Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The war that was apparently unleashed on the Occupy camps overnight

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:06 AM
Original message
The war that was apparently unleashed on the Occupy camps overnight
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 06:20 AM by GliderGuider
This is precisely the reaction we should expect from the Guardians of the Hierarchy. The piece below is from a couple of years ago, and describes the power elite's defense systems in more detail. We now have the dubious pleasure of seeing the defense mechanisms of the power-consolidating hierarchy that is at the core of our global industrialized civilization at work in all their naked majesty.

The Guardian Institutions of Hierarchy

The Guardians are the corporate, economic, financial, political, legal, religious, educational and communications institutions that form the structural skeleton of our civilization.

Corporations and businesses cooperate with economic and financial institutions to set the value of work and control the money supply. In this role it doesn't make any difference whether an economy is capitalist, socialist or communist. The core beliefs it guards are always the same: ownership and growth. In our Western civilization these institutions are the pumps that move power (transfigured into wealth) away from the powerless and to the powerful.

Political institutions encode, enshrine and manage the application of social power. Politics is the institution that legitimizes all the others. Because of its unique ability to make laws and its access to legalized violence to defend them, politics is the primary self-defense mechanism of the power hierarchy of civilization. In this view it doesn't matter if the political system is democratic or authoritarian, capitalist or socialist, liberal or fascist, feudal, monarchic or dictatorial. As long as the political system can make laws and use institutionalized violence (i.e. police) to enforce them, any political system will fulfill this core function. From this point of view the differences between them are largely cosmetic. Even the differences between parties in a democratic system are a useful irrelevancy – useful to those in power by giving the powerless a calming illusion of control. Politics as a social system invariably works to the benefit of those at the tip of the power pyramid.

Legal institutions enforce the norms of the hierarchy in ways too numerous to count. These range from the protection of privilege (one law for the rich, one for the poor) to the preferential defense of property rights over human rights. Along with the police force it empowers, the legal system is the tip of the spear that keeps the power-holders safe from the powerless. In the terms of our metaphor, legal institutions maintain the integrity of the semi-permeable membrane of social class.

Religious institutions (as distinct from the religions they purport to enshrine) are primarily normative social structures. Many incorporate an overt message that we should be content with things as they are. There are often injunctions against questioning authority, as all authority is seen to devolve from the supernatural – as it has ever since the shamans of the early agricultural era. Like legal institutions, they guard the integrity of social classes, though in our civilization the role of religion has been handed over largely to the legal sphere with its more overt control mechanisms.

Educational institutions teach successive generations how the system works. It gives those at the tip of the pyramid the tools to integrate into it and manipulate it. At the same time it trains everyone involved to see the pyramid of hierarchy as the only possible way the world can work. Those who do not accede to the top of the system learn to be content that the perceived order is natural, inevitable, beneficial, and unquestionable. An interesting twist in modern education is that we are now taught that the rights of the powerful are acquired through merit rather than birth (though many PhDs have learned otherwise).

Communications media reinforce the message of the inevitability and beneficence of our social hierarchy by enlisting people in the power/growth/ownership paradigm. They do this through overt messages like advertising, covert messages embedded in the story lines of entertainment and of course the selective editing and presentation style of news programs. People who are programmed by this constant messaging come to regard any values that challenge the existing structure as incomprehensible, self-evidently absurd, dangerous or even insane.

I may catch flak for this, but I think it needs saying. Whatever else we may think about his actions (or his writing style), Ted Kaczynski had the great misfortune of being right in his analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Recced up to zero or some negative number.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Par for the course, I guess. Thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. Wow, it's really struggling along now with only 206 Recs. Good thing you complained
with the very first response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #63
77. They do that to get sympathy reps and pump it to the greatest page.
Apparently people still fall for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #77
97. No, I "did it" because I recced it and the number of recs still read zero..
Sympathy has nothing to do with it, just a simple factual statement of what transpired when I recced this OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #63
96. Hindsight is remarkably clear, innit? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. up to 6 now...maybe people ain`t awake yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Oh, I think people are going to be waking up soon enough - one way or the other...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. The alarms are going off right now
if people don't wake up soon there won't be anything to wake up to
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
7. Ted was literally a genius. Obvioulsy off his rocker too.
"Kaczynski was born in Chicago, Illinois, where, as an intellectual child prodigy, he excelled academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree, and later earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley at age 25, but resigned two years later."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah - I have to wonder how much his clear understanding of the nature of industrial civilization
contributed to his imbalance. It's really too bad - if he'd been able to hold onto his empathy/sanity he'd have been a leading light in the critique of civilization. As it is, he handed a golden opportunity to the power elite, to brand as crazy anyone who objects too strongly to the way things are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanzaiBonnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. And how much damage the psychological experiment
by one of his professors did to him. I believe that is what truly broke him. While I would never agree with his methods, his conclusions are not the utterings of a madman.


http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm



"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences," Kaczynski's manifesto begins, "have been a disaster for the human race." They have led, it contends, to the growth of a technological system dependent on a social, economic, and political order that suppresses individual freedom and destroys nature. "The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system."

By forcing people to conform to machines rather than vice versa, the manifesto states, technology creates a sick society hostile to human potential. Because technology demands constant change, it destroys local, human-scale communities. Because it requires a high degree of social and economic organization, it encourages the growth of crowded and unlivable cities and of mega-states indifferent to the needs of citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. I think the meaning of Ted's words may finally be stepping out of the shadow of his actions. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. I see a big problem here.
If the PTB can associate OWS with TK in any way--I trust I don't have to finish my sentence.

I was nodding in agreement until someone mentioned TK. I doesn't matter how correct this information is.


I pulled out this quote to comment on--same as another poster in the thread,

"Even the differences between parties in a democratic system are a useful irrelevancy – useful to those in power by giving the powerless a calming illusion of control."

This is why I sigh whenever I see another thread or comment on the upcoming elections which give us the power to decide who is going to apply the screws to what's left of anything good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobbyBoring Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. They're too busy linking OWS to
THE EVIL GEORGE SOROS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. Nevertheless, the info needs to be researched and tied to more
respectable (?) people, that is people who don't instantly inspire a gut reaction to run for cover and disassociate.

I'm serious. This could be lethal to the movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I don't know if I'm any more respectable, but those are my words, not TK's
I fucked up by putting that comment on the end. Unfortunately (from the POV of my respectability), I do agree in large measure with his writings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Thanks for the link to the Atlantic article. I hadn't seen it before .
It looks excellent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
55. An amazing article. Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
april Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
83. interesting read ..thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanzaiBonnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
9. Glad to see this
Because these institutions are worldwide, will the world come tumbling down? Either the institutions bring power to bear to protect their own, which of course they will or they will be dismantled and new institutions built.


I can only see real change coming when we change ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. We will only succeed to the extent that those institutions lose power.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 07:49 AM by GliderGuider
The interesting thing is that they all exist because of the flow of money through the global economy. Given that the world is facing an increasingly unstable and contracting economy that will probably keep getting gradually worse for at least a couple of decades, the guardian institutions will be commensurately weakened.

This is the golden moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanzaiBonnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Any system that gets too big
will eventually crumble and fall under its own weight. Larger systems also carry more corruption. The system can only remain stable as long as it can self-correct for corruption. And this one is long overdue.


What you wrote is what I'm dealing with from my own family right now:


Communications media reinforce the message of the inevitability and beneficence of our social hierarchy by enlisting people in the power/growth/ownership paradigm. They do this through overt messages like advertising, covert messages embedded in the story lines of entertainment and of course the selective editing and presentation style of news programs. People who are programmed by this constant messaging come to regard any values that challenge the existing structure as incomprehensible, self-evidently absurd, dangerous or even insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. It comes from a loss of resilience
Large complex systems that are very interconnected tend to become more brittle over time. That means that failures in one part of the system can cascade though other parts - like a Greek default savaging the US economy. The usual protection response is to put in place more control systems to prevent the initiating failure - in this case laws, regulations and enforcement mechanisms. This adds to the complexity of the overall system.

The problem is that as the system gets bigger the cost of new control systems starts to exceed their benefit. Joseph Tainter calls this "the decreasing marginal return on complexity". It makes the system more and more vulnerable to failure over time. We're well into this regime now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanzaiBonnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The branch that cannot bend
will surely break under pressure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. To quote Pogo, "Perzackly!" /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chervilant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
75. Well...
let us not forget the FEAR of the unknown that motivates so many to cling tenaciously to the existing structure...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. This one...
"...Even the differences between parties in a democratic system are a useful irrelevancy – useful to those in power by giving the powerless a calming illusion of control."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
18. Kaczynski was a luddite crackpot.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 11:29 AM by Odin2005
Then again, as a transhumanist, and am the kind of person he hated the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yeah, anti-civ types and transhumanists are rarely seen in the same room
I'm also anti-civ, bur I don't hate you guys so much as smile fondly at the delusions I remember sharing once upon a time...

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Delusional?
RIIIIIGHT. :eyes:

It is the "anti-civ" types that want an Eden that never existed and can never exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yay! Food fight!
S'okay, Odin, I really don't get too worked up about it any more. AFAICT neither side of that debate is going to be entirely correct.
:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. LOL!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
51. I have to say I am on your side!!
Humans must take over their own evolutionary process & in ways we already have...I would love to live for another 1000yrs just to see where we end up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
52. Delusional? Would love to understand why you
think that? You may disagree but to say that future is delusional is absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #52
67. There are certainly merits to calling the nerd rapture delusional.
I don't ascribe to those ideas, but to say that such arguments are absurd is to suggest ignorance of said positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #67
80. In case you were not aware we are already on course...
to change the human being especially as time marches on. They have already tweaked the DNA on embryos to end disease, determine eye color & other traits...It is just a matter of time as the technology gets better. Probably not in our life time but to say it will never happen & to suggest those who say it could are "delusional" is ABSURD! Which is what I said in the first place not what you tried to spin it as, thank-you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
41. To be clear, the quote was my own writing, not Kaczynski's.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 03:47 PM by GliderGuider
My extemporaneous comment at the end confused the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #41
60. I want to expand on what I said earlier...
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 08:43 PM by Odin2005
I'm currently reading an excellent book called The Ecology of Eden by philosopher Evan Eisenberg. Eisenerg, who is Jewish, uses the Jewish creation myth and similar "Eden Myths" in other cultures, as a starting point on discussing people's attitudes towards nature. One of the most striking things he says in the book is that we were "expelled from Eden" the moment we tamed fire and started burning the grasslands to encourage game. There is no culture that is "at one with nature", the "Noble Savage" is a racist romantic myth that sees "natives" as if they were part of the fauna.

He also contrasts between what he calls "Planet Fetishers" and "Planet Managers". He blasts the former for thinking humanity can return to Eden, while blasting the later for arrogance. Instead he posits a middle ground he calls "Earth Jazz", use ecological systems themselves as a kind of machine with us as the "lead musician" of the Earth Jazz ensemble, but let the other players, the rest of nature improvise and take advantage of it's creativity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. I agree with most of that.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 08:54 PM by GliderGuider
I trace "The Fall" back a bit further, though. I link it to our development of self-awareness as our neo-cortex evolved. That development was what split the perceived world into Self and Other. That split is what gives us the ability to treat other people as if they weren't human and to treat all non-human life as resources. Self-awareness is the fundamental alienating force in human consciousness.

Fortunately that alienation is balanced by our empathic abilities, which is what keeps us from being psychopathic robots and even gives us the occasional capacity for transcendent behaviour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HighContext Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
24. Delete
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 12:16 PM by HighContext
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
25. K&R, Permalink!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. Unrec'ed.
We need to stop giving partial credit to douchbags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shandris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Wrong.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 01:25 PM by Shandris
I don't care WHO the messenger is, if something is worth consideration on its' own merits, then it is worth consideration on its' own merits. Categorizing people or thought as 'off-limits' because someone who thought them or espoused them was corrupt, or bad, or even downright evil is completely and utterly irrational. Examine the argument on its' merits, weigh it critically, and THEN pass judgement. Don't say 'Oh, well, he was a douche, CLEARLY everything he said is a waste of time' (where the 'he' in this example is a generic Anyperson).

Recced on principle.

Edit: Rereading this post, it comes across as slightly heavy-handed in your direction, tcaudill. That's not intentional, please don't read it as me yelling at you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
49. Well said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #27
86. That's not the problem.
Who is more worth reading, Jung or Freud? To most here, that answer is obvious. However in the mainstream we find that even in Freud's denouement, Jung still is not highly respected (potshots against him in textbooks are routine). I recall a study in which the findings suggested that extremists tend to control social networks. We see in the Right a general principle of ascension: the person who cries and screams the loudest tends to get their way. Given the results of the last election, the same might well be said of the Left. Generally when people fail to respond to evidence, it's a sign of serious attitude issues. There is a reason most of the eminent thinkers of our time are so easily (and effectively) criticized. Is being fully "with it" not worthy of reward? Since postmodernism that has been the rule, but it was not always so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I take it you have a different world view than I do?
No problem, there are 6,999,999,998 or so other opinions out there, and all of them are different in some way as well.
Since you're speaking to the original author, could you tell my what you object to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
28. There are other good articles at that site.
No link back to his home page that I could find. :shrug: He doesn't make it easy.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/

His bio is here:
http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=per/PersonDetail&id=1230

Warning! He is Canadian! :scared:

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Thanks, immoderate.
That's my web site - I've been using it as a notepad for my voyage of discovery down the rabbit-hole of doom and back.

I'm very happy you find the articles interesting.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. It strikes some notes with me.
(This thread is hijacked by the notion that those quotes are from Ted Kaszinski. Did you hijack your own thread?)

I have been in some discussions lately with some "climate deniers" and I think you know the constellation of associated tendencies of right wing economics, authoritarianism, religious conservatism (though one is an (Ayn) Randian atheist objectivist.)

I have taken note of some recent UK studies that found larger amygdalas in conservative types, seemingly at the expense of development of the anterior singulate a cortical organ. And at the same time, my original orientation from undergraduate is Freudian, and while the brain mapping is wonderful, there is a place for the old models. My "friend" are impenetrable, irrational, and obstinate (anal?) and have taken to turning those criticisms around toward me and there is no refutation -- to them. Of course my lefty friends see reality just as clearly as I do.

Beyond interesting, I am moved by the uhm, interdisciplinary approach you take. I think the key to maximizing the length of existence of our (and most other) species is to limit the increase of entropy of the environment as much as possible.

I just have to get everybody to sing that song. :)

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amyrose2712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. I think you are right.. Everyone seems to toss it out cause they think TK wrote it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. Yeah, I hijacked my own thread. I hate it when that happens...
I realized early on (OK, 5 or 6 years ago) that the clusterfuck we're facing is cross-domain, multi-dimensional and heavily interwoven. If we want to wrap our arms around it a muti-disciplinary approach is essential - what E. O. Wilson calls "consilience". An ability to assess information via analogy rather than analysis seems to help, as does a willingness to look closely at correlation even in the absence of obvious causation.

Yes, entropy is our friend :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. This sort of thing would probably be lauded in ivory towers if not for its author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Can you expand on that? It's unclear enough that I don't get your point.
And any point you make I want to be sure I get.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Even though the author makes some excellent observations and does so
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 03:33 PM by kestrel91316
with an obviously insightful mind, it's Ted Kazynski. And so the whole piece and all it says can be dismissed by academics.

Because loony people can never utter truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Ah, I get it now. I confused the issue - that quote is my own writing, not Kaczynski's.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 04:24 PM by GliderGuider
The quoted piece in the OP my very own. I can see now how my comment at the end confused the issue. Sorry about that.

I agree with Ted, but I didn't even read the manifesto until after I wrote that. Still, if people did think it was written by him and recommended it anyway, there's a petty tasty message in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anamandujano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Good to hear.
(breathes sigh of relief)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. Oops, sorry. ROFL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #38
68. That's not really true. Academics aren't afraid of aligning with Kaczynski.
Now in common vernacular it may be taboo, but academics aren't going to worry about trivialities like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. It is a cherry picked collection of bits from standard anthropological theory...
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 03:38 PM by kristopher
...that slants the import and meaning of the information towards GG's personal message. The system being described also has a counter-balancing set of forces and institutions that work for change and equality.

http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/theory_pages/Materialism.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Gee, and here I thought it was my own original thoughts. I'm crushed.
Not.
:hi: Good to see you reading this stuff kristopher, even if you don't share the point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. not so standard. Sounds like a Materialist/Marxist anthropological theory to me
There are many other anthropological theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Well seen. It has a few roots in Cultural Materialism and Marxism,
But it owes more to John Zerzan than anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
37. The Anarchist, Benjamin Tucker, talked about the Four Monopolies
With regard to Capitalism and how the State perpetuates itself:

Land Monopoly
Money Monopoly
Patents
Tariffs

Kevin Carson, in his Studies in Mutualist Political Economy discusses a fifth monopoly:

Infrastructure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #37
65. Nice.
Some Kevin Carson love.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
81. I see you have the Good Prince Peter Kropotkin as your avatar.
Nice choice!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #81
95. Ahh, a first to recognize him! Awesome! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. No one else recognized him?
Brilliant and exceptional guy, he was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #37
66. Capitalism is a scam -- intended to move wealth + natural resources of nations from many to few -!!
And it has been highly successful at doing that --

and in its exploitation of nature, natural resources and animal life -- and even

human beings according to various mayths of "inferiority" -- it has been a disaster

for humanity and the planet -- from wars, to nuclear weapons, to Global Warming which

is a crime against humanity!



:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #66
82. Absolutely!
And I'd like to add (I forgot to add the obvious in my original post).

Capitalism wouldn't/couldn't exist without the State's monopoly on the legal use of violence (which acts as a guardian for capitalism's exploitation).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. kr
Edited on Fri Oct-07-11 11:51 AM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #82
87. Indeed .. "Capitalism is an economic system kept in place by legal use of violence" -- !!!
ABSOLUTELY !!


Capitalism wouldn't/couldn't exist without the State's monopoly on the legal use of violence (which acts as a guardian for capitalism's exploitation).


Wall Street right now would be closed down if it weren't for police brutality!!


:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fantastic Anarchist Donating Member (953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. Amen, Comrade DefendandProtect!
Edited on Fri Oct-07-11 01:21 PM by Fantastic Anarchist
:toast:

I created a thread from the inspiring Occupy Wall Street protests:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x630673

Written by Voltairine de Cleyre in 1932. It's a long read but well worth it! Give that thread some love!

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogmoma56 Donating Member (329 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
54. have they crushed them with tanks in the night yet.??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Patience, grasshopper. Patience. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #54
71. The other day ....
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 09:39 PM by defendandprotect
I was going to mention that but just couldn't --

Constant fear, tho --


"First tthey ignore you --

then they ridicule you --

then they fight you --

then you win -- "

Ghandi --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
56. Edit
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 08:13 PM by izzybeans
I'd love to see the social theorists these ideas are ripped from reced to the top. But that never happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. I haven't actually read much social theory.
I tend to browse for a few basic ideas, then develop the train of thought myself. My main inspiration in this area has been John Zerzan, with a smattering of Marx and one book by Marvin Harris. Beyond that, I'm on my own.

My main interests are actually ecology (including Deep Ecology), Peak Oil, climate change, evolutionary psychology and complex systems. I'm a computer scientist by training.

Make of it what you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
62. Hogwash. It's one of those writings that contains kernels of truth, tricking the reader
into thinking the rest of it is truth, when it's not.

If you notice, there is not one iota of optimism or hope. If there is not that, then that is not reality. Reality is both positive and negative, optimistic and pessimistic. The universe has shades of gray. It's not black and white.

People with mental illnesses or compulsive disorders, like Kaczinski, focus on only one aspect and become obsessed, consumed by it. That's why they are deemed sick.

Even if he had put the word "some" before each paragraph, it would be easier to regard as something worth noting. But to imply "all" is a failing in this writing. It's simply not true.

All Democrats are good.
All Republicans are bad.
All rich people are bad.
All poor people are good.
All black people can sing well.
All Jews are stingy.
All Jews are brilliant.
All women are maternal.
All men are violent.
All Swedes are blonde.
All Russians are fat.
All cajuns are great cooks. (I'm cajun)
All cajuns drink too much.
All Irish people are alcoholics.
You NEVER listen to me.
You ALWAYS nag me.
Etc.

Whenever you read the word "all" or "none," (even if it's just implied) a red flag should go up. Because the world and its people just aren't all or none things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #62
88. Good point: Hitler used the same tactic.
Bring up a valid concern, and answer it with the antithesis to its answer. Especially easy to do when there is a mental block against the obviously more sensible argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. How do you tell when the sensible argument has been co-opted as a pacification too
The GWOT is full of examples of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
93. I see that in textbooks all the time.
Edited on Fri Oct-07-11 02:09 PM by tcaudilllg
They go through all the eminent figures and their crazy ideas, and then a paragraph of "of courses" followed by some kind of spirited personal defense of the crazies, saying they are brave and went against the mold or some such, thus they are vindicated because at least they "did something". (never mind the fact that part of the reason they are the only ones doing something is because their closest adherents viscerally undermine and sabotage in their name, a la Freud's disciples against Jung and Adler). Although, I could substitute Ron Paul for Freud if I pleased. Or Bill O'Reilly. Or Limbaugh, or Beck. Nothing curdles my consternation like hearing somebody talk about Rush "sometimes being right!" Nevermind that a thousand monkeys with typewriters.... :rolls eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
64. I prefer Debord to Kaczynski. They have a similar critique...
...but Debord wasn't an irrational primitivist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
69. Damn. Now I've read some of the words of a real murderer. UnRec
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 09:26 PM by Trillo
Edited to add "UnRec" to title.

Perhaps it is better to know those words are written by a murderer, than many other words also written by murderers, but clandestine ones who pretend they're not.

Truly, I wish you had mentioned Ted Kaczynski earlier in the post, instead of at the end.

What is humans' fascination with infamy about, and why do some of us revel the words of the worst individual examples of humanity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. Actually, you haven't.
Edited on Thu Oct-06-11 09:33 PM by GliderGuider
They're my own words, as I pointed out above. I screwed up by adding the comment about TK without pausing to consider what that did to the sense of the post, and ended up hijacking my own thread. If you follow the link in the OP, you'll end up at my own web site.

What's interesting to me is how those perceptions seem to resonate with so many people, even when they accidentally seemed to be written by TK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. I see. Thank you for the explanation. Sorry about the UnRec,
but with the numbers of recs it was kind of like spitting into the wind.

You've probably seen the nodal network analysis of who runs the world, it tends to graphically confirm the money connections behind the thoughts you expressed in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. I had not seen that before. Thank you!!
It's a fair trade. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blackspade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
72. Great OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-11 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
73. No need to worry..Mr. Obama is looking for his walking shoes
I expect him to show up in the next 7 or 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FirstLight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
78. bookmarked for later!
k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 05:01 AM
Response to Original message
79. Bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. This has been going on for 10,000 years in one form or another.
Unless there is some kind of general human psycho-spiritual metamorphosis, the best we can hope for is opportunities to fight against it, and occasionally win. Unfortunately the wins have been few and far between lately.

Fortunately, on the other hand, we're probably facing a long-term global depression. While that's going to be miserable for a lot of us, it's going to toll a death-knell for many of the trans-national corporations that are at the very pinnacle of the power pyramid. As they die off, the choke-hold they have on civil society is going to loosen. We must be ready to take advantage of those opportunities as they arise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
89. "Ted Kaczynski had the great misfortune of being right in his analysis"
Edited on Fri Oct-07-11 12:04 PM by MilesColtrane
Giving props to murderous nuts?

If he's so right about what you agree with, how about his take on the left?

The Psychology of Modern Leftism

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.


Feelings of inferiority


10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.


Oversocialization


24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of himself. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are not in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all essential respects leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, never rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. That was the part of the Manifesto I had the most difficulty with
I don't think he painted the picture of the entire Left accurately with such a broad brush, However, I do think there's a kernel of truth there that's worth sitting with. I can usually tell how accurate someone's portrayal of me is by how uncomfortable and resistant it makes me feel. Based on that, I'd say TK was willing and able to see something in the Left that is very hard for us to see in ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tcaudilllg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-07-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. And nobody could have seen that?
Or are you just not looking hard enough? Don't you think it's odd that truth is so hard to come by? Is it just because the only advocates for it have derangements besides, or...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC