The Fascists That Surround You

[augustocroppo]

Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.

I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic.

Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea.

I was not arguing, I was calling him pathetic. He did not made any argument. I am not interested to guess what is his argument.

[myrkul]

Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.

I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic.

Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea.

I was not arguing, I was calling him pathetic. He did not made any argument. I am not interested to guess what is his argument.

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

[augustocroppo]

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

No, it is a reason. I care for textual definitions. You are producing a false relation between two different definitions.

[myrkul]

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

No, it is a reason. I care for textual definitions. You are producing a false relation between two different definitions.

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

[augustocroppo]

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

You did not explained how the relation of a garden with a plant is an appropriate analogy for the relation of a political regime with a psychological disorder.

[FirstAscent]

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

No, it is a reason. I care for textual definitions. You are producing a false relation between two different definitions.

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

The analogy means nothing. Roses exist outside of gardens. Thus, sociopaths exist outside of fascism.

[myrkul]

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

No, it is a reason. I care for textual definitions. You are producing a false relation between two different definitions.

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

The analogy means nothing. Roses exist outside of gardens. Thus, sociopaths exist outside of fascism.

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

So the analogy is not only valid, it's damn near perfect. Or have you forgotten already:

Almost.

This is better: Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Plants.

EDIT: but I do accept your analogy as well. Roses can be found in many places, not just gardens. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose

[FirstAscent]

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

No, it is a reason. I care for textual definitions. You are producing a false relation between two different definitions.

Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Roses.

The analogy means nothing. Roses exist outside of gardens. Thus, sociopaths exist outside of fascism.

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

So the analogy is not only valid, it's damn near perfect. Or have you forgotten already:

Almost.

This is better: Fascism:Sociopaths::Garden:Plants.

EDIT: but I do accept your analogy as well. Roses can be found in many places, not just gardens. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose

I only said your analogy works because it does indeed show that sociopaths are everywhere, like in your AnCap society.

[augustocroppo]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp

Benito Mussolini:
What is Fascism, 1932

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].



It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.

The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history.

Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.

Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/treatment-for-sociopath.html

Sociopathy is an advanced form of Antisocial Personality Disorder, wherein a person's emotional and physical behavior, perception, and regards towards others, can prove to be damaging to the society. A sociopath doesn't feel emotions, and therefore, can never understand interpersonal relationships. There is a lack of feelings like attachment, respect, remorse, guilt, etc., there is lack of judgment between the right and the wrong; and there is lack of understanding that there is something wrong in them. Yes, a sociopath would never admit, in fact, never realize that they have a disorder. On the contrary, he or she would blame you for all the wrongdoings that have occurred in your life. It is your actions that resulted in what they did, so you are the one to be blamed, not them.

[myrkul]

I only said your analogy works because it does indeed show that sociopaths are everywhere, like in your AnCap society.

Yes, but the Fascistic government has that tasty power structure for them to seize, and use to their (and their fellow sociopaths') benefit.

Oh, and AugustoCrappo, Feel free any time you like to prove something other than you can use Google to search terms.

[augustocroppo]

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

So the analogy is not only valid, it's damn near perfect. Or have you forgotten already

You did not explained what is the RELATION of a political regime with a psychological disorder. You indeed babbled about how people cannot resist to plant roses in they garden and compared this to a false premise (political regime attracts psychological disorder). Moreover, sociopaths are not political conspirators. Sociopaths are individuals which have an advanced form of personal disorder.

Your analogy is beyond stupid.

[augustocroppo]

Yes, but the Fascistic government has that tasty power structure for them to seize, and use to their (and their fellow sociopaths') benefit.

Oh, and AugustoCrappo, Feel free any time you like to prove something other than you can use Google to search terms.

Sociopaths are not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

Yes, I can use Google search and provide consistent references to support my arguments.

[myrkul]

Sociopaths are not individuals conspiring to overtake political regimes.

So, is your argument that sociopaths would not desire power, or that the political regime would not offer them that power?

[Rudd-O]

I watched part 2 (sociopaths) today as I drove to work in my T/A.  It was a FANTASTIC video.  As usual, Stef hits it out of the ballpark.

[Rudd-O]

You made this thread. I could care less for the video content. The description you made in the original post imply that sociopaths are fascists (or fascists are sociopaths). I am challenging you to explain what relates a political regime with a psychological disorder.

Who the fuck are you to make demands?

Hey! Don't challenge the great AugustoCroppo, lest you be scheduled for re-education.

Or worse, he might make a thread about you in the Meta section!

Holy shit, that's right.  I remember him doing that to me, trying to defame me there.  He also wrote stalkerish PMs to me.  He's a creeper.  Ignore crappo.

[augustocroppo]

So, is your argument that sociopaths would not desire power, or that the political regime would not offer them that power?

No... That must be yours. My argument is that there is no relation between fascism and sociopathy.

Moreover, why would an organized government offer 'power' to individuals with psychological disorder?

[Rudd-O]

Hitler was a sociopath, but most of the people who followed him were normal folk (volk?).
Anyone can be a fascist, but it takes a special sort of sociopath to become their leader.

This is a fairly interesting statement.

The author Robert Altemeyer from the university of Manitoba wrote a book called The Authoritarians (IMHO a MUST READ) about precisely this dynamic:

- Authoritarians are the petty scum that follow and worship authorities blindly
- Social Dominants (what Stef calls "sociopaths") are the authorities that authoritarians worship

To establish fascism, one group needs the other, and vice versa.  It should come as no surprise that Altemeyer has discovered what traits make a person a member of any of those groups, and how terrifyingly high the modern time's incidence of Social Dominance and Authoritarianism is.  The asshats in this forum that collude to try and sabotage voluntaryist conversations (augustocrappo, blatherblatherblather, firstascent, I'd give you the whole list but I'm lazy) are almost assuredly Authoritarians by Altemeyer's definition in his research.

I personally talked to Stef about this book and the research in it when I interviewed him for the Decline to State episode posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLODu02R_gA the intro is hilarious.

[Rudd-O]

Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.

I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic.

Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea.

Augustocrappo's is the standard childish conversation sabotage tactic.  He needs to learn how to get get the peanut butter out of his ears before he can sit at the big boys' table and interact with them.

[myrkul]

So, is your argument that sociopaths would not desire power, or that the political regime would not offer them that power?

No... That must be yours. My argument is that there is no relation between fascism and sociopathy.

As I said, you will find sociopaths in a fascistic government, just as you will find roses in a garden. That is the relation.

Moreover, why would an organized government offer 'power' to individuals with psychological disorder?

Because it gives power to anyone who can get elected, or otherwise seize that power, a skill at which sociopaths excel.

[Rudd-O]

Anyone who's made it through the second video should find this thread throughly amusing so far.

I did not even watched the first video and I find you very pathetic.

Arguing from an admitted position of ignorance is not a good idea.

I was not arguing, I was calling him pathetic. He did not made any argument. I am not interested to guess what is his argument.

Then why are you in this thread, if you're not interested in the subject?

Because hate.  He hates you and me and everyone else who presents ideas that scare him.  He has issues and he chooses to soothe his emotions by attacking and insulting others rather than by actually choosing to heal.  That's why.