Politics

hate speech in a town hall

Hate speech is a way of dominating & monopolizing the conversation:

  • It removes the possibility of polite, congenial dialogue.
  • No productive discussion can happen until it is removed, b/c one party is only pretending to be there for dialog but is only there for broadcasting.

Hate speech is a weapon being used to shut down political discourse — under the guise of promoting it.

It’s a kind of false flag operation — a strategy of war disguising itself as “legitimate political discourse.”
Putin and the American right-wing are using the exact same tactics — and this is no accident. It’s not a coincidence Elonely Muskrat is carrying water for Russian dictators and oligarchs — the right-wing as an ideological movement is now global.

It’s also no accident this whole Twitter takeover drama is happening just before the mid-terms. The right-wing needs to inject some juice into the splintering base, some of whom are wavering as the actual (intentionally) obscured vision of the GOP leaks out (i.e. destroy government altogether).

Continue reading GOTV: Elonely Muskrat hate speech edition
Read more

The American Founders, by me and Midjourney

The Founders meant for the republic to be agile in philosophy — always changing to meet the new demands of the next generations. They meant for us to be self-governing, and empowered to create policy for problem-solving in new eras they themselves could not even conceive of. Thomas Jefferson wrote forewarningly of the Dead Hand of the Past and how critical it would be to not remain trapped by it. The Founders were agile not in the sense of software development (obviously!), but in the same spirit: they embraced responding to change over following a plan, and in continuously uncovering ways to develop a more perfect union.

Conservative ideology on the other hand — and in particular, Originalism — flouts the actual intentions of the Framers while cloaking itself in nationalist symbology. It tries to claim that our modern hands are tied by the dead ones of the past. The Originalist doctrine currently holding sway at The Supreme Court, The Federalist Society, and the majority of right-wing judiciary maintains that the best we can do is peer feebly into the distant past and try our best to squeeze ourselves into the minds of the men who inked our Constitution some 235 years ago.

The Founders wrote things. A lot of things.

Leaving aside for a moment the impracticality of that theory as an actual practice of interpreting the law, some consideration of materials on hand shows us that we needn’t go to all that trouble in the first place — why? Because the Founders left a lot of writings behind about exactly what they meant, and the principles they were thinking about, at the time of the nation’s founding and the drafting of our Constitution.

Continue reading The Founders were agile
Read more

It is an an age of acute political polarization. Understanding how we got to this place of hyper partisanship is exceedingly helpful for peace of mind, but the question still remains: how do we get out of it? How do we collectively evolve, to see the commonalities we share as being more important than the differences we cling to? One potential place to start is learning the art of better conflict management.

Humans aren’t natively wired for healthy conflict management — in fact, we’ve evolved with a primary skillset geared towards pretty much the opposite approach: group combat, physical violence, and social dominance for maintaining strict social hierarchies. Much of the story of the civilized world is about collectively learning how to curb those base instincts, and the ways in which we’ve utterly failed to do so — leading to wars, genocides, and unspeakable acts of horror from the micro all the way to the macro scale, again and again, from generation to generation for thousands of years of recorded human history.

The psychology of conflict

The work of many philosophers and academics leaves us with the popular impression that humans are essentially rational beings, making logical choices between alternatives based on the careful weighing of evidence, pros, and cons. Not so! Our brains are riddled with cognitive biases, mental distortions, and habits of logical fallacy we fall for again and again.

It turns out that we are pretty poor scientists in our personal lives (and often in our professional ones as well). Instead of approaching the world with an open mind and leaving room for the possibility that our ideas and assumptions may be wrong, we frequently do quite the opposite — we filter incoming information against our pre-existing convictions and keep the stuff that matches, while tossing out evidence that doesn’t agree with what we already believe. Instead of being open to what reality tries to show us, we engage with the world from a place of motivated reasoning; we expect reality to conform to what we expect of it, instead of the other way around.

As a result, when we encounter people or ideas that disagree with our own preconceived notions, we have a very hard time conceiving of the idea that their way of thinking might have any merit at all. Moreover, those people are in the same cognitive boat that we are — they’re just as convinced that we are wrong as we are that they’re the ones not thinking straight. It’s a recipe for terrible conflict management, lurking around every corner and every interaction — hundreds or even thousands of times per day for each of us.

How to improve conflict management

So how do we get better at this, given the nature of our brains to get hooked into escalating a situation rather than de-escalating it? Is it hopeless, or can we work towards improving our conflict management skills?

All hope is not lost! A number of disciplines from coaching to leadership to non-violence communication offer various types of approaches to upping our game in reducing the conflicts that seemingly rage all around us.

One such approach comes from a resource that manages to be both classic business canon and yet undersung in the general population: Dale Carnegie’s seminal work, How to Win Friends and Influence People. He suggests essentially turning your brain’s primal instinct on its head: instead of approaching every interaction with the mindframe of “I’m right and you’re wrong — let me tell you why,” Carnegie suggests practicing finding the kernel or essence of something you both actually agree on first.

Even if there’s no obvious space of overlap in your ideas, you can still take pains to truly listen to what the other person has to say and find something of value in it, and communicate your appreciation to that person. Or, simply ask them open-ended questions about their perspective and encourage them to open up further. Here are some examples of phrases you might use to let the other person know you’ve truly heard them and appreciate their thoughts:

  • That’s very interesting! Can you tell me more?
  • I think I see what you’re saying — would you explain that a bit further?
  • You’re right about X. I hadn’t thought about it that way before.
  • It sounds like we have X in common. Could we dig in to that a bit more?
  • I can understand why you’d feel that way.
  • That touches on something similar in my experience — can I tell you about it?

Only after you’ve found some initial common ground and acknowledged the validity of the other person’s perspective — even if you don’t agree with it — do you consider pivoting to bring up points of disagreement. Sometimes the essence of conflict management is simply to avoid wading into conflict in the first place, by heading it off at the pass.

Validating another person’s point of view is an extremely powerful way to open up a space of dialogue. It leverages an age-old human guideline for healthy interaction: the concept of reciprocity. When we treat people with fundamental respect — the way we ourselves hope to be treated — we have already improved our skills in conflict management by defusing potential heated arguments before they get started. And once they do, we can practice falling back to a place of basic listening and validation before attempting to head back into conflict territory.

Read more

Conspiracy theories are not new. Covid-related conspiracies may be new, but conspiracy theories about pandemics and contagious diseases have been around for centuries. Anti-vaccination hysteria goes back decades. The QAnon conspiracy theory may be new (or maybe not really?!), but conspiracy theories themselves are a tale(s) as old as time — or at least time as we know it, from the start of recorded history.

What is a conspiracy theory?

Conspiracy theories are simple explanations for complex phenomena, that often involve a secret group (often some type of global cabal) who are pulling the strings of world events behind the scenes. There is most commonly little to no credible evidence supporting the beliefs of the conspiracy theory, instead relying on superstition, speculation, coincidence, or simple rumor to back up their claims.

QAnon flag epitomizes modern-day conspiracy theories
Image credit: Anthony Crider

A large body of psychological research has shown that there are some deep cognitive reasons that conspiracy theories tend to resonate with us, and especially in particular types of people, or people in certain types of circumstances.

We are fundamentally wired to be storytellers. It’s intuitive why this ability might be hard-coded into our brains, as it so clearly relates to survival, self-preservation, and our ability to navigate and succeed in a complex world. We need to be able to understand cause and effect in an environment of many rapidly shifting variables, and storytelling is a framework for weaving coherent narratives that reduce our anxiety about the great uncertainties in the environment around us.

Conspiracy theories tap into psychological needs

Conspiratorial thinking is far more common than we think, and can ebb and flow in populations based on prevailing conditions. Our ability to see patterns in randomness and dissemble stories on the spot, along with numerous other cognitive and psychological biases, make us vulnerable to belief in conspiracy theories.

Continue reading Why do people believe conspiracy theories?
Read more

In a special 6th session of the January 6 Commission Hearings that was not anticipated, former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson revealed bombshell testimony under oath about what the witnessed and heard in the White House leading up to and on the violent January 6 coup event. From her forthright and gripping account, today we learned:

Trump didn’t care the protestors had AR-15s

According to testimony, he was mad the Ellipse did not appear more filled in such that photos of the event would look anemic. He wanted the security screenings stopped so the people with guns, knives, and other weapons could come in without fear of having their weapons confiscated.

Continue reading January 6 Commission hearings reveal evidence of a coup
Read more

Forbearance is one of the two essentials for a functioning democracy described by Steven Levinsky and Daniel Ziblatt in their book “How Democracies Die.” Along with mutual toleration, forbearance enables more rounds of the electoral game to continue, as opposed to devolving into a civil war over the legitimacy of authority.

Forbearance essentially means, “self-control.” It means exercising discernment and restraint in matters of state, because of the dire consequences of allowing extremism to run rampant and destroy peace. Forbearance is also the avoiding of actions that violate the spirit of the law, if not the letter of the law.

Political forbearance is a crucial element of healthy democratic systems, as it promotes a culture of restraint, tolerance, and cooperation among political actors. It helps nations avoid excessive partisanship, and respect the rights and interests of their opponents. Political forbearance is vital for the stability and functionality of democratic institutions, as it helps to maintain a balance between competing interests and prevents the escalation of conflicts.

The erosion of forbearance

In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the erosion of political forbearance and its potential impact on democratic stability. This phenomenon, often referred to as democratic backsliding, is characterized by a decline in the quality of democratic governance, as political actors increasingly abandon norms of restraint and respect for their opponents.

Democratic backsliding can manifest in various ways, such as the abuse of power, the erosion of civil liberties, and the undermining of democratic institutions. In some cases, this process can lead to the complete breakdown of democratic systems and a return to authoritarian rule.

Abandoning forbearance eventually draws blood.

Read more

Freedom is freedom from the fear of death.

Freedom is freedom from fearing you’ll be gunned down at school.

Freedom is freedom from fear your kids won’t come home from school.

Freedom is freedom from fear of going to the grocery store.

Freedom is freedom from senseless violence.

Freedom is freedom from murderous rampages replayed night after night.

Freedom is freedom from domestic warfare.

Freedom is freedom from weapons of warfare in our communities, in our churches, in our schools, in our stores, on our playing fields, on our streets.

Freedom is freedom from injustice.

Freedom is freedom from inaction.

Read more

Great Replacement Theory is a conspiracy theory animating the radical right wing that claims non-white immigrants are being brought to the U.S. and the west to “replace” white voters with their woke political and cultural agenda. Those who believe this white supremacist ideology see routine immigration policy as a white genocide and extinction of the white race. They also point to low birth rates among white europeans and the promotion of multiculturalism, or “wokeness,” as responsible for the alleged effects.

Promoters of this derivative of Nazi ideology (the claim is that Jews are responsible for this immigration plot) claim that the United States must close its borders immediately to immigration. Many advocate isolationism (“America First!”), white nationalism (and/or forms of nationalism more broadly), and claim that violence may be necessary to keep America under the control of white men.

History of Great Replacement Theory

The term “Great Replacement” was popularized by French writer Renaud Camus in his 2011 book “Le Grand Remplacement.” According to Camus, the alleged replacement is a result of the European elites intentionally allowing mass immigration and promoting multiculturalism to undermine national identity and traditional Western culture.

The Great Replacement Theory has been widely discredited and criticized by experts, as it is based on misinformation, selective data, and biased interpretations. It is important to note that this theory often fuels xenophobia, bigotry, racism, and anti-immigrant sentiments, and has been linked to a number of far-right extremist attacks worldwide.

Demographic changes in Western countries are driven by a complex interplay of factors such as economic migration, political instability, globalization, and changing birth rates. These factors are not part of any orchestrated plot, but rather reflect broader social, economic, and political trends. Unfortunately, it’s in the interest of the right-wing to keep its rabid base riled up — and the Great Replacement Theory conspiracy is an effective tool for generating anger and injecting vitriol into the broader political discourse.

Read more

I’ve been reading Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and it’s synthesizing a few things together for me in new ways — prime among them the realization that collective narcissism is the shared root ideology of both Christian nationalism and Nazism. First off, I’d recommend it:

Next, I’d like to thank it for reminding me about the insidious dangers of Calvinism and the Protestant Work Ethic, as described in sociologist Max Weber‘s most cited work in the history of the field. Beyond the problematic authoritarianism of John Calvin as a person himself, the ideology of predestination coupled with a paradoxical obsessive compulsion with working yourself ragged is a noxious brew that fed the Protestant extrusion of American capitalism as well as the murderous violence of its Manifest Destiny.

Reformation Ideologies

Calvin — like Luther before him — was reacting to the social and economic upheavals of his day which, during the Reformation, were all about the middle class emerging from the security and certainty of feudalism into a far more dynamic world of competition, isolation, and aloneness. It held promise but also peril — hope along with, inescapably, fear.

During the Middle Ages, humankind had retreated from the aspirational virtuousness of the Greek and Roman civilizations and descended into almost 1000 years of darkness, as compared to the dazzling intellectual brilliance of the millennium before it. Those who would prefer cultish cowering in self-righteous ignorance over the humility of fallible science and critical thinking managed to topple a glittering civilization and scatter it to the wolves. It was a return to cruel and arbitrary happenstance, a horrifying Hobbesian world of pestilence and pathology.

Continue reading Collective narcissism is a bad solution to modern anxiety
Read more

The radical right is a fervent anti-government strain of Libertarian ultraconservative, emerging out of the anti-New Deal ideology of the 1930s. From McCarthyism to the John Birch Society, from fiscal conservatives to Christian nationalists, the radical right contains some of the most extreme ideologies in the right wing.

Conservative ideology has gotten more and more extreme over the past few decades — as well as being mainstreamed within the Republican Party. Formerly moderate Republicans are referred to as “RINOs” (Republican In Name Only) and are being pushed out of the party, whether by primary defeat or ostracism by the right-wing base.

Only those who pass the utmost purity tests are allowed to remain amid, and especially atop of, the right-wing political establishment in recent years. They persist in holding some truly debunked, thoroughly delusional “explanations” for phenomena in the real world.

Radical Right myths and beliefs:

  • Government assistance makes people weak and lazy.
  • Unemployed people don’t want to work.
  • FDR and the Democrats destroyed our system of free enterprise.
  • Wealthy people are job creators and we must do more to preserve their wealth.
  • Cutting taxes creates jobs — aka Trickle Down Economics
  • Hierarchy and the maintenance of a de facto caste system — despite the nation’s founding ideals of Equality
  • Strict Father Morality — adherence to rigidly traditional gender roles and the absolute power of authority
  • Originalism — the idea that we cannot fundamentally make new laws; that all we can do is peer into the past and try to imagine the original intent of the Founders when writing the Constitution
  • Independent State Legislature Theory — so-called “states’ rights” by another name, taken to a more extreme twist in which only the state legislature — unchecked by executive power or judicial review — can have any say in the state’s election procedures
  • New World Order old conspiracy theory & the Illuminati
  • anti-UN
  • Communist spies in the government
  • Communists in Hollywood
  • Fear of creeping socialism
  • Anti-social security
  • “Second Amendment remedies” and other thinly-veiled calls to political violence
  • Coming to “take our country back”
  • right-to-work laws — to break unions
  • anti-abortion
  • anti-LGBT
  • anti-feminism
  • anti-liberal
  • anti-immigrant
Read more

When using the Broken Record method, think K.I.S.S. for quick and dirty media strategy: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Then, repeat those short phrases or sentences frequently.

Themes to Broken Record for 2022 (and beyond):

Fascism / Authoritarianism warnings

Optimism > Pessimism

Buddhism and Stoicism were hopefully about humanity — these were philosophies that placed humans squarely at the center of an ever-expanding self-awareness journey that we could all commit to as a matter of personal growth. The locus of control was inside the individual.

Christianity changed all that. Now the locus of control was outside of a person — it resided with Jesus and, in turn, God. Considering their pernicious absence on the face of the planet however, numerous human beings claimed to have the bat phone to God, by which to issue allegedly celestial orders to others. The game of telephone always seemed to conspicuously privilege the claimant — God always coincidentally seemed to have great things in mind for the interlocutor, and not much concern for the rest of His creation.

The religious philosophies of Luther and Calvin would debase the popular conception of humanity even further, teaching that no amount of self-humiliation could get us low enough to match our undeservedness — and yet we ought to exhaust ourselves trying to prove it to be the case nonetheless. Under the edicts of the Protestant work ethic, one needs always to be consumed by frantic activity in order to appear worthy of God’s salvation — despite the fact that the core precept of predestination means that none of your obsessive ablutions can actually move the needle. Do it anyway — drop and give Calvin a Moral 20!

Read more

Some of us have been boning up on this topic for about 6 years already, while others are just tuning in now based on the horrors of recent events. It can be overwhelming to come in cold, so here — don’t go it alone! Take this:

Putin’s war against the west

President Biden “declassified” an intelligence analysis many of us had arrived at some time ago: Russian president Vladimir Putin is a cruel revanchist leader who will stop at nothing to claw out a larger legacy before he dies. His goal is nothing less than reconstituting the former Soviet Union and restoring the “glory” of the Russian empire of yesteryear. And for some reason he thinks the world community is going to let him get away with his delusional fever dreams of conquest — as if fever dreams of Mongol domination are still de rigueur.

The attacks on the 2016 election and on the American Capitol in 2021 are related — both are Russian hybrid warfare operations. Russia also is the cold beating heart of the right-wing authoritarianism movement around the world, via financial, political, psychological, economic, and other means of government and regulatory capture.

Putin has hated democracy for a long time — since before the Berlin Wall fell where he was stationed in East Berlin as a young KGB agent, taking the news hard. Now, he has many fifth column confederates aiding and abetting him from within the United States — a number of them brazenly, and openly. It is getting harder and harder for those treasonous types to “hide out” in the folds of disinformation, misinformation, and plausible deniability. The play is being called — and everyone will need to decide if they’re for democracy or authoritarianism.

Further reading:

Media Resources

Twitter Lists

Read more

The Republican National Committee, in perhaps the most stunningly stupid self-own in the history of modern politics certainly in my lifetime, finally said the quietest part out loud: that in their official pronouncement, the events at the Capitol on January 6 constituted “legitimate political discourse.” Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were censured by the RNC in the statement as well, for their role on the January 6 Committee and their investigation into these “legitimate” events involving a murderous attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Yale historian Joanne Freeman had this to say about the RNC statement:

Democracy vs. Authoritarianism is on the ballot in 2022

If there’s any upside to the dark situation we’re in, it’s these gifts Republicans keep on giving — further debasing themselves each time you think they can’t possibly stoop any morally lower — that we can use to our advantage to turn out our base in record numbers in these upcoming midterms. We did it in 2018, and there’s no reason to believe we can’t do it now. Trump’s support is waning, not growing — and the fractures within the GOP are widening, not tightening. Plus, we’ll have 8 million new 18-year-old eligible voters we can potentially reach — the vast majority of whom statistically speaking, are going to be progressive Democrats.

None of the other policy questions or culture wars will matter if we cannot solve the most fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: do we still believe in the ideals of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the vision of a self-governing people shared by the Founders? Or do we want to hand over the keys to the nation to the erstwhile billionaires, old money heirs, and trust fund playboys who want to drag us back to some perverted nostalgic fantasyland that’s part Leave It To Beaver, part wild west, and part Silence of the Lambs?

Do we want democracy, or authoritarianism?

Do we want to choose our leaders, as citizens — or do we want politicians to choose our leaders?

It’s the only question in 2022.

Read more

Professor Altemeyer has studied authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality since 1966. He first published a refinement of Theodor Adorno’s work on authoritarian personalities, known as the Right-Wing Authoritarian Scale in 1981. In 2006, Bob Altemeyer The Authoritarians was slated to be his last work pending retirement — but in 2020 a new work co-authored with Watergate whistleblower John Dean titled Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and His Followers aimed to warn America about the dangers of Donald Trump’s personality to unleash the very worst in the very worst sorts of individuals.

Meanwhile Bob has made The Authoritarians available free of charge here, and I absolutely encourage you to read it — it’s fascinating stuff and he’s an entertaining as well as informative writer. In this post I’ll do my best to summarize the main points of the book, because I know people are busy and not everyone has time to read a whole book much less scrape together hours to volunteer and do activist work.

Bob Altemeyer The Authoritarians

Dr. Altemeyer defines authoritarianism as “something authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders cook up between themselves.” Followers submit blindly to the leaders and give them too much free rein to do anti-democratic, brutal, and tyrannical things. Power corrupts absolutely, and power seems to corrupt authoritarians most of all.

Bob Altemeyer -- The Authoritarians book review

He classifies the authoritarians into three primary groups:

  1. Authoritarian followers — typically this group follows the established authorities in their society, including government officials, clergy and traditional religious leaders, business leaders, and self-appointed gurus of all stripes. They tend to have a “Daddy and Mommy know best” approach to the government, believing that authorities are above the law. Psychologically, authoritarian followers exhibit a high degree of submission to authorities they accept as legitimate, high levels of aggression in the name of those authorities (if so called upon), and a high degree of conventionalism and conformity. They tend to be bigots, with prejudices against many types of groups.
  2. Authoritarian leaders — tend to be Social Dominators, who long to control people and affect others’ lives. They are overall highly prejudiced and bigoted, do not believe in the American value of equality, and feel justified in wielding great power over society with little qualification and even less self-reflection. They believe the world is divided into wolves and sheep, and they have no qualms fooling the sheep into opening the pasture gate so they can eat. “Might makes right” is their personal motto.
  3. Double Highs — about 10% of any given sample score highly on both the social dominance test and the right-wing authoritarian scale, which is odd given the social dominator’s otherwise reluctance to be submissive. They exhibit extra prejudice and extra hostility — beyond either the social dominators or the RWAs. They tend to be the “religious” social dominators, who had a fundamentalist upbringing, or had a conversion experience as an adult (George W. Bush, e.g.) and now tend to believe in some form of Strict Father Morality.

More traits of authoritarian followers

  • They tend to feel more endangered in potentially threatening situations that most people do (think: Dick Cheney‘s descent into bunker mentality after 9/11)
  • More afraid than most people; they tend to have overactive amygdalas
  • Were raised by their parents to be afraid of others — both parents and children have told researchers so
  • More likely to issue threats than low authoritarians
  • Most orthodox — were raised fundamentalist and are highly repressed
  • Most hardline
  • Believe “whatever I want is right”
  • Paradoxically, want to “be normal” very badly — they tend to get tugged by the people around them

Authoritarian aggression

Authoritarians prefer not to have fair fights out in the open — they tend to aggress when they believe their hostility is welcomed by established authority, or supports established authority. They also often aggress when they have an obvious physical advantage over the target — making women, children, and others unable to defend themselves as ideal targets. These cowards have the gall to feel morally superior to the innocent victims they assault in an ongoing asymmetrical warfare between supremacists and marginalized groups.

To make matters worse, authoritarians do their dirty deeds in the shadows and scream bloody murder at anyone who dares try and expose their dark secrets to the light. Their theatrical and performative self-righteousness is just an act to avoid accountability and responsibility for what they do — even unto themselves.

Moreover, authoritarians are extra punitive against lawbreakers they don’t like (though exceedingly permissive for lawbreakers they *do* like, which is infuriatingly hypocritical), because they believe fervently in the value of punishment. Many advocate child corporal punishment — spanking and worse — for children as young as 1 year old. Authoritarian followers tended to report feelings of “secret pleasure” when hearing of the misfortunes of high school classmates who had misbehaved, believing they got what they deserved in life.

It would be accurate to think of authoritarians as “little volcanoes of hostility,” almost heat-seeking their way into authority-approved ways to erupt and release their pent-up anger. Many of them do not, and will not ever realize that their fundamentalist upbringing has sadly left their brains underdeveloped, and ill-equipped to navigate the modern world with its rapid changes, accelerating inequality, advancing climate change, and political instability.

Lethal Union

When a social dominator becomes an authoritarian leader, and leads his authoritarian followers down malevolent roads from informing to threatening to vigilanteism, researchers refer to this state of affairs as a “lethal union.” It’s a highly dangerous and volatile time for a democracy, one warranting caution and vigilance from concerned citizens.

Throughout history, these are the situations that tend to devolve further into aggression, political violence, civil war, genocide, and worse. We need to be very damn careful about who we elect as our leaders — we cannot allow our government to be captured by special interests and the narrow, quixotic delusions of old billionaires outshining daddy and staving off death.

More books about authoritarians

If you’ve already read Bob Altemeyer The Authoritarians, or you’re just looking for more resources on authoritarianism — here’s a list to get started:

Authoritarianism Books

More resources on authoritarianism

Essential thinkers on authoritarian personality theory ↗

The authoritarian personality is characterized by excessive strictness and a propensity to exhibit oppressive behavior towards perceived subordinates.

Authoritarianism Dictionary ↗

This dictionary collects definitions and charts the rise of language, ideology, tactics, and historical movements of American authoritarians.

Koup Klux Klan: The authoritarian movement trying to take over America ↗

We are facing an unprecedented crisis of democracy under attack by a roster of extremists, hardliners, theocrats, plutocrats, and others of their ilk.

Read more

How to detect fake from real

It is going to become increasingly more difficult to discern from fact from fiction, here in this world that seemingly quickly flipped from a world of The Enlightenment to a world of dark disinformation. From artificial intelligence to vast propaganda machines, from deep fakes to fake lives — it’s going to require more from us to be able to detect what’s real.

Already we can’t rely on old cues, signposts, and tropes anymore. We’re less credulous about credentials, and trust isn’t automatic based on caste, title, or familiar status markers.

Go slow and look for mimics

Here’s one key to more accurate reality detection: take more time to spot the fake. Don’t judge too quickly, because it can take time to weed out the fakesters and the hucksters — some are decent mimics and can fool people who are in a hurry, not paying much attention, or attracted to some irrelevant other quality about the ersatz knockoff and thus forms an affinity with them based on something else entirely. Some drink the Kool-Aid for various reasons.

Clues of fraud

Those who cling absurdly to abstract symbols are often fakes. And in general, any folks who feel like they are just trying a little bit too hard might be fake. Then, of course, there are the full-on zealots and religious nutbags. These theocrats are definitely faux compassionate Jesus-lovers. What better cloak than the robes of a religious man (or, less frequently, woman)? It’s the perfect disguise.

No wonder so many child abusers hide out in churches of all kinds, from famously the Catholic to the more recently-outed (though not surprising) Evangelical Southern Baptist Church. No one will ever suspect them, or want to confront them if they do. Plus, they have Democrats to absurdly try and pin the blame on repeatedly, despite a lack of a shred of evidence.

Read more