptoms which can hardly be explained by the mechanisms of neurosis; and at the same time, the anti-Semitic individual as such, the potentially fascist character, is certainly not a psychotic.

>An entirely irrational symptom which nevertheless does not appear to affect the "normality" of those who show the symptom.

(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:"

>[they] regularly allege that they can recognize Jews at once. This is the most drastic expression of the "orientation" mechanism which we have seen to be so essential a feature of the prejudiced outlook. At the same time, it can frequently be observed that the actual variety of Jews, which could hardly escape notice, leads to a high amount of vagueness with regard to the criteria according to which Jews might be spotted; this vagueness does not, however, interfere with the definiteness of the spotter's claim.

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.


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.



>there is no point to studying what leads workers to place reactionary idealism over their material class interests



File: 17c13db8a9911d4⋯.png (104.46 KB, 252x224, 9:8, 17c13db8a9911d4a1ce9d34e64….png)


>Reminder that Freudianism is unscientific bullshit

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.

>the Frankfurt School projecting their own neuroses onto the wider population

If you've read the actual thread, you'd know by now that this is objectively not the case.

>Did they ever apply any of this analysis to Orthodox Jewish communities, or Israelis?

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?


>Do you think zizek originated the Base and Superstructure concept



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?


>there is almost no point in trying to study reaction

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.


>Do we have any comments on how the alt-right innovates on the pathology of the authoritarian personality?

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.

>Are there ways in which the current right is different than the right of the past?

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.

>It would be interesting to have some discussion on that.

Here you go...

(may I finish with this shit?)



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.


File: 7a8c30339226d91⋯.jpg (27.92 KB, 604x516, 151:129, 1548552042572-2.jpg)


>(may I finish with this shit?)

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.


File: 8129424991dc6f7⋯.jpg (135.23 KB, 1236x1896, 103:158, c0fioyhb8j1z.jpg)


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 /pol/yp, 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.)


File: 8a8394d92df35e7⋯.jpg (35.37 KB, 650x488, 325:244, 4be3c90eekk01.jpg)


Now, Adorno questions the main structuring causation behind the rather ubiquitous link between personal psychology, social ideology, and the "actually existent:"

>We do not pretend that psychology is the cause and ideology the effect. But we try to interrelate both as intimately as possible, guided by the assumption that ideological irrationalities just as other irrationalities of overt human behavior are concomitant with unconscious psychological conflicts. […] The data discussed so far permit at least the assumption that personality could be regarded as one determinant of ideology. [Another possible determinant may be] our general cultural climate, and particularly the ideological influence upon the people of most media for moulding public opinion, our cultural climate as standardized under the impact of social control and technological concentration to an extent never known before[.] These personalities may, indeed, be the product of this very same standardization to a much higher degree than a naive observer is led to believe.

Commenting, that

>the ultimate reason for this ignorance might well be the opaqueness of the social, economic, and political situation to all those who are not in full command of all the resources of stored knowledge and theoretical thinking. In its present phase, our social system tends objectively and automatically to produce "curtains" which make it impossible for the naive person really to see what it is all about.

So he lists two "aspects" (for anglos: reasons/causers for) political ignorance:

>1) "intelligent" today means largely to look after one's self, to take care of one's advantages whereas, to use Veblen's words, "idle curiosity" is discouraged. Since the pertinence of economic and political matters to private existence, however, is largely obscured to the population even now, they do not bother about things which apparently have little bearing on their fate[.]


>2) Political news and comment [etc.] is generally absorbed during leisure time and falls, in a certain way, within the framework of "entertainment."Politics is viewed in much the same way as sport or the movies, not as something directly involved with one's own participation in the process of production. Viewed within this frame of reference, however, politics is necessarily "disappointing." [They regard] regards politics somehow as a dirty business with which a respectable person should have but little to do. Disappointment in politics as a leisure-time activity which pays no quick returns probably makes for indifference, and it is quite possible that the prevailing ignorance is due not merely to unfamiliarity with the facts but also a kind of resistance against what is supposed to serve as a pastime and mostly tends to be disagreeable.


File: cbd452ddfb10514⋯.jpg (9.58 KB, 480x360, 4:3, cbd452ddfb105149ab21209b69….jpg)


He concludes, that the authoritarian faggot, in order to conclude, that he

>understand[s] the "ununderstandable," paradoxical in itself,

He must

>utilize a paradoxical solution,

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"

>continuously serves as an obstacle to the reality principle, although both also function as mean of adjustment. When transformed into character traits, the mechanisms involved make more and more for irrationality.

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:

>personalization [is the tendency to describe objective social and economic processes, political programs, internal and external tensions in terms of some person identified with the case in question rather than taking the trouble to perform the impersonal intellectual operations required by the abstractness of the social processes themselves.]

Though, they share a common trait:

>Both stereotypy and personalization are inadequate to reality: stereotypy misses reality in so far as it dodges the concrete and contents itself with preconceived, rigid, and overgeneralized ideas to which the individual attributes a kind of magical omnipotence. Conversely, personalization dodges the real abstractness, that is to say, the "reification" of a social reality which is determined by property relations and in which the human beings themselves are, as it were, mere appendages [marginális]. Stereotypy and personalization are two divergent parts of an actually non-experienced world, parts which are not only irreconcilable with each other, but which also do not allow for any addition which would reconstruct the picture of the real.


File: d1c6b1d9f6ce08c⋯.jpeg (6.65 KB, 225x225, 1:1, 1324.jpeg)

File: 78630738e0a014a⋯.jpg (108.67 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 02-donald-trump.w700.h700.jpg)


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.





I spent some time as a /pol/lack 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 /pol/lacks 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.


File: a28711fdfc1af17⋯.png (67.38 KB, 616x596, 154:149, a28711fdfc1af176727789214b….png)

(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: >>2802055


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.


>[somehow decided] majority rules over minority

>[this and that way legitimized] power

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.


File: 5539a6a6b1307ab⋯.png (649.26 KB, 1103x562, 1103:562, 151251.png)


>If you're willing to believe that /pol/lacks 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.

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.


>dude fascism exists because daddy complex

does it get any more undialectical?



We should make a poll to know if the board it's still mostly composed of ex /pol/yps



read the thread



do you get any more gay?



>make a /pol/

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.


File: 3d585f745c9e36b⋯.jpg (41.21 KB, 620x336, 155:84, 3d585f745c9e36bc174e15aa26….jpg)


>democracy creates the nazi



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

>In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.



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



>Marx got it right

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.


Is communism an inherently authoritarian perspective?



>You see the /pol/yp as being exactly what you want and need him to be. You have no means of invalidating his viewpoint, due to how widely your values diverge, so you mock him, like a sports fan who doesn't know the rules to the game he is watching mocks the opposition. Because you don't need to understand him or the game to understand that he is not on your side.

<personalization [is the tendency to describe objective social and economic processes, political programs, internal and external tensions in terms of some person identified with the case in question rather than taking the trouble to perform the impersonal intellectual operations required by the abstractness of the social processes themselves.]


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


Authoritarian personality is schizophrenia.


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.


>Authoritarian buzzword

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.





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.




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



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.



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.



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



>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.

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.


File: 84df9d9a8be4233⋯.jpg (16.64 KB, 300x233, 300:233, the-authoritarians-cd-audi….jpg)

File: 5755d015a719587⋯.jpg (16.92 KB, 333x499, 333:499, 41NVKNO-I9L._SX331_BO1,204….jpg)

Cool thread, but I feel The Authoritarians also belongs here.


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.



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.


>the authoritarian personality

You mean a leftypol mod and all the communists here?



reported gulag'd and killed for bein gay by castro


Reminder that if you take Adorno seriously you need to kill Homosexuals because they will become Fascists.



You can't pick and choose.


Basically you reviewed a book written by psychopathic jews that excuses their fucked up behavior.

Blame externalization is one of the criteria for psychopaths. Jews always blame the goyim and call it antisemitism.

>it wasn't us! it was those antisemitic goyim! they are jealous of the jewish master race!



File: b344f7cdbfb460b⋯.jpg (1.54 MB, 2898x2928, 483:488, ap070308060477.jpg)


jews are the coolest race on earth



She looks smoking hot if you get what I mean.


File: 2967f3ba9c2a1f0⋯.jpg (69.41 KB, 554x605, 554:605, 1536174294291.jpg)

File: 98e7b55e0e905d8⋯.gif (666.13 KB, 320x240, 4:3, 1470183025480.gif)


she looks like the happy merchant in this photo, pretty cute


>Read: if the /pol/tard'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.

If whites are clannish the Jewish media cries about it.

Go ahead op turn on your TV.

If the jews own the media and use it bash another race that's OK.

Op are you a jew using blame externalization to justify the uncommunistic activities of clannish jews?



based fidel







/pol/ damage control has arrived



nah, i'm a poster here, never visited /pol/ regularly, i just think she cute


Not gonna lie she *is* pretty cute :3


File: efac011c54ed245⋯.jpg (171.31 KB, 634x698, 317:349, 0053BEBA00000258-0-image-a….jpg)


*was* sadly


File: 5c574ea48587fa8⋯.jpg (29.34 KB, 720x558, 40:31, drunken_idiot.jpg)

Pretty neat format, don't quite like the content of the book but I do appreciate your effort. I'd like to see more shit lke this, maybe I'll even consider doing one myself



>"fascist personality" is the "democratic personality" taken to its logical conclusion

Wow, what a helpful and enlightening thought. So it turns out that ALL POLITICS is fascist! All we have to do to overcome fascism is to overcome difference itself, become a pure hive mind in which disagreement (and therefore fascism) is impossible.

Brilliant, astounding take, I'm literally applauding right now



Good job reiterating right wing memes offering no new insight and just dressing it up with memes. Ooga booga, outgroup bad, ingroup good. You've made no argument, you never asked yourself why, just nothing but nanometer deep hot takes. They're cold get some new ones. You also completely misunderstand abstraction.



could you get to the point faster next time?



>muh instinct

There's no logical or rational reason to follow any of that. You can claim self-preservation, but again there is no objective reason for doing so.

There is literally nothing mystical or special about life, humanity, or whatever.



they aren't commies so fuck em still tbh


>start theory thread

>this is the result

I need to get used to this. I know… many of you word your support and interest, still… even though I've been here from the start, I'll never quite get used to this shit.


Please do.



This thread is genuinely a great work Anon. I'm gonna read this tonight. I wish I could bless you somehow.


File: bd7286222ba6621⋯.jpg (35.77 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-intolerance-of-ambig….jpg)


File: e09f6d6fc2cbdac⋯.pdf (2.05 MB, The Reactionary Mind_ Cons….pdf)


Here u go


Kind of wish you did away with all the "ahaha faggot" meme, it's kind of embarrassing to share that thread with people who aren't plagued by edgy chan mentality.



chan culture it's an acquired taste, we probably have the same opinions as some prude ass socialist subreddit somewhere but they will always be kept away by the faggot, nigger and even retard words


File: 41f729a730a2b67⋯.jpg (159.15 KB, 960x960, 1:1, m19td3acx9d21.jpg)


My opportunity to shill has arrived




Lol even stupidpol gets joke policing every now and then, those get average upvotes tho. Another problem i've noticed about stupidpol it's it attracts lots of simple right wingers, and of course it's hard as fuck to tell. As long as the subreddit stays left and shits on idpol it may become r/chapotraphouse in their best days.



Literally brainlet-tier criticism. This shows the empirical signs of fascism but it's clear as fucking day it's caused by economic & cultural situations.



>acquired taste

Sorry, I've been browsing imageboards for probably longer than you and I never found it very funny and nowadays I find it rather unsavoury. Call me a prude if you want, I really don't give a fuck but this thread (& most imageboards) is very off-putting while there is (for once) substantial content that might be of interest for other people.



I don't particularly find all instances of slurs funny either, i'm just saying it's this type of banter that people will definitely need to get used to in order to barely have a conversation in the most popular boards(not all)



I'm going to ruin the ending for you : no serious people will ever want to have a conversation on leftypol or 4chan, in spite of the tremendous potential represented by imageboards for delivery of speech, exchange etc.

Wanting non-autistic people to adapt to reading "nigger" and "faggot" every other line because of "muh folklore" is pure delusion and will never really change (by changing, I mean improving) the demographics.


Dice rollRolled 4 + 5 (1d4)


sanitizing speech in hopes that it will raise the quality of discussion is pure delusion, as well. the more curated a discussion venue is, the less room for dissension there is, it's as simple as that. the best you can do is respect the spirit of the board and simply ignore posts that contain "nigger", "faggot" and other thoughtful epithets of the sort and contribute to the part of the discussion you find relevant, otherwise you're simply contributing to censorship you agree with. though I guess that goes well with the spirit of communism, dunnit. :o)



I think we agree on everything, except in how imageboards will be seen in the future. I think it would take literally nothing for any relatively well known person to make a thread that doesn't go to shit, i've seen it happening with small youtubers, all you need it's mods that aren't shit. As for discussion in general, /marx/ it's good, no?



I don't expect people to actually heed my advice though. I'm just saying it's a bit of a shame I can't send the thread to my friends because of pointless edgy slurs. I don't expect really people here to take a step back and acknowledge a few basic things. Resorting to "muh censorship" sophistry is pretty much the lowest thing you could have done and you did go for it. Congratulations, but it's not censorship or "sanitizing speech". You can keep spouting nigger & faggot all day for all I care. Just saying this somewhat good thread will never really find any use outside of a handful of people here. Maybe OP is fine about that after all?

>Spirit of the board

Suck my dick please. There's not a single atom of wit or identity to it, it's medium-school tier stuff. At least be honest with yourself for five minutes.



By thread you mean board? There are regional, non-english speaking imageboards that do okayish and survive because they are obscure/have a strong local identity/high standards for quality. All of which really feed into each other. Polite sage for derailing the thread.



No, i meant thread, your description of a well functioning board it's accurate. I'm tired let's leave it as you winning i guess


Dice rollRolled 1 + 5 (1d4)


you're the one moaning about how things you see for free on the internet aren't neatly packaged for convenient redistribution. if you like the ideas, reformat them and share them. nobody is claiming ownership to anything here, so I don't see why you're being such a colossal faggot about it. be glad some niggers on the internet decided to open a board where anyone can say anything and someone said something worthwhile that you feel like sharing. jesus.


it's liberated online space. laypeople aren't going to just wander in here and you'll never attract them. you're going to run into disagreeable posters and opinions within it. you might see a swear word sometimes. it is what it is

it'll take you like two seconds to scrub out the cultural 4chanism and repackage the useful information for your wholesome pupper friends. really not that big of a deal



you are dumb



>dumbass things

>materialistic wealth



>culture, genetics and language

How come then that people with the same language, culture and genetics were constantly on each others throat, doesn't that go against your autistic MUH TRIBE play?

Also you seem to be a bit retarded and lack reading comprehension, you mongrels see "strong and healthy and tight knit" as BAD when thinking about outside groups, but only a good thing when it's related to your own group.

Like for example you will suck the cock of every "white" man who is in a position of power just because he is white, no matter how shit your life gets because of it, while when someone of another group gets there, you will cry foul play and nepotism.

Though not sure what's the point of telling any of this to you, because YOUR group is just a bunch of internet retards, you don't even have any culture or tradition to defend you faggot.


>1945 + 74

>still living rent free in the heads of the jews


the Holocaust didn't happen but it will totally happen again.



What DO you consider a tribe, your home village or your home nation?

Or all those that have the same language/culture/traditions as you?

>Fail morally/ideologically etc…

So you will be alright with your fellow white if he exploits others of your tribe, as long as he doesn't bring in more muslims?

>Cultural marxism

Please could you explain to me what "cultural marxism" is.


Why should a working class joe feel kinship with his parasite boss that forces him to work overtime?



>the Holocaust didn't happen but it will totally happen again.

This sentence is hilarious.


i'm glad i'm not white so i don't have to constantly fight the ever looming spectre of muh tribe


File: d50dc40a3547780⋯.webm (7.7 MB, 394x222, 197:111, squatopia_.webm)

Having read further, allow me to continue my TL;DR…

On the anti-union mentality of the Fs:


>They regard the pressure exercised by organized labor as illegitimate in a way comparable to organized crime and conspiracy – the latter being one of the high scorers' [on the fascist scale] favorite topics anyway. To them, whose moralism has been emphasized from time to time in this book, the concept of the free market coincides with the moral law, and any factors which introduce, as it were, an extra-economic element into the business sphere are regarded by them as irregular. Incidentally [lol], this suspicion does not pertain to industrial monopolies and their pricing agreements but merely to the supposedly monopolistic structure of unions. Here again the idea of "legitimacy" – of identification with the strong – comes into play. Industrial combines seem, according to this kind of thinking, to be the outgrowth of a "natural" tendency, labor organizations a banding together of people who want to get more than their due share. […] It is our general assumption that the typical high scorers, above all, fear the father and try to side with him in order to participate in his power. The "racketeers" [union members] are those who by demanding too much (though the subject wants as much himself[!]) run the risk of arousing the father's anger – and hence the subject's castration anxiety. This anxiety, reflecting the subject's own guilt feelings, is relieved by projection. Thinking in terms of in- and outgroup, the high scorer who wants to "outgroup" the others is continuously prone to call them the ingroup. The more he tends himself, on account of his pretense to "status," to circumvent the "normal" channels of free competition, the more he is likely to blame those he deems weak for the very same thing. Workers become "racketeers," criminals to him as soon as they organize.

le identifying_with_elon_musk.jpg

>It is as if the American kind of utopia was still much more that of the shoeshine boy who becomes a railroad king, than that of a world without poverty. The dream of unrestricted happiness has found its refuge, one might almost say its sole refuge, in the somewhat infantile fantasy of infinite wealth to be gathered by the individual. It goes without saying that this dream works in favor of the status quo; that the identification of the individual with the tycoon, in terms of the chance to become one himself, helps to perpetuate big business control.


File: 047c7dce0d89f58⋯.jpg (133.3 KB, 748x781, 68:71, 047c7dce0d89f585be90f9456e….jpg)


This is the hilarious part. Adorno's take on the interview material, when looking at the anti-communist tendencies of not just "high-scorers" (fascists) but medium-to-low ones (liberals, "genuine conservatives," etc.).


(Interview material in red:)

>The complex, Russia, is closely associated with the complex of communism in the minds of our subjects. This is all -the more the case since communism has ceased to be in the public mind an entirely new form of society, based on a complete break in the economic setup, and has become bluntly identified with the Russian government and Russian influence on international politics. Hardly any reference to the basic issue of nationalization of the means of production as a part of the communist program has been found in our sample-a negative result which is significant enough with regard to the historical dynamics to which the concept of communism has been subjected during the · last two decades.

>Among the high scorers the only feature of the old idea that seems to have survived is the "bogey" of communism. The more the latter concept is emptied of any specific content, the more it is being transformed into a receptacle for all kinds of hostile projections, many of them on an infantile level somehow reminiscent of the presentation of evil forces in comic strips. Practically all features of "high" thinking are absorbed by this imagery. The vagueness of the notion of communism, which makes it an unknown and inscrutable quantity, may even contribute to the negative affects attached to it.

>Among the crudest expressions of these feelings is that of our insect toxicologist M w8, by whom the problem of communism is stated in terms of plain ethnocentrism:

<(Why is he against communism?) "Well, it is foreign. Socialism, o.k. – you respect a man who is a socialist but a communist comes from a foreign country and he has no business here."

>[Interviewee no. F111], who scores [mid-tier on the fascist-scale] is a young girl who wants to become a diplomat because she is "mad at England and Russia." Her idea of communism has an involuntarily parodistic ring:

<(Political outgroups? ) "Fascists and communists. I don't like the totalitarian ideas of the fascists, the centralization of the communists. In Russia nothing is private, everything goes to one man. They have violent ways of doing things.

>To the mind of this woman, the idea of political dictatorship has turned into the bogey of a kind of economic supra-individualism, just as if Stalin claimed ownership of her typewriter.

[literally: toothbrush counter-argument from Adorno]




[anti-communism cont.]

>By a similarly irrational twist, another high scorer, Jl664B, an uneducated and unintelligent sex offender of the San Quentin group [they made research in jails, too]''' simply associates communism with the danger of war:

<"If labor keeps getting more power, we'll be like Russia. That's what causes wars."

>The complete irrationality, not to say idiocy, of the last three examples shows what vast psychological resources fascist propaganda can rely on when denouncing a more or less imaginary communism without taking the trouble to discuss any real political or economic issues.


>Low scorers are not immune in this respect. Thus the low-scoring student-minister who is of the following opinion:

<( How do you feel about Russia's government? ) "I think there is very little difference between fascism and communism as it's practiced in Russia. The 1936 Constitution is a marvelous document. I think it's five hundred years ahead of our Constitution because it guarantees social rights instead of individual rights but when man hasn't any rights except as a member of the Communist Party…. I think it's capitalistic. . . . ( What is the nature of your objections to Russia?) Well, first of all, I think it was Russia that carried the ball in entering this veto power into the UNO which I think will be the death of the thing right now …. Russia has got the things right where she wants them. We think we're the leaders but we fool ourselves . . . . " (Subject objects strongly to deceitful diplomacy.)

>High scorers [fascistic people] who make less intellectual effort simply find communism not individualistic enough. The standard phraseology they employ contrasts nicely with the belief in spiritual independence which they profess. We quote as an example [interviewee F106], a high scorer of the Public Speaking Class group, a young teacher:

<(Political outgroups?) "Communists have some good ideas but I don't think too much of them. They don't give the individuals enough mind of their own."

>Sometimes the identification of communism and fascism is accompanied by paranoid twists in the Elders of Zion style. M345, our radar field engineer:

<(What do you think of the P.A.C.? ) "Never found any definite information on the C.I.O… but… C.I.O. seems the agency to tum international, certainly has got all the earmarks, not because of being labor union, but just because of the way they compare." (Subject compares communism to Hitler in Mein Kampf, telling exactly what planned to do and how, and then doing it. ) "C.I.O. has followed the lines of action very similar to pronounced policies of Comintern – even their name, Congress for Industrial Workers; not much faith in the communists succeeding. Their aim is tight little control of their own group."

>[We see the] mix-up of Comintern, CIO, and Mein Kampf is the appropriate climate for panic, and subsequent violent action.


File: 276be070573d0e1⋯.jpg (20.19 KB, 500x281, 500:281, 1548014926787.jpg)


>But this climate by no means prevails. There is one quite frequently noted way of dealing with the problem of communism which safeguards the aspects of detached objectivity while allowing for good-natured rejection. It reminds one of the story of the boy who, when offered some very sour dish and asked whether he liked it answered: "Excellent – when I'll be grown up." Communism is a good thing for the others, particularly for "those foreigners," from whom it has been imported anyway. This technique is employed by both high and low scorers. [Interviewee 5008], the liberal-minded Jefferson descendant:

<"The communists may be able to do something in the Soviet Union, but they would utterly fail here."

>[M115], the low-scoring fraternity man, the argument has a noticeable taint of contempt for the have-nots. This is the man who wants “none of this Marxian stuff.”

<"… but in poorer countries, like in Russia, Germany, etc., it's necessary in some modified form; but not in America. We have too much here already, that is we are too developed already."

>The subject is not struck by the idea that a collectivistic economy might be easier in an industrially highly advanced, mature country, rather than more difficult. To him, communism is simply identified with enhancement of material productive powers through more efficient organization. He seems to be afraid of overproduction as if this concept would still make sense in an economy no longer dependent upon the contingencies of the market.

>Even the extreme low scorer [M1206a], of the Maritime School group, who believes that America will eventually become a socialistic country,

<thinks that Russia has a wonderful system of government – for Russia – "though I don't think we could transplant its system to this country… though we should watch her and get ideas to build our own country better."

>In this case the argument is mitigated by an element of thoughtfulness which is in accordance with the stand taken by this subj ect with regard to the Communist Party in this country:

<"Well, I don't know a great deal about it. I believe that if a man wants to be a communist, that's not only his privilege, but his duty… to try and convince as many people as he can…” (Subject objects vigorously to red-baiting tactics.) “I think that Russia will be the most democratic country in the world in time… Joe has been a little ruthless at times, but…

>Sometimes the argument is fused with the idea that socialism would not be "practical," for purely economic reasons which are mostly taken from the very sphere of a profit system which is supposed to be replaced under socialism by an economic organization molded after the needs of the population. [F359], the previously quoted high-scoring accountant in a government department: <Subject thinks that communism is all right for Russia, but not for this country, although the trend seems to be more and more that way. She believes in private ownership of property and the private enterprise system. She considers it more efficient. She is not so sure about government ownership of public utilities such as water, etc. She thinks that they probably operate better under private ownership, that the costs are lower.




<Subject thinks that communism is all right for Russia, but not for this country, although the trend seems to be more and more that way. She believes in private ownership of property and the private enterprise system. She considers it more efficient. She is not so sure about government ownership of public utilities such as water, etc. She thinks that they probably operate better under private ownership, that the costs are lower.


File: 6de292f691931df⋯.png (155.16 KB, 527x331, 527:331, 1.png)


<"We can cooperate with Russia ; if they want communism they have to have it."

>This type of liberal approach, of which, incidentally, the Hitler regime profited during the whole Chamberlain era of noninterference, is not as broad-minded as it may appear. It often hides the conviction that there is no objective truth in politics, that every country, as every individual, may behave as it likes and that the only thing that counts is success. It is precisely this pragmatization of politics which ultimately defines fascist philosophy.

>Obviously, the relationship between anticommunism and fascist potential as measured by our scales should not be oversimplified. In some of our earlier studies the correlation between antisemitism and anticommunism was very high, but there is reason to believe that it would not be so high today, not, at least, at the surface level. During the last several years all the propaganda machinery of the country has been devoted to promoting anticommunist feeling in the sense of an irrational "scare" and there are probably not many people, except followers of the "party line," who have been able to resist the incessant ideological pressure. At the same time, during the past two or three years it may have become more "conventional" to be overtly opposed to Antisemitism, if the large number of magazine articles, books, and films with wide circulation can be regarded as symptomatic of a trend. The underlying character structure has little bearing on such fluctuations. If they could be ascertained, they would demonstrate the extreme importance of propaganda in political matters.

My reflections on the so far discussed material:

What fascinates me (and thus the detailed quotation above) is that how fascist personalities naturally fuse together the image of "Russia" and "communism." I'm reminded by Michael Parenti's article, Left Anticommunism: The Unkindest Cut, how Chomsky & co. has the same operation in mind. For Chomsky, rather than being a singular Marxist response to the really existing conditions of contemporary Russia, the USSR was a kind of "red.fascism." – the mirror image of Nazi Germany. These – our, mind you – left intellectuals conflate the two vigorously, just like those in the interview material who were obviously fascists. For Chomsky (or, for Boogching) "Russia", and I'm paraphrasing, "has set back the communist project for decades [by the example it has shown]."

Since Zizek's criticisms of the former, it is quite natural to look at said gentlemen as morons who conflate ideas (their own idealism) with really existing conditions (the concrete world). Yes, obviously, as it has been shown by (radical and liberal) commentators and critics of Russia, the conditions inside the USSR were sub-par. But, and we should never fail to highlight this, these "red-libs" intentionally or subconsciously conflate the "really existing socialist system" with "Marxism/communism" as such.

I'm thinking about such travesties: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxhT9EVj9Kk

What a fucking shame. Here, Chomskers operates on the same level as the regular fascist: "What happened in Russia is bad according to my ideals, mkay?" … We should never forget that communism is not an abstract ideal applied to conditions, but a concrete movement to abolish the existent.

TL;DR: in this sense: Chomsky=fascists.


File: 3e21a6986e93683⋯.jpg (435.41 KB, 655x867, 655:867, 1446048380945-1.jpg)


I take this criticism semi-seriously. Yes, of course, the Oedipal-complex is, in a sense, out-dated, but still... 99% of people participating in this thread have been brought up in an atomized family structure, and their psychic economy reflects that. To say that "lol, this is all just a sham" is ridiculous. Instead, we, as communists, should go on, on the one hand, in criticizing the family structure, and on the other, to offer alternatives (Paul DickBlast's commune arrangement in TaNS, for example.) Denying the facts will not move us any further. We MUST face reality, its consequences, and comment upon them. Suck my dick, to say it in an other way...


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

HURR. Communists are against ALL kinds of authoritarian configurations, be it democratic (the majority rules over the minority), or oligarchic (the minority rules over the majority).

>The scale ends up painting any adaptive group behavior as pathological and bad.


You are somewhat justified in your use of the term "adaptive" -- but this latter begs the question: adaptive to what? For you, I guess, it means "human nature". The Marxist criticism of this is that you guys [looks at flag] is biologically determined. For us, Marxists, it is not so. We have readily available socio-historical narratives and criticisms to counter yours. Feel free to ask for them.

>you are describing nigh every single group that has ever existed

First of all, it is not "me," since I'm giving a TL;DR of a 900+ page book I'm in the process of reading. (No denying: I agree with its conclusions.) Second, the latter part of your claim is not true. Anthropologists would gladly comment upon your (implied) claim that

<war is human nature


Which are simply not true.

>Why, for instance, would you use imagery to, presumably, mock /pol/yps when talking about them?

While I get that from a /pol/yp perspective this thread reads as "mocking," I'd like to say that these findings HEAVILY correlate to our (commies) experience: daddy (read, now: Trump) worshipping faggots, etc.

>By what mechanism does this quote not apply to you and the authors of TAP?

See above.

>You see the /pol/yp as being exactly what you want and need him to be.

We see pol/yp/'s not exactly how "they are" -- which, arguably, is not even accessible to the /pol/yp itself -- but in his symptomatic behavior.


Yes. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm


No. Read latter half of thread.


Adorno alludes several times to the parallels between an under-socialized fascist and the regular (clinically diagnosed) psychotic, yet he carefully distinguishes between the two, while drawing the similarities.



File: cf8ad6212b51901⋯.jpg (95.4 KB, 515x419, 515:419, diagnose.jpg)


>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.

I mean, obviously… They actually did conduct these tests, and they did strive for "scientific neutrality." Your "Sonic" bullshit falls apart immediately when you take this fact into account.

>we are doing is constructing a mythology that conforms to our own perceptions

May I point out how you (looking at your posting flag) are 110% postmodernist in this matter?

<LAOL, all truths are narratives

No. No, they are not. Truths transcend our "daily world." They are true whether we like them or not, and so on.

>pomo nazi

>"the hypothesis that what [anti-semitic] people say against [Jews] depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual characteristics of [Jews.]"

FYI: there are literally hundred-thousands of working class Jews, as opposed to capitalists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj7iRwzX-A0 [LOUD WARNING]




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



<3000+ likes


File: bb87fb78a44a4ae⋯.png (609.92 KB, 1818x989, 1818:989, badiou_democracy_lenin.png)


>Yes I do want to fuck with farm animals. Literally big farm animals like horses and cows.



>You actually believe majority rule describes any currently existing country?

No, let me 'pontificate'. What I believe is the following: concretely, historically speaking "democracy" has never been anything but a controversy, a paradox. Democracy tells "one narrative" of itself, while it has always kept on doing "another." I do not posit this as something from the "outside" interfering with the "true nature of democracy," but as its inner tensions, its essence. For me, democracy is this very paradox: "a system that says one thing about itself, while undermining the former in the process."

Mind you, as a communist, I'm in no way against the populous. What I'm critiquing is the very way "democracy" invites the inhabitants to organize themselves. For a proper communist "democracy" is another way of unjustified rule. For me, as somewhat of a neo-Leninist, the 1936' Stalin constitution is a travesty of sorts: instead of bringing about a new kind of "man," it falls back to enlightenment- – worse – Roman-era fictions of "The Legal Person."

For a communist the goal is much, much more complex: "how to go beyond this shit?!"


File: de715f308913ceb⋯.png (239.19 KB, 996x318, 166:53, 1.png)


>Yes, I know I'm veering close to the old naturalistic fallacies of the very reactionaries I am criticizing, and I don't care.

<Marx, Engels, Lenin contra mechanistic materialism


>their tendency towards social Darwinism

*Social Darwinism


Cry me a river.


Noice memes, and shiet, but there's no denying that inside nazi/macho-culture there's a deeply seated and repressed homosexuality. I'm speaking from experience. Go to a gay-bar: people tell you that they are gay, and that they want to fuck you. Go to a "macho-right-wing" bar: they tell you that you need to fit in and show your dick-size. It's ridiculous.


>le le le



>le le le



>If whites are clannish the Jewish media cries about it.

Read the fucking thread, you idiot. The question at hand is this very form of ideological "ingroup/outgroup." What you are saying here perfectly portrays what these gentlemen have written a book about.


Let me know if the following characterization is wrong, but you are saying the following

>democracy = politics

... I beg to differ.

>All we have to do to overcome fascism is to overcome difference itself,

This attempted ironic statement of yours says more about contemporary democracy than you'd like to admit. My opinion is this: the very differentiation principle today that governs social thinking is the very same process that individuates all of us. We literally can't "overcome" the inherent fascism to democracy by "celebrating multiculturalism," and so on. Democracy is, and will continue to be an authoritarian governmental policy. To be able to live free and happily among your Neighbors, we'll need a kind of authority dictated by the community itself, instead of "daddy."


>Go read Reactionary writers

<Go read openly retarded people

>There is a demonstrable evolutionary fitness benefit in the modern world for "conservatives"

<Measuring arguments by their effects.


File: 924b03d37acc979⋯.png (78.81 KB, 310x188, 155:94, 1.png)


Denk u.


But then again, who is not plagued by it?




I have no idea what you are talking about, to be honest with you. I can tell you the following obvious fact that communists do not think in terms of "tribes" and "healthy people" as you do. We think in socio-economic structures and trends. Feel free to ask questions, you absolute retard.


>for ones tribe



>unity withing your tribe


You are literally interchanging concrete class-based facts for your feels, the latter tying you to a sympathy towards the ruling class. Good job!


>different levels of my tribe, the smallest one however is my family.

I mean, honestly, read a fucking book. The "family unit" wasn't always a "fact of life." For the longest period in the history of Homo Sapiens the "family unit" did not exist. You are talking about currently existing socio-economic dynamics without understanding their overall function in the production process that is capitalism. Educate your fucking self, you 'tard.


File: 8c195b6f09ff973⋯.png (144.44 KB, 552x190, 276:95, i'm gonna need three guns ….png)


btw, read:





>Democracy tells "one narrative" of itself, while it has always kept on doing "another."

Suppose I'm vegan and also a millionaire so I can afford vegan chocolate every day. But it then turns out that my favorite chocolate with "vegan" label has always been made with cow milk instead of more expensive specifically vegan ingredients that create a similar taste. Being a Frankfurt-School intellectual with over 9000 CIA-sponsored scholarships, I can't resist making the following comment:

<Chocolate tells "one narrative" of itself, while it has always kept on doing "another."

Do you think this is a profound insight or is it rather pretentious twaddle that avoids naming actors, hmmm?



>f you don't think reproductive success is a valid enough value to place on top of all values please help me understand why.

So Muslims should be at the top of the social hierarchy because they have more children on average? Fucking kill yourself brainlet.



>Frankfurt-School intellectual with over 9000 CIA-sponsored scholarships

Why the FUCK would the CIA support intellectuals that aim at overthrowing them?

Regarding my comment on democracy: you literally sidestep my points, as the good slave you are. Please, try to address my actual points instead of taking the coward's road, you absolute shit.







Replace jewz with porky for all your sentences and you got your own outlook. Also why did you post so many selfies of yourself?



ok this may sound simple and you've been told this since your inception but there's capitalists in every race. jews get the bullet too, just like your great grand papa that was a capitalist we will bring him back from the dead to beat the shit out of him




traditional values can only survive in communism you faggot lol


File: 8234bde3483767a⋯.jpg (139.54 KB, 710x473, 710:473, 150b96470f4c5259e9477ee2c1….jpg)

File: 52ab49c9a815c91⋯.jpg (1.11 MB, 2199x1663, 2199:1663, nikolai-suetins-crypto-sup….jpg)

File: 8da2e93897fc12a⋯.jpeg (3.89 MB, 2328x3596, 582:899, 8da2e93897fc12a6c1dc1df33….jpeg)

I have stuff to do tomorrow, but I had to respond to this.


Stop playing hopscotch around and making mudpie appeals with the actual, by definition, reactionary.


If there is one thing worse then an apologist for capitalism, its an apologist for capitalism that cloaks his apologism in appeals to "tradition" and claims them to be "healthy" ideas.

>"Oh, but were not defending it, were just restraining until the alternative comes XD"

Fucking horseshit. The alternative is here, its just you turn up your nose up at it because you fear the loss of a past you never had. The reality is that you're wrapped up in this idea of antiquated obsolete lifestyles and "proper" human living that you refuse to take action that would progress humanity forward in any meaningful way. You cling to the past and make appeals to your loins as if history cares for your crotchfruit and the vaginal egg machines you wish would fertilize and gestate more of them. If the idea of producing lots of children is what captivates you so much, you're free to jack off into a test-tube and cultivate them in a lab for all I care. You know what I can at least somewhat respect about Landian types? They don't play this game you do here, where you fantasize about how humans should "properly" live and insert this idea of a past ruined. They realize history is moving, that technology is moving, that the antiquated lifestyles of the past can never be brought back and are but a fleeting moment that is crushed under the gears of history. They may accept capitalism like you do, but at least they don't squabble back under gears. They believe there is no stopping, and so push gears ever more forward. They may push it off a cliff, because Accelerationism is like giving yourself more of a cold when your sick, but at they very least they maintain their singleness of purpose throughout the ordeal and they don't fetishize the primitive patty-cake you do. People like you have no place in the discussion, because people like you are destined to pressed into lubricant by inevitability. There is no historical necessity for you, no way forward into the next stage of development, no truly absolute driving force, and so the only thing really left for you is to be left behind or pressed under the foot of those who see what needs to be done. All your moralist and humanist appeals are is dead weight, and so are you.



>healthy ideas


>You have not read reactionary works

like you have read any marxist works



You realize that the amish setting is literally a commune right? That their communal setting is exactly why their traditionalist movement survives?




I don't know who is more cringy, you or that nazi


File: e809d320319d7fb⋯.png (347.14 KB, 724x723, 724:723, bn1swd5xsfez.png)


>You are so intellectually sheltered and cowardly that you would rather read outdated self-contradicting projections of paranoid schizophrenics using discredited means to hyperventilate about the mystical "authoritarian"

Now this is a loaded package, so allow me to separate it into different parts so as to counter the basic constituents of your arguments.

First of all, the researchers in OP's book did in fact interview and poll people in "mental asylums" of the time, and their basic finding was: there's no difference in psychotics (with your term: "paranoid schizophrenics") and neurotics ([probably] your term: "normal people"), which is to say that regardless of how you are 'built' psychologically, the authoritarian patterns are the same throughout the scale.

Second, your claim that somehow the findings of said book are "outdated." Compared to what? What other approach can you bring up that gave us such a detailed and rich account of fascism?

Third, you call me a "sheltered and cowardly" [whatever]. Honestly, if this thread is not proof that I take reading, self-educating seriously, I don't know what is.

Fourth, you call the book "discredited" – by whom? According to the wiki it was attacked by a conservative and a liberal author. This is a communist board. Maybe you could bring us the actual counter-arguments by said authors (if you would actually read a fucking book for the first time in your whole miserable life), instead of venting here without effort.

>supposed "authoritarians"

By the way, I already linked to Engels' On Authority above. This whole thread (not that you actually read it) is a testament to the need to differentiate between revolutionary conditions that require harsh measures, on the one hand, and the psychological defects, daddy-masturbation, and projective/defective personalities, on the other, as a whole.

>gentile psyche





File: 2dce1c06374670d⋯.jpg (430.57 KB, 2000x1120, 25:14, badiou_hd.jpg)

File: 9f842ef2eb22703⋯.webm (6.49 MB, 270x182, 135:91, verhaeghe_authority-patri….webm)


>So is everyone else. Sadly, when we engage with the world our intentions only get us so far. Which is why the Vanguard that will lead the proletariat to salvation exists as an authority within the belief system of those whose ultimate intention is to live free of all authority You recognize this need as a short term solution. Most on the right recognize this need as a long term solution, at least until a functional alternative, in their view, is presented.

Clearly a topsy-turvy and post-hoc rationalizing attempt on your part. The authority stemming from communal power is essentially different than the authority adored by those who identify with "strongmen." The first is the kind that is 'created' through discussion, consideration, and solidarity, the latter that is assumed as a priori.

If you don't understand this difference you are a damaged, broken, half-constituted person. Sorry to bring you the bad news, honey. ;^)


File: 98b00b8e3afc611⋯.jpg (15 KB, 201x199, 201:199, 24572254.jpg)


>no one takes their f-scale seriously at all.


Observe the mental-gymnastics of the damaged individual, and see how it correlates and corresponds to the very description offered by the book at hand. The damaged individual is unable to argue from his own POV, since, simply, he has none. He needs the cover of a "majority," a "nation," or any kind of fictitious nonsense from which behind he can utter his sentences.

He does not tackle the actual arguments presented. He is incapable. Rather, he refers to his imagined majority ("no one takes x seriously"), while knowing very well, that the statement itself is untrue. His utilized category fails even at the empirical level: the book at hand is still considered a major breakthrough.

But no, our fellow forcefully retarded person needs his fiction(s), he needs to feel that he is, while uttering, being representing something that was already established and accepted by everyone.

The lesson of this book, in a sentence? This person is NOTHING without this imaginary. He is literally a cultural sediment, trash, waste. He CAN NOT function without feeling that he is backed by a powerful force -- if it actually exists or not --, so he conjures one up whenever he needs it.

Behold, the post-modern damaged individual, a thing chewed and spit out by his environs.


File: cf94a9fe9db416c⋯.png (305.77 KB, 616x761, 616:761, The Candyman.png)





Observe, this fine specimen, who is – unbeknownst to him – the perfect example of the phenomena at hand!

>my view is not cultural. Culture is just a euphemism for biological expression in an environment

What »he is«, as a person [subject], and as a biological being [human animal, primate] for him bears no distinction, and for a very good reason. People as persons are NOTHING BUT what was 'put into them' by the society they were brought up in. Optimally, your culture gives you the tools to self-reflect, to actually step out from your standard and pre-given civilizationary standpoint and use this sidestep as a point of criticism. This specimen lacks this capacity – not due to his own fault, mind you. For him biology=culture=economy=politics – a chain of equated links.

In his statements we need to be able to detect the shrieks of a damaged being, a hurt, compulsively acting animal, a badly constituted individual, who is unable to grasp his ontological embeddedness, unable to reflect on the whole, who needs to cover up his raison d'être with primitive and pseudo-scientific (social darwinism) rationalizations.

>There is no future history without those that procreate. Those that procreate are currently the most backward pigheaded 'God makes right' fundy types out there.


<must feed my imagined "nation" with new resources [newborn babbies]

<the outgroup (evil chinese) are about to swallow us whole

Thank you, thank you, kind anon for being a beautiful proof for the book. May you continue to destroy yourself on your pre-established pathological course.



>Culture is just a euphemism for biological expression in an environment.

Then, considering that culture has changed several times in the West alone over the milinea, does that mean that every change of culture represents a mutation in our genetics? Does that mean that once a chaneg of culture has happenead, that it is impossible to go back to the old ways, because the genes have mutated (and since mutations are random, a true return to old customs would require advanced gene-engineering)?

Then why are blacklashes sometimes witnessed?


File: 5366a489c9d4888⋯.png (170.93 KB, 445x334, 445:334, 136865332.png)





Our specimen, feeling that one or two of his fictions have been justifiably debunked (Nation, Daddy, etc.) now shifts his point of identification to Christianity. Lovely and juicy things are to come. (He might have looked up some sources critical of OP book as I suggested, but of course without engaging them in detail, hence my "po-mo categorization of this self-proclaimed and proud chimpanzee.)

>original scale labeling certain peoples behavior as being authoritarian for no other reason than that they were christian.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The book goes into meticulous detail how regardless of one's religious beliefs the identification with daddy – and so on – lingers, undisturbed. In fact, they have interviewed several Christians – among them high-scorers [fascists] and low-scorers [non-fascists] – and found that in the first group "Christianity" was nothing more than a cop-out, a way to justify whatever one does with a reference to a "higher being," while the low-scorers [non-fascists] religion was more of a moral guidance.

Put it short: you are literally not a Christian, my friend. You brought up another defense line against the "evil commies" to justify your wickedness, something which even Jesus would have abhorred.

I asked this fine gentleman self-proclaimed ape, to provide examples of legit criticism of the findings of the book at hand. He googled, and googled, and ctrl+F'd, and found some articles he thinks are proper counter attacks.

>Outdated by other work in the field. Bob Altemeyer's Right-wing authoritarianism Scale is the most obvious example. Though it hits many of the same problems. And second, you have no detailed or rich account of fascism. It's mythology in the same vein as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Notice the pattern: he literally didn't read said book, he literally can't bring to us the actual counter-arguments. All he does is say that "XYZ countered your beliefs, hence you are debunked."

Is there anything more pathetic? Can you imagine being him? How insufferable his daily existence might be?

>every single pathological evil Adorno and co could think of. This is the same game played by Freud and his cohort.

[note to comrades: this damaged individual by "his cohort" means J E W Z…]

>This rhetorical theater has been played before, documented and ridiculed yet here you are falling for it again.

Notice the same pattern I brought up before: he needs to reinforce his argument again and again with a reference to some mysterious "big Other," be it the state, nation, or the majority. He literally can not argue without reference to Daddy, who protects his opinion.

Our specimen here is a good boy. He is on the side of Daddy. He is infallible not because of his LOGIC™ or REASON™, but because he will always conjure up a kind of authority from his ass.

Observe, and weep. What a sad, sad, sad, "individual."


File: febd2634b5e807c⋯.png (381.29 KB, 540x733, 540:733, salaff.png)


>I asked this fine gentleman self-proclaimed ape









You know ape-poster, OP has a point here:


I am predisposed to skepticism about psychoanalysis. I frequently read it as asserting elaborate pathologies that I don’t understand well because I haven’t read the material, but I’m also skeptical of much psychology for similar reasons. However, I don’t have a very passionate opinion on any of this as a consequence. You appear to forcefully and emotionally express how stupid the OP is for “falling for” this or that, and you keep pointing to abstract authorities. Even when you’re ridiculed for it, you simply take the next step and state a name or a book, but don’t engage with the content to any depth. You just spruce up what you were saying before, which is that there is some way in which this book has been thoroughly dispensed with by authorities. I can understand if you have no interest in going at length into the reasoning, but I don’t understand why you would post at length the same thing over and over, which is just a slew of unsubstantiated insults and assertions that could boil down to “read this critique OP”.

Or rather, I guess I do understand. You’re shitposting. But I can’t tell if you think it has substance or if you intend to shitpost.


File: 4512c8c04b8a822⋯.webm (3.69 MB, 320x240, 4:3, idiot.webm)




>It's a matter of academic principle that the f-scale as described in TAP is not taken seriously.

Again, babby needs a "back up:" he tried the nation, he tried Daddy, he tried Religion... Now it's academy's time to shine...

>Presenting some mythological musing as if it were a hidden truth.

The actual method of inquiry was presented in OP, my ape friend. They literally created a questionnaire taken by thousands and they literally conducted hundreds of interviews with those who participated. To call this "mythological" is a joke -- on the surface level. But we know very well, that you have a psychological need to take cover behind big things you can identify with.

>Genes are real.

Who said they weren't?

>Notice how basic things he used to justify his position previously: that a description can be an accurate predictor, are now thrown to the wayside.

This didn't happen. What happened was that I've shown -- in accordance with the book at hand -- how you, my friend, need these fictions to survive as a damaged shithole of a person.

>As if biological descriptions of heredity are not greater in predictive validity ten times over any single descriptor TAP or psychoanalysis produced.

Interesting point this self-described ape brings up. He wants us to measure "biological determinism" against "social."

Let us make the case explicit: for him, as already established above, there's no difference between historically contingent social organization and biological make-up; hence he rapidly shifts to accusing me of being anti-scientific(?). Nobody really knows. I already alluded to the fact that we are the most complex beings on this Earth, and we are not just bio-robots, but also social subjects.

(One wonders how to address a seemingly critical point when it fails to grasp the basics...)

>Ask yourself, is what is being used to play this game really something you agree with?

For this specimen, life, biology, society, politics, economy... all of these? A "game."

>How far does this persons idea of genes being pseudo-scientific go, exactly?

Again, you self-described ape, I do not argue against our biological make-up. I'm trying to show (quite successfully, thanks to your help), how more complicated we, humans, actually are. That the nuance goes beyond your head is no surprise.

>No matter how many big words you push

[Note: book at hand clearly proves that fascists are tendentiously anti-intellectuals.]


Amazin [sic], indeed, my fellow ape.




You scientist or something?


File: e3b2884b3063ab4⋯.pdf (4.3 MB, A-Clinical-Introduction-to….pdf)


>I am predisposed to skepticism about psychoanalysis. I frequently read it as asserting elaborate pathologies that I don’t understand well because I haven’t read the material

Educate and liberate yourself, for fuck's sake, comrade.


File: 8035b5a0cc61b1a⋯.png (64.6 KB, 208x214, 104:107, 1.png)





File: a3c7c4fb3577d82⋯.mp4 (1.4 MB, 400x300, 4:3, How is Babby Formed_.mp4)



(The literal state of a fascist.)


File: 9f8782a6a45a8e7⋯.jpeg (30.92 KB, 570x428, 285:214, squirrel-beer-bottle-cozy.jpeg)


Notice how this pathetic excuse for a human being differentiates between "normal" children being born, and those born in "abnormal" China.

For him the aforementioned dynamics of in- and outgroup(s) function this way: "we are dying out," meaning that (for obvious economic reasons "we," the "white race" don't reproduce at such a rate as "others") humanity as such literally won't die out. It is only the "kinds of humanity" he dislikes that will – not even die out, but – decrease in reproduction.

What a truly, truly sad being, this monster is.


File: 522d992288eb9d0⋯.png (73.67 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 7013eaef6c7cb68aa2296b755c….png)



Nazi IdPol returns


File: 0d8509ea0f6e99d⋯.jpg (41.71 KB, 336x310, 168:155, poltards.jpg)

File: d2ac31e409a96a0⋯.webm (7.64 MB, 480x250, 48:25, Based Finkelstein.webm)


>More passive aggressive astrology.

>More comedy.

>flowery language

>high brow commentator

[Notice my above reference to fascists being anti-intellectuals... Not only they can't read, not only they can't argue, they are actively making up for these deficiencies in terms of physical force, "criticism" that only addresses surface characteristics. They can't help it: they are utterly damaged individuals.]

>The scale includes questions such as “In view of the present national emergency, it is highly important to limit responsible government jobs to native, white, Christian Americans.” . The inclusion of such a question would lead an authoritarian jew to answer in the negative, whilst a white christian would answer in the positive. An authoritarian jewish person by virtue of the questions asked will score lower.

This could have been an interesting "finding" -- keep digging those google.com search results, my friendly ape --, but the book actually documents how a lot of Jews actually became, after the second world war, anti-semites themselves. And let me make this clear, you hormone, we are NOT talking about vid-related "self-hating jews' -- we are talking about people, who were born and raised Jews, becoming anti-semitic, not because of any rational argumentation, but because the society at large gave them a comfortable image of a scape-goat. These Jews literally disowned in their own minds their very own "genetic, ethnic, cultural, etc." build, and started hating on the IMAGE OF THE JEW as such.

But in what way? Adorno painstakingly detects how -- not just these people, but fascists in general -- employ a double-ideology in order to survive as subjects: they have an "official" ideology, and a "spontaneous" one, at all time the two being in contradiction.

>the scale was retarded, illustrated by its failure when scaling christians.

(Already debunked above.) Notice how the damaged individual can't fucking keep up.

>none of these [scientific] standards are applied evenly, it's just a defense mechanism to protect your mythology

I already said ITT that:

1) psychoanalysis does not claim that it is itself scientific.

2) that you, as a treasure for us ITT, keep on giving: you literally prove every fucking point the book is about.

I feel indebted to you, to be honest, Mr. hormone.

>Freudian psychoanalysis as being a product of jewish identity

<I have never read a single line from Freud, but I'm told that he's Jewish, therefore it is bad

HURR, and also, much of DURR.


File: 96b4e2e8ec9c4d5⋯.jpeg (11.03 KB, 281x179, 281:179, fascist.jpeg)



>projecting information

>rhetorical game

>mythological musings

>your performance in the rhetorical game

>creative writing session

>verbal diarrhea

>You have not demonstrated any nuance.

>bloviating the point

>unfalsifiable premises


I'll leave my dear comrades to debate this half-of-a-person on a factual-level. I'm here only to prove that he is THE walking stereotype as described by the book.


File: 23eb2edb2f49e13⋯.jpg (85 KB, 644x408, 161:102, Laquan.jpg)


muh deek > ur deek

-- the post


File: c8cd8dcaeb768fd⋯.webm (5.19 MB, 640x360, 16:9, Noam Chomsky corruption o….webm)


>a white christian


*takes breath*




>white identity is under attack meme

rope yourself



>What ethnic identity is allowed for whites that is not colored as pathological?

What are white people? Who are they, and where does their ethnic identity and group hail from? Were the etruscans and the Latinids white when they felt no kinship? Were the Celts and the Romans? What of the Greeks, that saw Nubians and Egyptians as way superior people to those of the forrestdwelling Germans? What of the Irish, Italians and Poles, that were not considered white in america until the 1930's. Where they secretly one ethnicity all along without realizing it? How did they come to realize it?

Who is legitimately white in any way that makes sense historically?



>What are white people? Who are they, and where does their ethnic identity and group hail from?

That’s pretty easy to answer. It’s any people of the Caucasian persuasion. After several hundred years of European imperialism there’s been a demonstrable racial divide instituted on the conquered lands.

Just because something is a flimsy abstraction doesn’t mean it’s not enforced with state violence.



How do you nazifags cope with the reality that white skin is actually a genetic mutation and that blacks are the 'default humans'?



Since you can derive white from black but never black from white.



You must admit though, historically, Whiteness is a concept that keeps contracting and expanding according to whatever definition of whiteness is convenient.


shameless theory-bump



File: fb9cab6fd235dae⋯.jpg (57.79 KB, 960x639, 320:213, Smoking-Weed-in-Public.jpg)


Yo, reading is for fags, lol.

Like the fuck is this is thread is even about?

TL;DR me about this thread, or sg.


top tier thread comrade, thanks for this.




You might as well have asked Anne Frank to cope with the Holocaust by projecting whatever vices she perceived and create an ad hoc hypothesis to perniciously explain a developmental system. If this is meant to be, as you said, a theory "explaining trends and mechanisms" in a scientific way, working backwards to craft a hypothesis 'just so' you can pathologize ideologies is not that how you explain 'mechanisms'. You might as well ask Rothbard to pathologize libertarian socialism and inject his own ideology into his analysis… oh wait.



low energy post



Expecting these people to have a pure, distilled explanation for an ideology that exists independent of their own rationalization and prejudice is foolish, just as foolish of expecting somebody like Rothbard to do the same in the other direction.


File: d3752f7825a5b18⋯.jpg (85.93 KB, 540x533, 540:533, 1549528878749.jpg)



I might have oversimplified, but keep in mind what I've stated in OP:

>or, more precisely, a TL;DR of a book

Simply put, there's no proper 'substitute' for the arguments presented, the methodology employed, etc. of a nearly 1k pages long book in a condensation required by the image-board format.

>Anne Frank to cope with the Holocaust

Let me first say that the wording here is – if not outright fascist – highly problematic. One of the lessons of the Holocaust was that there's no 'proper way' of subjectively sublimating the experience of industrial scale extermination of a whole people, exactly because of its objective and methodological inhumaneness. In other words: how is one to deal as a human with the blatant ahuman of industry in service of genocide, and the gestapo (et al.) in service of said machine, fueled by an ideological insanity that was Nazism?

>whatever vices she perceived

Same issue. It's like saying – and excuse my hastily drawn analogy –, that the Roman people of Pompeii "perceived" some kind of "vices" from Vesuvius. I hope you get my drift.

Regarding your ""criticism"" of methodology:

>working backwards to craft a hypothesis 'just so' you can pathologize ideologies is not that how you explain 'mechanisms'

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" – as Hegel puts it. This is the basic operation of the humanities, yet somehow you manage to bring up "scientificity." This is either a complete ignorance on your part, or, again, outright malevolence.

How were critical intellectuals supposed to have analyzed the unexpected Nazi-phenomenon after the fact, in your opinion? Adorno & Frenkel-Brunswik were forced to leave fascist Europe. They had no option but to 'backward-engineer' the mechanisms that led to, and keep on reinforcing the fascist pathology – a term you have problem as well, for which, I believe, ample supporting arguments have been made ITT.

>inject his own ideology into his analysis

This doesn't happen, though. The contributors to the book ideologically range from a majority of classical liberals to a single Marxist (Adorno) – incompatible ideologies. They were able to conduct the research and analyses without contaminating the material with their own; their only common ground being critical of Nazism. What do you expect? To involve a fascist into a book analyzing critically Nazism, while the latter's defining characteristic is its uncritical submission?

>pure, distilled explanation

>that exists independent of their own rationalization and prejudice

Doesn't happen – not even in STEM. May I suggest you read some books on the philosophy and history of science?


File: bd27ad0d8e9c644⋯.jpg (504.38 KB, 2868x2095, 2868:2095, WgfJNPp.jpg)



But also, since you seem to be the empiricist/positivist (aka. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧eternal anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 type), let me say this: if Rothbard (& co.) did a series of sociological surveys on 2.000+ people from different social backgrounds and had conducted several hundred hour-long personal interviews with the subjects on people (as did OP book), being able to show traits of the "libertarian socialist," as a Marxist I'd feel compelled to read it.

But what do we have instead? (You know the answer.)

Go suck a book!


The levels of pwnage and salt-collection ITT were not thought possible before.



>One of the lessons of the Holocaust was that there's no 'proper way' of subjectively sublimating the experience of industrial scale extermination of a whole people

That's not what I'm saying. The lesson of the Holocaust (in the sense that I mentioned it) is that the subjective suffering of an inhumane industry is just that: subjective. When I refer to Anne Frank coping with the Holocaust, I'm not referring to the Holocaust as it relates to millions of people. Someone like Anne Frank can only relate to tragedies that they are cognizant of, so they subjectively experience their own trauma and that of the people around them. I thought that was clear when I mentioned Anne Frank as a subject, not as a concept substituted for millions of people.

>It's like saying – and excuse my hastily drawn analogy –, that the Roman people of Pompeii "perceived" some kind of "vices" from Vesuvius. I hope you get my drift.

That's totally disanalogous. It is clear that Anne Frank perceived vices in her oppression by the Nazis, that's evident by reading her diary! A better comparison would be with something that isn't a natural disaster, like an equivalent government with sentient people acting intentionally to cause great suffering. A volcano isn't the same thing as a genocidal government.

>"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" – as Hegel puts it.

If I have a hypothesis about the owl spreading its wings because it is coerced by gremlins to do so, then my theory is just as valid as Hegel's in this case. It would be ad hoc if, when asked how I can test this, I respond with "well, the gremlins are invisible so we cannot observe them compelling the owl to spread its wings, of course". This is all to say that confirming the contents of this book must be done beyond the realm of science, which it seems you agree with (because it has nothing to do with 'scientificity').

>This is either a complete ignorance on your part, or, again, outright malevolence.

If the hypothesizing you have laid out that is within the book is not actually a scientific explanation that can be verified or explained beyond merely being a 'just-so' story, then it seems you and I are in agreement. My impression of your analysis was that this is something more than a half-baked impression of how bad ideologies are… bad because of [insert projection here].

>supposed to have analyzed the unexpected Nazi-phenomenon after the fact, in your opinion?

That's a job for historians to document without bias instead of pathologizing your oppressors or retroactively diagnosing war criminals with personality disorders. Explaining how an ideology is rooted in the conditions of, say, somebody's relationship with their parents is a non-sequitur: it does nothing to critically examine the foundation of the ideology. It's analyzing on the person as opposed to the concept. At best, you can speculate about how fascistic ideological traits tend to overlap with other traits/experiences, but I can't see how a mechanism can be brought forth to connect these experiences to the foundation of any ideology. That's like trying to tie together some brand of conservatism with experiences/traits of historical conservative figures then claim as if you have found a mechanism through which these experiences coalesce towards a mainstream conservative ideology.

>This doesn't happen, though. The contributors to the book ideologically range from a majority of classical liberals to a single Marxist (Adorno) – incompatible ideologies. They were able to conduct the research and analyses without contaminating the material with their own; their only common ground being critical of Nazism. What do you expect? To involve a fascist into a book analyzing critically Nazism, while the latter's defining characteristic is its uncritical submission?

Wait, Rothbard doesn't inject his ideology into his literary criticisms? Did you read what you responded to? My main argument is that any diametrically opposed set of beliefs/people cannot accurately be expected to explain the antithesis of their personal philosophies. I'm not saying that it was just Adorno who was biased: I'm accusing all of the authors of being biased. I wouldn't trust Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan to criticize socialism, either: they might be opposed in that one is an anarchist and the other is not, but their mutual distaste for socialism wouldn't lead to any meaningful criticisms.

>Doesn't happen – not even in STEM

The results of a hypothesis or set of hypotheses can be independently verified by a computer program, for example. There would be no personal ideology or psychological projection that would occur in that scenario.



>But also, since you seem to be the empiricist/positivist

Not even close, but nice try. Pointing out how something is pseudo-scientific doesn't explain how I believe knowledge is acquired/verified.

>did a series of sociological surveys on 2.000+ people from different social backgrounds and had conducted several hundred hour-long personal interviews with the subjects on people (as did OP book), being able to show traits of the "libertarian socialist," as a Marxist I'd feel compelled to read it.

I would believe that would apply to those 2000+ people, but not much more. Depends on the sample size and the factors that were found to muddy the results up. Not to mention, how do you control for a false positive(s)? What if certain experiences were coextensive with other life experiences yet had no meaningful impact on the outcome of the results? How would you control for that? This is the issue I have with attempting to psychologically explain political philosophies and the mentality of the people who follow them: it's only useful for the people you examine in a specific microcosm. Something more interesting would be the income level or level of education, but even if you were to create a theory about how ideology 'x' is a haven for the impoverished and uneducated, that would functionally be a cultural criticism in a specific era/region, not a 'defeater' of the ideological roots of a political philosophy.


File: 0aec1d60f3ae7ca⋯.jpg (61.28 KB, 911x736, 911:736, 17554336_635414119989540_2….jpg)



Listen to me, 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglo,🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 and listen to me well!

You are considered trash five out of seven continents on this planet. This is a fact.

Let's move on, shall we…

>The lesson of the Holocaust (in the sense that I mentioned it)

The very specificity of "Lesson of the Holocaust" lies in that you – or any other faggot – can not extract and propose 'something as' its essence. You do not understand what an industrial scale extermination process is, unless you try to intellectually grasp it, you trash of an individual.

>When I refer to Anne Frank coping with the Holocaust

Again, without trying to deny your "subjective PoV," I'd like to point out that you have no way of knowing or relating to the objective fact of an industrial-scale genocide, of which you are a part of.

>Someone like Anne Frank can only relate to tragedies that they are cognizant of,

May I point out again, that you literally can't "put yourself into the shoes of a Jews under Nazi conditions." It ain't gon' happen. If you require further explanation, would only indicate that you have NO idea what went on.

>A volcano isn't the same thing as a genocidal government.

Disregarding the fact that I asked you to deal with my hastily drawn parallel: you – as I've projected – intentionally disregard the main point. I will re-state it for your weak person: the victim can not, and will not be able, to "just spontaneously" draw up some kind of theory of what went around, you absolute cancer. They were people stroke by something like a Vulcan – not knowing what to do, froze in time.

If you deny any of this, I'll be delighted to report your posts, btw.

>>"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"

>>If I have a hypothesis about the owl spreading its wings

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't even take the time to google the expression. You are a person, who

takes everything at face-value. You hear something, and assume it as an immediate empirical fact. You are literally the eternal anglo, and you will be purged by diamat.

(Sorry about that, tho it's tru.)

>If the hypothesizing you have laid out that is within the book is not actually a scientific explanation



You have no idea what you talk about. For you, science=God. What a retarded position to have.

t. actual atheist


File: 0d8509ea0f6e99d⋯.jpg (41.71 KB, 336x310, 168:155, poltards.jpg)


>That's a job for historians to document without bias


Literally no one in that discipline – history – (can or does) analysis without bias. Not because they are "shit," but because the discipline itself is as such: subjective-objective.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about!

>At best, you can speculate about how fascistic ideological traits tend to overlap with other traits/experiences, but I can't see how a mechanism can be brought forth to connect these experiences to the foundation of any ideology

But then again you are conflating STEM-tier "science" with humanities analysis. These two


Not because there's a lack of will or competence, but because the subject at hand is not the same in history as it is in physics. Are you, like, literally retarded?

>trying to tie together some brand of conservatism with experiences/traits of historical conservative figures then claim as if you have found a mechanism through which these experiences coalesce towards a mainstream conservative ideology.

The authors make great efforts to differentiate between (US) conservatism and pseudo-conservatism.

>set of hypotheses can be independently verified by a computer program

You are literally pic related retard, who thinks that when confronted with historical facts, you can rely on biology/"objective social conditions"/your grandma. In other words, you are literally a fascist, my friend.


File: 9350a2feaa3fbb7⋯.png (103.24 KB, 278x229, 278:229, 436.png)


>Wait, Rothbard doesn't inject his ideology into his literary criticisms?

I think you suffer from the basic 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 sickness: a person who can not distinguish (colonial) reality from his ideals.

>any diametrically opposed set of beliefs/people cannot accurately be expected to explain the antithesis of their personal philosophies.

Except, as was described above, this is not the issue.

>Adorno [was] biased

To prove this you'd need to have read the book (good luck with that, booklet), and to point-by-point prove the sociological study's arguments false.


1) you are not capable;

2) you's not gonna;

3) you's a shit.

Good luck with that, you absolute idiot!


File: 5b59f84a6197d56⋯.png (11.86 KB, 403x450, 403:450, 5b59f84a6197d5606a465bd238….png)


Im a nazi, and im gon read 1.000 pages of book, to discount your views.

just u w8

p.s. fuk u

karl marygy was mistake



>can not extract and propose 'something as' its essence.

Strawman, that isn't even implied in what I mentioned.

>I'd like to point out that you have no way of knowing or relating to the objective fact of an industrial-scale genocide, of which you are a part of.

>without trying to deny your "subjective PoV,"

Contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Nobody is talking about this 'objective fact', just how people relate to issues that impact them. Try rereading what was said again.

>that you literally can't "put yourself into the shoes of a Jews under Nazi conditions."

Find the post where I said I could. Otherwise this is just another "see what I said you said is stupid!"

>Disregarding the fact that I asked you to deal with my hastily drawn parallel: you – as I've projected – intentionally disregard the main point.

The main point is also disanalogous. It's incoherent. Try again.

>to "just spontaneously" draw up some kind of theory of what went around

You have just invalidated the entire work you are attempting to read.

>You hear something, and assume it as an immediate empirical fact

A hypothesis isn't a fact.


>Literally no one in that discipline – history – (can or does) analysis without bias.

Wrong. You can document the, say, labor force in certain sectors in the American economy 100 years ago. Making claims about the personalities of the workers or the president would be a biased historical account.

>you are conflating STEM-tier "science" with humanities analysis

I was under the impression this was more than just basic namecalling and just-so stories with a political bend, but ok.

>The authors make great efforts to differentiate between (US) conservatism and pseudo-conservatism.

How many different versions of fascism/its authoritarian derivatives are expanded upon in the work?

>you are literally a fascist, my friend.

If this work targeted liberals, you would call me a liberal for calling out your anti-intellectual arguments.


>I think you suffer from blah blah blah

Yeah, know I now you aren't responding in good faith, you just have a dogmatic ideology you want to uphold. Reread what you just responded to about Rothbard.

>this is not the issue.

This is still the issue.

>to point-by-point prove the sociological study's arguments false.

You mean the methodology, not "the arguments". An empirical inquiry isn't a series of premises and a conclusion. My qualms aren't with the results or the concluding statements about the data: I am willing to agree that the studied people are as the authors say they are. The onus is on you to demonstrate a few things if you think this is a valid criticism.

1. Demonstrate that the studied participants are a valid representation of the demographic in-question. If they are not, then you only have a study for those 2000 people and nothing more can be extrapolated.

2. Establish variables that impact the outcome of the results. Find the mechanism(s) in-play that actually allow the factor(s) to cause to the behavior(s)/trait(s) you are studying.

3. Establish variables that do not impact the outcome of the results but happen to be coextensive to the aforementioned causal variables. If you cannot predict the causes behind the trait(s) while accounting for coextensive traits, then you have no foundation to argue anything off of.

4. Use a control group to establish your hypothesis' novel prediction of the participants' social behaviors. Otherwise you have nothing to compare your results to see if you are predicting anything novel.

5. Follow up with the participants to see if the behaviors were merely false positives of some unknown trend that resulted in the behavior or if they were causal.



>I'm an illiterate, therefore I am



What holocaust? They all died of typhus, old age, extreme cold or other diseases.




you are a nigger and deserve to get gulag'd for reasons only you know



I thought communists loved niggers?



gran polla negra?


File: b92e6de77b70d3b⋯.jpeg (66.66 KB, 490x488, 245:244, 56210810100491490488no-01.jpeg)



i don't understand jew it



I can see that the communist mod is a racist.


This thread is fucking amazing. I'm half convinced the ape poster was just the OP larping to prove his point.

Can some ex polfag offer any insights on how to help these people?


File: d0b5d8c6ee54566⋯.jpg (42.23 KB, 320x509, 320:509, Zyzzek.jpg)


The butthurt in this thread from /pol/yps makes me want to read the book


los bumpos


File: 293408a98a009a4⋯.png (283.23 KB, 408x547, 408:547, nut.png)


>You can document the, say, labor force in certain sectors in the American economy 100 years ago. Making claims about the personalities of the workers or the president would be a biased historical account.

Thank Wotan that these Jewish intellectuals actually conducted their tests among widely diverse sociological factions: workers, students, people under psychotherapy, incarcerated, or being members of the "business community!" Your argument literally means jack shit, when faced with the realities of this research.

>You can document the, say, labor force in certain sectors in the American economy 100 years ago. Making claims about the personalities of the workers or the president would be a biased historical account.

First of all, the research was conducted between 1940's till the end of the war. There's literally no saying how their appraisal was biased by "looking back from the 21st century." Your butthurt is your own, my friend. If you are pissed by the fact that they accurately screened your fascist fellows, the indecency and retardation goes with you.

>just basic namecalling and just-so stories with a political bend

I understand that you have problems with digesting the facts, since you are "one of these damaged people…"

Let me assure you, this research was not done "just-so." Its sociological details are well listed and documented. I understand that the findings hurt your feelings, yet… these were the findings, you faggot.

>A hypothesis isn't a fact.

A sociologically well established trend is not just a hypothesis. It describes, my friend, something that which you are obviously suffering from too…

<Literally no one in […] history can or does […] analysis without bias.



>You can document the, say, labor force in certain sectors in the American economy 100 years ago.

Will you factor in the slave labor, you idiot?!

>Making claims about the personalities of the workers or the president would be a biased historical account.

Well, actually, making psychological claims about the psyche of the slave laboring african-american polution would be RATHER redundant, since their OBJECTIVE means of being was: "get beaten or killed, or do the job!"

Meanwhile the psychological department of the white man was: "Heyy, shiite, this niggas should be, like, working for us n' shit, otherwise, we'd be out of cotton and shiet!"

In other words, to analyze the psyche of damaged, and economically parasitical individuals is perfectly legitimate, since their ideology in effect makes them "objectively certain" that what they do is "necessary," you cracka!

>How many different versions of fascism/its authoritarian derivatives are expanded upon in the work?

You are always welcome to read the book, nigger, but we all know that you are incapable. So let me TL;DR this shit for you: the authors differentiated between "Authoritarian, Anti-democratic, Personifying, and Stereotypical tendencies"… I know these might be too much for you to process, but please, try to keep up!






Read the book, you stupid wigger. I know it is too much to ask from you to suggest that this is TL;DR thread, but please, feel free to educate yourself by reading the actual study!

(Pic related: we all know that you are an authoritarian faggot who can not read, thus our reaction!)



>I'm half convinced the ape poster was just the OP larping to prove his point

I'm honored, but ape-poster is a fucking amazing lunatic, and I'm just a boring communist who reads books.


File: 09f93710f87f969⋯.jpg (42.32 KB, 960x905, 192:181, 1347757226107.jpg)


>The butthurt in this thread from /pol/yps makes me want to read the book


File: d306c60c04fb762⋯.gif (1.86 MB, 500x265, 100:53, EC9F2A7F7-3E36-D350-F75E-A….gif)



she cute


File: 9fbda894ed72bb5⋯.png (424.72 KB, 525x488, 525:488, j e j.png)


>Think of regular leftard: "Anyone-on-the-right-of-Mao [outgroup] are clannish, too intelligent, etc." – while he implies that these qualities lack in his [leftsit] [in]group.

I don't know what is more deseperate to dehumanize their oppistion, pol or leftypol but you guys need some fresh air.



t. enlightened centrist



t. a fascist in denial


Have you read the Culture of Critique? There’s a chapter where the author talks about the Frankfurt School and talks about The Authoritarian Personality. I want to know your thoughts on it?




>The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances

lmfao anon did you think you were slick

the name alone "Culture of Critique" summarizes the fascist message: being critical is an evil satanic judeo-bolshevik threat to western civilization



Why slick? I’m just curious about what you guys have to say about the pdf I posted



yeah not slick at all, culture of critique it's THE fucking book everyone talks about regarding judeo bolshevism or just jewish conspiracies in general, just wanted to point that out, idk what ancom is going to say


File: a67faf70c09ce92⋯.png (185.74 KB, 693x541, 693:541, shrug.png)


Anon, this would be a lot easier if you were honest about your intentions. We know. You just have to acknowledge it otherwise you'll just be deluding yourself that we don't see through you like many a /pol/yp has done.



I just want to see you debunk Kevin Macdonald on the Frankfurt school


File: d23ce06abc8f441⋯.png (164.04 KB, 400x400, 1:1, anzu.png)


I want you to drop your mask, worm. Go dump those grainy .jpegs from your redpill folder and save us the pretense of honest discourse.


Adorno was spot on


This is 20th Century pyschobabble. Fromms, Sartre, et al. wrote tons of literature like this where they try to describe the though process of /pol/ users. Fromms writes that Hitler is involved with a strange sexual fetish between God and the German people; between power and submission. A part of me thinks all this talk is just a way for the intellectuals on the left to embarrass far right political movements. Besides, these essays are never based on real science, it's just speculation from some Jew who escaped the Shoah.



Why can't the anon who posted CoC be given a chance? You literally look an NPC right now that cant process an opposing view.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / choroy / dempart / doomer / lounge / omnichan / vichan ]