On Sunday, October 27, 2024 at 2:55:12 AM UTC+1 Liz R wrote:
@PGC excellent responses, although they seem like water off a duck's back. Thank you and you are right, of course. Indeed, water of a duck's back. This is all too obvious and a waste of time for folks here, that know where I am coming from: Haters can hate. This doesn't change that the current political climate in the United States and the world generally reveals a deep-seated struggle rooted in masculine insecurities and economic anxieties. There is a segment of the male population that appears to be stagnating psychologically, clinging to perspectives of insecure adolescence. This stagnation manifests in a yearning for authoritarian figures who promise to restore a lost sense of pride and purpose. Economic insecurities, such as the lack of viable career prospects and the erosion of traditional industries, fuel this desire for a paternalistic leader who can impose order and discipline—a modern embodiment of an abusive father figure. Research in social psychology supports this connection between economic hardship and the appeal of authoritarianism. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals experiencing economic threats are more likely to endorse authoritarian ideologies (Sales, 1973). The loss of status and control leads to frustration and aggression, often directed toward out-groups or perceived sources of change, such as women and minorities who are advancing in society. As if ownership of an inadequate penis entitles one to status. This insecurity is further exacerbated by the success of women in adapting to new societal roles. As women gain more opportunities and assert their independence, some men perceive this as a threat to their traditional dominance and inadequate penises. Unable to articulate genuine arguments against this progression, they resort to insults and attacks, often - big surprise - of a sexual nature. This behavior is a projection of their own inadequacies and a defense mechanism against feelings of emasculation. The misogynistic rhetoric seen in political discourse is not even offensive to me anymore; it is simply indicative of deeper psychological trouble, which I even have compassion for. Size, muscle, weapons... are only a concession that one has no faith in one's arguments, position, status, or adequacy of one's penis. Even if authoritarian figures like Donald Trump ascend to power, the fundamental inadequacies felt by these men will persist. Authoritarianism may offer the illusion of restored masculinity and control, but it does not address the root causes of economic and social disenfranchisement. In fact, such regimes often exacerbate inequalities, favoring the wealthy and well-connected while leaving the average person to grapple with harsher conditions. The perceived sense of belonging and solidarity among some on the political right can be seen as a superficial veneer that masks deeper issues. While there is an outward display of respect and camaraderie, especially when rallying against a so-called "common enemy within," this unity often excludes rather than includes. This exclusivity mirrors aspects of collectivist ideologies, where the group's cohesion is maintained by identifying and opposing some adversary, in the name of some bs perceived injustice. Despite the emphasis on solidarity, this approach does not lead to tangible improvements in living standards, increased prestige/recognition, or greater economic prosperity for its adherents. The promised benefits of such unity—better homes, vehicles, and disposable income—remain largely unfulfilled. The friendliness and respect promoted within the group often come at the expense of openness and acceptance of others, particularly those who value freedom, scientific inquiry, and open exploration of ideas. The use of ill-defined terms like "wokeness" serves as a tool for othering, creating straw man arguments that lack specificity and target a broad range of individuals and ideas. This practice fosters division and perpetuates an undercurrent of hostility toward those who do not conform to the group's norms. The resultant atmosphere is one where the cost of belonging is the acceptance of this exclusionary stance and the underlying animosity it entails. Ultimately, the false sense of solidarity built on opposing others hinders genuine progress and undermines the principles of inclusivity and mutual respect that are essential for societal advancement. It prioritizes conformity over critical thinking and suppresses the diversity of thought necessary for innovation and growth. That "love" is called hate, ladies and gentlemen. History shows that adaptability and resilience are key to overcoming periods of regression. Families who have endured the devastations of war, losing everything from wealth to homes, have managed to rebuild by embracing change rather than resisting it. They understand that progress cannot be halted and that survival depends on the willingness to dive into the waves of transformation. Those who adapt thrive, while those who cling to outdated notions of power and identity risk being swept away. Those of us who are immune to the teenage strength rhetoric, despite being persecuted and targeted for centuries, will always find a way back to prosperity and peace because we change and, when necessary, move and adapt. The support of billionaires like Kenneth Griffin for authoritarian candidates is telling. Super wealthy individuals in the economic prediction forefront often thrive on volatility, as it presents opportunities for profit that stability does not. Griffin's substantial financial endorsement of Trump signals an economic landscape where the super rich stand to benefit, as will the "merely affluent" to a lesser degree, while the less affluent may face increased adversity. Under such administrations, policies are frequently enacted that favor the elite, widening the gap between the rich and the poor. I've embraced a Trump win for some time now, the resulting tax benefits of interests in the US, made appropriate plans, and seeing the new opportunities it would open up, even if it all is driven by the inadequate penis mindset. In many ways, such a mindset is easier to manipulate, take advantage of, and do business with. If these people want to "teach us dad's harsh lesson"; they will only find such a lesson self-administered over time. Moreover, the regression into authoritarianism is fundamentally incompatible with progressive agendas, including transhumanism—the belief in using technology to enhance the human condition. Authoritarian regimes typically suppress innovation and dissent, stifling the very advancements that drive societal growth and science. Progress requires freedom of thought and expression, conditions that are antithetical to teenage insecurity whining. In delving into the insecurities fueling this political shift, it becomes clear that a return to authoritarianism is not a solution but a symptom of deeper issues. Economic policies that genuinely address meaningful job scarcity and provide new opportunities are needed to alleviate the frustrations that lead to the embrace of strongman figures. I stress the "meaningful" part, as genuine self-confidence only grows accomplishments we deem meaningful (not that I claim the ability to define this for somebody else). Education and open dialogue can help dismantle the harmful stereotypes and fears that perpetuate misogyny and aggression. But sustained deep hatred and envy at some point become a matter for psychologists, eventually psychiatrists. Ultimately, the march toward authoritarianism will not alleviate the insecurities of those who support it; instead, it will intensify them. It's a case where insecure men getting what they want is poisoned/cursed: they will get more of the same, and the frustration/anxieties/insecurities will merely grow, consistent with their dispositions. Societal progress depends on confronting these challenges head-on, promoting adaptability, and fostering environments where all individuals can find purpose and prosperity without resorting to destructive ideologies. Footnote: It is a sobering reality that democratic systems can be vulnerable to their own undoing when they fail to protect against the rise of anti-democratic forces. Allowing those who undermine democratic principles to ascend to power is akin to trusting a wolf to shepherd the sheep or appointing a serial offender to manage a school. The checks and balances designed to safeguard democracy are rendered ineffective when the very mechanisms of democracy are used to dismantle it. History has shown the dangers of this pattern repeatedly, yet there remains a reluctance to implement safeguards that prevent self-destruction here. It is imperative to recognize and address this naivety to preserve the integrity and future of open societies. Sorry to insult anybody with topics this obvious but it is also obvious that these topics should find expression from time to time. I referred to: Sales, S. M. (1973). Threat as a Factor in Authoritarianism: An Analysis of Archival Data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 44–57. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fc82840-a4bb-4a84-8c9e-68d2429ac7b3n%40googlegroups.com.
