|[ Outlaw Genealogy | Bruce
History | Lost Chords ]
[ Resources | Ufo | [ Projects | News | FAQ | Suggestions | Search | HotLinks ]
Does the World Feel Wrong?
by Will Groves - Exclusive to STR
January 27, 2009
Consider these events:
1. A president who started two aggressive wars, who bears responsibility for the loss of thousands of American lives along with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan lives, leaves office as a free man without a felony record or any negative repercussions.
2. Meanwhile, the same populace that has intimate experience with lying politicians appears utterly smitten with a smooth-talking new president promising change and demanding sacrifice.
3. The Congress, which had an approval rate of 14% and which just passed a $700 billion bailout over the objections of a majority of Americans, had a re-election rate exceeding 95%.
4. Untold millions of Americans voice support of military troops as these very people are needlessly killed, injured, and separated from their families and productive work at home.
5. A general populace believed that buying unproductive assets, like housing, could make them wealthy, forever, without any coherent explanation why.
6. Researchers who pursue alternative explanations for AIDS and cancer get their funding cut and have the results of their research squelched, while others who try to improve life by providing healthful foods find themselves under attack.
Overt criminality by leaders and passive, unclear thinking by the proles have become the norm. The two go together, creating a symbiotic ecosystem of tyranny. Fraud, theft, and murder have become widespread, just as the scale of lies told and believed have reached new heights. Irresponsibility has become socialized while people in the honest pursuit of good get thwarted.
Those of us who want little more than peace and freedom don’t run the world. Pursuing freedom contradicts controlling others, so we can reason that people who pursue power have some motivations separate from our own.
I have not fully comprehended the implications of this until recently. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I had assumed that the people who wield power feel similarly about moral issues as I do—I just couldn’t see why they commit and justify unethical behavior. I already knew that states operate according to a code that the rest of us don’t follow in our own lives. Nevertheless, I assumed that a man who acts without regard to moral laws must feel guilty about it. Then, one day, I stumbled onto this idea: Suppose he doesn’t.
With only small ambitions, he probably behaves like a common criminal, a predator. He lies to gain advantage, uses force to get his way, and steals without conscience. Not feeling guilty about unethical behavior motivates him to instigate further criminal acts.
Small crime operations have one big problem, namely, the risk of getting caught. The prospect of prison appears unappealing, yet even with the high likelihood of arrest and capture during a career, common criminals approach their field with little sophistication and often pay the price. Other like-minded people see ways to avoid these problems. Just as normal people develop interests growing up and figure out how to pursue them at higher levels, a criminal mind can do the same. With greater intelligence and patience, he can pursue an ambitious career of criminality. With this objective in sight, one can easily see the state as the most expedient means to accomplish it.
Once a criminal joins forces with the state by becoming an employee, he can lie to his advantage, use force to get his way, and steal without conscience, just as the small-time operator does. The opportunities for mischief have no limits through thoughtful job selection. For example, if a man took pleasure in making innocent people squirm, he could become a police officer and plant evidence. For another, if he wanted to murder people, he could become a military officer and “accidentally” call in the coordinates of a house he’d like to see bombed. Whatever they do, the state shields them from the natural consequences of their actions. In all likelihood, if smart, they never get caught, never get punished, and probably get commended.
Too often, I have assumed that the people working for the state take the jobs only because of the easy hours and good pay, benefits, and retirement. For the predator, though, it offers all these things with the appetizing fringe benefit of satisfying their criminal urges without the risk of retribution.
It turns out this personality type has a scientific name: psychopathic. Lest you think I merely kid you, I quote from Scientific American:
Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.
This seems like a nearly perfect description of those who seek political power. That same article goes on to say that fields over-represented by psychopaths may include “politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this intriguing conjecture is preliminary.” It turns out that much stronger evidence for this exists than the article lets on.
In the book Political Ponerology, Andrew Lobaczewski claims that about 6% of the people within a population have psychopathic characters. The implications of this, which he recognized soon after World War II, stagger the mind. Moreover, he suggests that another 12% of the population has high susceptibility to psychopathic thought. In a world dominated by hierarchical structures, these people seize control of the key positions and create a so-called “pathocracy.” Lobaczewski continues, writing in ways that clearly anticipate the current reality:
Within this [pathocratic] system, the common man is blamed for not having been born a psychopath, and is considered good for nothing except hard work, fighting and dying to protect a system of government he can neither sufficiently comprehend nor ever consider to be his own. An ever-strengthening network of psychopathic and related individuals gradually starts to dominate, overshadowing the others.
Normal people have not considered the possibility that some people who seem ordinary could have no moral inhibitions. They default to believing that their leaders have good intentions. Employees of psychopaths thus carry out plans of their bosses blinded to the reality. No matter the scope of the “failure,” the leadership can always point back to their stated good intentions and shield themselves from the gallows. In fact, the more harm they create, the stronger the call becomes to vest more power in their failed agency so they can “prevent” anything of the sort from ever happening again.
Their MO focuses on figuring out how much they can get away with, and we see no signs they have begun to approach the limits the public will accept. Irrespective of the ordeals they create, the vast majority of people give them the benefit of the doubt time and time again and continue in their support of the system. This belief among good people led to the democide of the 20th Century that continues unabated today.
After considering the possibility that psychopaths have taken control of society, we find volumes of evidence to support the hypothesis. Did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pott sympathize with their victims or have any sense of guilt? More recently, among Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, or Clinton , can we point to one who even exhibits a façade resembling normality? Obviously not—these lists name one person after another who has zero accountability to a rational morality. If people like this could make their way to the highest levels of power, what does that say about lower offices?
It suggests people like this have control over the levers of power everywhere. We live at a time when the population at large cannot achieve its wants, yet few seem to know why. As one example, polls consistently indicate that educational matters concern the public, yet decade after decade, schooling gets quantitatively worse. What a mystery! Evidently, if we believe our well-meaning masters, 2,000 years of Western civilization has not yet determined effective ways to transmit key knowledge to younger generations. However, what happens if we suspend our belief in their benevolence for a moment and consider other possibilities? If schools fail to achieve their stated goals over several decades, might some groups see this as a success?
Inhibiting critical thinking in the masses obviously benefits the state and psychopaths. When overtly self-serving, irresponsible, illegal, immoral, irrational behavior gets treated as normal, we can conclude that the educational system works quite well for our masters. I have given but one example, yet the multitude of state functions exists to provide every variety of psychopathic interest with a job. Moreover, we should consider that the state not only acts like a recruitment center for psychopaths, but that psychopaths probably invented the state to take advantage of the rest of us. I can give you no better explanation for the existence of an organization that fails in every ethical dimension and invokes psychopathic thinking at every turn than this.
Our battle for liberty appears not just as a conflict between those who want freedom versus those who want control, but instead as the battle between normal people and the psychopaths. I have found incredible explanatory power of our world within the psychopathic hypothesis: The world feels wrong because psychopaths run it. In a country trained to discount and ridicule all ideas more than a standard deviation from the average, coherent explanations of observable social phenomena don’t get much press. Without understanding physical laws, we would never have gained the massive improvements in our quality of life from technological developments. Similarly, without understanding our social systems, we will never escape from the tyranny unleashed on us by psychopaths. We should spread the word and explore this rich vein of thought with vigor.
"The psychopath feels little, if any, guilt. He can commit the most appalling acts, yet view them without remorse. The Psychopath has a warped capacity for love. His emotional relationships, when they exist, are meager, fleeting, and designed to satisfy his own desires. These last two traits, guiltlessness and lovelessness, conspicuously mark the psychopath as different from other men." - Political Ponerology - pg 93
Al Gore is the epitome of the psychopath. Evidence: Gore’s political influence allowed the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, . On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! .
Profile of the
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
NOTE: In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900 it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on 'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal, immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not necessarily psychopaths.
Unfortunately , we can't do this with our politicians:.
HOW TO DEAL WITH A SOCIOPATH
Given all that, there is only one solution for dealing with a sociopath: Get him or her completely out of your life for good. This seems radical, and of course, you want to be fairly sure your diagnosis is correct, but you need to protect yourself from the drain on your time, attention, money, and good attitude. Healing or helping a sociopath is a pointless waste of your life. That is not your mission. It's not your responsibility. You have your own goals and your own life, and those are your responsibility.
Summary Of Sociopaths
1. They make you feel sorry for them.
2. They make you feel worried or afraid.
3. They give you the impression you owe them.
4. They make you feel used.
5. Sometimes you suspect they don't care about you.
6. They lie to you and deceive you.
7. They take a lot from you and give back very little.
8. They make you feel guilty (and use that to manipulate you).
9. They take advantage of your kindness.
10. They are easily bored and need constant stimulation.
11. They don't take responsibility but place blame elsewhere.
Sociopathy -- An Infectous Mental Disease often passed down in wealthy families.
If John D. Rockefeller, Sr., had his own beliefs applied to himself he would have been tortured, and then gased like an unloved stray dog in a pound. That's what nazis did to millions of others when they applied the theories funded by Rockefeller money.
John D. believed in elimination of the 'unfit'. He believed in building a better human race by extermination of the bottom tenth, the least worthy. Rockefeller believed in Eugenics.
John D. Rockefeller was not alone of the moguls of Wall Street to believe in, fund, plan for, and carry out plans for wholesale populations disposals -- he was joined by his brother William and nephew Percy, his son John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Andrew Carnegie, E.H. Harriman's widow and offspring E. Roland Harriman and W. Averell Harriman, Henry Ford, "Corn Flakes" inventor Kellogg, and many other famous names. Unfamous at the time, Samuel Prescott Bush, and George Herbert Walker (both grandfathers to G.H.W. Bush and great-grandfather to George "Dubya" Bush) taught these eugenics values to their families, as history has shown.
John D. Rockefeller was the son of a viciously abusive mother who beat him with sticks frequently. His father was alleged leader of a horse-thief gang, travelling snake oil salesman, a bigamist ultimately buried under a false identiy he used with his second family, and a sadist. In short, father William Rockefeller was a type of a "Jukes", a sociopath who taught criminal values to his offspring -- exactly what the eugenicists wanted to sterilize out of existence. Wild Bill Rockefeller would have been sterilized under the laws passed a generation later by his son's monied elite. Over 70,000 Americans in 26 states were sterilized for reasons allowed by law of "feeble minded", "epilepsy", and "other". John D. Sr. and Jr.'s crowd helped pass those laws.
Frankly, sterilization was too slow. War was a much faster method of extermination of large masses of surplus human beings. Not only could you get the victims of war to pay for their own killings, but you could make rich profits off those lucky survivers who lived as well. Rockefellers and friends, including the Walker-Bush patriarchs and their scion Prescott Sheldon Bush, made fortunes funding all sides of WWI and WWII.
All this would be dry old history if not for the Bush Dynastic presidencies. Currently there is a resident of the White House brought up in this family tradition of liquidating populations for war profiteering, for racist cleansing, for removal of the weak, for applied social darwinistic predation.
This essay will not introduce all the characters of tell all the details. There are walls of shelves in the national archives, in the Library of Congress, and plenty in local libraries or bookstores which do that. This effort is to put something on the internet which helps point out resources for understanding the multi-generational planning of genocide by committed eugenists. The nazi era is the most conspicuous, most written about episode, but mass murders, genocides, have been sponsored by weathy meddling and scheming on all continent.
It will never end until the genocidal mind has been learned, studied, and outwitted. The first lesson is to learn the defining characteristics of sociopathy and apply on to behaviors. In a series of webpages produced, there are two of initial importance to learn:
John D. Rockefeller
Deceived about his "Trust Conspiracy" for years in many states and to federal government.
Aggressively destroyed competition, bankrupted and ruined other striving for their American Dream through ruthless cabals.
Lack of remorse to the day he died.
Broke laws with impunity.
Reckless disregard of life in warmongering.
Rockefeller apologists point to his Baptist church support and attendence, but Jim Jones went to church and killed over 900 followers, Jim Bakker was a famous TV churchman yet swindled millions, Jimmy Swaggert went to church on Sunday after spending Saturday night in the motel with hookers.
Rockefellers gave millions, hundreds of millions to "charity", to nobel causes. Look harder. Rockefeller gave to the eugenist Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, and he gave generously to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany which produced famous eugenicists Ernst Rudin and sadist Josef Menegele.
There are so many people involved, so many names to keep straight, that it is daunting to pierce the veil into the eugenics plottings. Suffice it say for now, that not all apparant acts of "charity" actually are for good purposes. Rather, sometimes it is the "cost of doing business" to present a facade of generousity while fleecing suckers. The astonishing quantities of money, $100,000,000 donated over just two years to the Rockefeller Institute covers over the fact that far greater riches were being stolen from nations. John D.'s nephew Percy came into control of Remington Arms, which sold 64% of all the ammunition used in WWI. Sam Bush, the president's great grandpa was a partner in that deal.
Rockefeller's four of the seven largest oil companies also profited from war work, as did his steel, coal and railroad interests. J.D.'s brother Frank relinquished control of the Buckeye Steel Castings Company to Samuel Bush shortly before it converted to making artillery gun barrels and shell cases for WWI.
Sociopaths never revert. Once Rockefeller's pattern of sociopathy was fixed, it was lifelong. Thereafter every act has to be looked at askance, looking deeper for the sociopathic purpose. Rockefeller corrupted his family (albeit willing corruptees) just like the Bush patriarchs corrupted their lineage.
George Herbert Walker
Conning and deceptive, engaged in Trading With The Enemy with Harrimans, Warburgs, Rockefeller interests.
Reckless disregard for life or safety, warmongering, profiteering, WWI & WWII.
Lack of Remorse.
Aggression upon mankind.
The pattern repeats in the next generation.
Conning and deceptive, engaged in Trading With The Enemy along with Harrimans, Warburgs, Rockefeller interests.
Reckless disregard for life or safety, warmongering, profiteering WWII.
Lack of Remorse.
Aggression upon mankind.
The pattern repeats in the next generation.
George Herbert Walker Bush
Conning and deceptive, CIA chief, knew Saddams's history on CIA payroll, excused gassing Kurds until politically useful to condemn it. Engaged in Trading With The Enemy, arms for hostages to Iran, arms to Contras in violation of law. Allowed Serb terrorists to commit genocide in Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, (Clinton's complicity in same does not excuse Bush's).
Reckless disregard for life or safety; warmongering; profiteering Gulf War '91,
Lack of Remorse.
Aggression upon mankind.
The pattern repeats in the next generation.
George Walker Bush
Conning and deceptive: Florida election 2000; WMDs in Iraq, "Saddam has nukes that can hit the USA".
Reckless disregard for life or safety; warmongering; profiteering Gulf War '03, over 100,000 unarmed civilians killed in Iraq, so far.
Lack of Remorse.
Aggression upon mankind.
Racism is a tool of "Divide to Conquor". The sociopathic families have used this one for many generations, first with pure slavery, then with wage slavery. The KKK was supported by elites in each district, generously funded, politically protected. Between WWI and WWII the KKK made a major upsurge in America. The eugenicists put into effect immigration laws to restrict the inferior races.
Jews would pay with their lives when the nazis came to take them to the slave camps and death camps. Jews were as unwelcome in KKK territory as the blacks or catholics. The door to America was slammed shut in their faces.
Slavery is an idea which has never gone out of fashion, only gone underground to reappear. The bunks in the nazi death camps are virtually identical to the bunk arrangements on slave ships. The idea of a "master race" existed here in the USA long before it existed in Germany.
Germans have a history of being conquored by the Romans, many taken as slaves. Then Germans were enlisted as mercenaries, as Roman soldiers taking Gauls and Britons as slaves for their masters. But Germans themselves only came as close as serfs towards slave ownership.
Rockefeller never fought for the US. Brother Frank did, in the Civil War and received a wound, but none others of the dynasty ever saw combat. John D. bought his way out of fighting by paying $300 for a surrogate. John D. Rockefeller believed in slavery and master race. His kingdom fought against the betterment of his workers, fought with guns, bullets, clubs and KKK riders against union organizers. John D. believed in taking others property, taking their wealth, taking their labors as cheap as possible, taking their lives if they got in his way.
His family values was infectously passed on down the line.
It's important to make the distinction that "sociopaths" identify themselves as a "race" apart from the rest of humanity. They may use KKK as tools, or use John Birchers, or use neo-nazi skinheads if it comes to that, but Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are more than token negros. The sociopathic race uses brownskinned "contra" terrorists in Nicaragua and brown death squads in El Salvador, used asiatic Pol Pot, to carry out their elimination of the lower tenth. (Once the lower tenth is eliminated, then the remainder is redivided into tenths and the purge keeps going forever.)
How did Colin Powell get in there? We may never know the whole story, but one critical piece of information is he served to conceal the My Lai massacre, proving his "trustworthiness". My Lai did become public despite his efforts to smother it, but his credentials were sealed by his attempt. 500 civilians were murdered, as we all know, but the Powells of the world kept the 60,000 others just like them killed in Operation Phoenix from coming to light. The death tolls from the daily body counts merged into a blur, and nobody noticed mass murders orchestrated by the US power elites.
Allen Dulles worked with George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush on deals with I.G. Farben of Auschwitz infamy. Dulles and others like him invented the CIA. It would be nice to believe the hero stories about Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles, but the template of sociopathy shows they are elaborate hoaxes, shams.
Lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell, law firm for J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller interests on Wall Street.
Lisagor, Nancy and Lipsius, Frank.
A Law Unto Itself: The Untold Story of the Law Firm Sullivan and Cromwell.
New York: Paragon House, 1989. 360 pages. ISBN: 0688048889
After two years in the Princeton library, where the archives of John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles are stored, the authors knew about Sullivan and Cromwell's ten-year record of cooperation with Hitler. Then they approached the law firm for interviews, but soon a memo went out instructing the lawyers not to cooperate. At that point the authors found a National Archives microfilm detailing the Justice Department investigations of John Foster Dulles's wartime collaboration. They were finally allowed to see a representative of the firm, but he wouldn't answer any questions. A year later Sullivan and Cromwell changed chairmen after some embarrassing press concerning three important partners. Now they were willing to grant interviews to present their side of the case.
But until then the firm didn't like publicity, and this book helps us understand why. After 100 years of creating power and wealth by manipulating the interface between government and business, and with a transnational reach that considers World Wars a mere inconvenience, the story of Sullivan and Cromwell makes it clear that there's one set of rules for the rest of us, and no rules at all for the ruling class.
Israel -The Sociopathic State Mary Sojourner
January 3rd, 2009
The unconscionable attacks of Israel upon Gaza can be seen as the action of a sociopathic state upon a helpless victim. While the diagnosis of sociopathy is commonly reserved for the individual, it may be used to describe an entire society in a way that illuminates the behavior of that society towards another group of people. Sociopathy is a social concept by definition, and for this reason can be expanded to describe the nature of an entire society.
The ruling quality of the sociopath is a complete lack of empathy towards the Other. The sociopath is incapable of feeling for other people. The Israelis have kept the Gaza strip blockaded, hermetically sealed for a year and a half, causing untold suffering for the people of Gaza. The lack of empathy for so many helpless human beings is sociopathic. Israel has long held its status as a sociopathic state.
At the core of the sociopath’s personality is a deep-seated rage which is repressed and cut off from the conscious mind but which directs the sociopath’s actions. It is this rage which makes the sociopath incapable of feeling empathy for the Other, and which fuels the mercilessness with which he treats others. This rage is the only valid emotion a sociopath has. It accounts for his short temper, his consistent overreaction to the smallest setbacks, and the ruthlessness with which he treats others when they do not bend to his will.
The blockade prompted the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel as a last resort response. The Israeli reaction to the Hamas rockets was truly beyond the pale. In return for a few rockets, which are all Hamas has to offer, Israel pounded Gaza with a fierce Air Force assault, and the remainder of the elite Israeli military stands by to assist. The overwhelming force unleashed on the defenseless little strip says everything one needs to know about the Israeli sociopathic state. The rage is here, the lack of empathy was here for a year and a half when the blockade was in place, the lack of remorse was always there when sick people were allowed to die at border crossings while waiting to reach clinics – waiting for no reason but cruelty.
Focused solely on himself and his needs, the sociopath has no regard for, and indeed no recognition of, the needs or rights of other people. The "Other" exists as no more than an obstacle to the sociopath’s achieving what he desires. He is ruthless in exploiting or removing others from his path, and kills mercilessly if it serves his purpose.
Israel’s current assault on Gaza, its most heinous in years, shows no mercy to the Palestinians. The blockade has already brought Gaza to its knees, and now they are bombing the pitiful land almost to oblivion. Children and women are being killed, along with so-called "legitimate targets." I would maintain that every "target" is a human being, particularly when the battle is so unequal, so unfair.
The sociopath is unable to feel remorse. Emotionally shallow, he abuses others without hesitation. He cannot make friends, much less keep them. He is secretive, paranoid, and authoritarian. Is Israel paranoid? Does it suffer from the delusion that all its Arab neighbors are waiting to destroy it? Of course it does. It threatens attack for no reason – e.g. Iran – and has attacked without provocation in the past – e.g. Iraq and Lebanon. And even now, with the intolerable treatment it is giving Gaza, have there been any threats from other countries? Of course not. It sits in its sea of nuclear weapons and dares anyone to attack, while it destroys Gaza with impunity.
The sociopath lies pathologically and will make promises that he never keeps, yet he continually expects to be believed and will react with outrage if someone refuses to accept his promises as real. At the same time he demands that those around him make and keep promises even knowing that his will not be kept. How many times has Israel broken promises not to increase settlements in the West Bank? Building is going on there even as Gaza is being destroyed.
Is Israel a sociopathic narcissist, with a sense of entitlement to Palestinian land based on religious "chosen-ness" rather than on the simple truth of theft? Israel is building swiftly over the West Bank. Is it plausible that Israel is going to eventually denude Gaza and take it over again? Why else would they be starving it, and bombing it in their "War to the end"?
Israel shows all the signs of the sociopath, most especially now as it makes war upon Gaza. No empathy, utter ruthlessness, paranoia, pathological liar, lack of remorse, narcissistic, and operating out of a deep sense of rage: all the defining characteristics of a sociopath.
Mary Sojourner is the nom de plume of a sentient being who has struggled with her own demons and now endeavors to relieve the suffering of others as she searches for truth and justice.
To further your sociopolitical education, strengthen your connection with the radical community, and deepen your participation in forming an egalitarian, just, ecological, non-speciesist and democratic society,
visit the Transformative Studies Institute at http://transformativestudies.org/ and
the Institute for Critical Animal Studies at http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/.
Is Obama a Political Sociopath?
Maybe Hillary Clinton should read this article from the Asia Times. Maybe Howard Dean could relate strongly to the Obama "in hiding" because he is the same type. Maybe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should read this, but it's likely they already know all about the "hidden Obama".
John McCain would never read this because it's too hard to read something this long and if it's about the "real Obama" he doesn't want to know. Sort of like how he played so dumb as one of the "Keating Five" that he was re-elected.
A sociopath definition is available online to anyone. Rather than spell it out, let me suggest you go look. It's important that anyone reading this article takes the time to absorb it's import.
The article sort of creates the image of a smiling Obama in the foreground with ghostly faces of his mother and fathers snarling with hate filled eyes behind him. The smiling radiance of his face drowns out the reality of his thoughts, the hatred of America and all it stands for.
This will take you some time to read. It is extremely important to you and to your family and friends. You may well want to print out copies to pass around. There is information in this article which you may never have seen in the American press. This article is from the Asia Times and by a person who can see Obama without the god-like sunbursts put around him by the American press. The future of America is important to all of us and is worthy of our time.
"Cherchez la femme," advised Alexander Dumas in: "When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman." In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama's women reveal his secret: he hates America.
We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man - least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father - can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.
America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.
Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.
Ann Dunham died in 1995, and her character emerges piecemeal from the historical record, to which I will return below. But Michelle Obama is a living witness. Her February 18 comment that she felt proud of her country for the first time caused a minor scandal, and was hastily qualified. But she meant it, and more. The video footage of her remarks shows eyes hooded with rage as she declares: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.
The desperation, frustration and disappointment visible on Michelle Obama's face are not new to the candidate's wife; as Steve Sailer, Rod Dreher and other commentators have noted, they were the theme of her undergraduate thesis, on the subject of "blackness" at Princeton University. No matter what the good intentions of Princeton, which founded her fortunes as a well-paid corporate lawyer, she wrote, "My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong."
Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.
"For some reason this guy still can't manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn't get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is." New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, "She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she'd like to meet him sometime." Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.
"Frustration" and "disappointment" have dogged Michelle Obama these past 20 years, despite her US$300,000 a year salary and corporate board memberships. It is hard for the descendants of slaves not to resent America. They were not voluntary immigrants but kidnap victims, subjected to a century of second-class citizenship even after the Civil War ended slavery. Blackness is not the issue; General Colin Powell, whose parents chose to immigrate to America from the West Indies, saw America just as other immigrants do, as a land of opportunity. Obama's choice of wife is a failsafe indicator of his own sentiments. Spouses do not necessarily share their likes, but they must have their hatreds in common. Obama imbibed this hatred with his mother's milk.
Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. "She was kind of a dreamer, his mother," Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. "She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don't pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don't in this country." How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.
"Naivete" is a euphemism for Ann Dunham's motivation. Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation.
Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia's military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history.
Dunham's experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds". In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead's long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead's work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.
In the Global South, anthropologists went into the field and took matters a step further. Peru's brutal Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerilla movement was the brainchild of the anthropologist Efrain Morote Best, who headed the University of San Cristobal of Huamanga in Ayacucho, Peru, between 1962 and 1968. Dunham's radicalism was more vicarious; she ended her career as an employee of international organizations.
Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
There is nothing mysterious about Obama's methods. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Americans are the world's biggest suckers, and laugh at this weakness in their popular culture. Listening to Obama speak, Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry comes to mind, or, even better, Tyrone Power's portrayal of a carnival mentalist in the 1947 film noire Nightmare Alley. The latter is available for instant viewing at Netflix, and highly recommended as an antidote to having felt uplifted by an Obama speech.
America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.
Since the Ronald Reagan boom began in 1984, the year the American stock market doubled, Americans have enjoyed a quarter-century of rising wealth. Even the collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 did not interrupt the upward trajectory of household assets, as the housing price boom eclipsed the effect of equity market weakness. America's success made it a magnet for the world's savings, and Americans came to believe that they were riding a boom that would last forever, as I wrote recently .
Americans regard upward mobility as a God-given right. America had a double founding, as David Hackett Fischer showed in his 1989 study, Albion's Seed . Two kinds of immigrants founded America: religious dissidents seeking a new Promised Land, and economic opportunists looking to get rich quick. Both elements still are present, but the course of the past quarter-century has made wealth-creation the sine qua non of American life. Now for the first time in a generation Americans have become poorer, and many of them have become much poorer due to the collapse of home prices. Unlike the Reagan years, when cutting the top tax rate from a punitive 70% to a more tolerable 40% was sufficient to start an economic boom, no lever of economic policy is available to fix the problem. Americans have no choice but to work harder, retire later, save more and retrench.
This reversal has provoked a national mood of existential crisis. In Europe, economic downturns do not inspire this kind of soul-searching, for richer are poorer, remain what they always have been. But Americans are what they make of themselves, and the slim makings of 2008 shake their sense of identity. Americans have no institutionalized culture to fall back on. Their national religion has consisted of waves of enthusiasm - "Great Awakenings" – every second generation or so, followed by an interim of apathy. In times of stress they have a baleful susceptibility to hucksters and conmen.
Be afraid - be very afraid. America is at a low point in its fortunes, and feeling sorry for itself. When Barack utters the word "hope", they instead hear, "handout". A cynic might translate the national motto, E pluribus unum, as "something for nothing". Now that the stock market and the housing market have failed to give Americans something for nothing, they want something for nothing from the government. The trouble is that he who gets something for nothing will earn every penny of it, twice over.
The George W Bush administration has squandered a great strategic advantage in a sorry lampoon of nation-building in the Muslim world, and has made enemies out of countries that might have been friendly rivals, notably Russia. Americans question the premise of America's standing as a global superpower, and of the promise of upward mobility and wealth-creation. If elected, Barack Obama will do his utmost to destroy the dual premises of America's standing. It might take the country another generation to recover.
"Evil will oft evil mars", J R R Tolkien wrote. It is conceivable that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Hatred is a toxic diet even for someone with as strong a stomach as Obama. As he recalled in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama idealized the Kenyan economist who had married and dumped his mother, and was saddened to learn that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, was a sullen, drunken polygamist. The elder Obama became a senior official of the government of Kenya after earning a PhD at Harvard. He was an abusive drunk and philanderer whose temper soured his career.
The senior Obama died in a 1982 car crash. Kenyan government officials in those days normally spent their nights drinking themselves stupid at the Pan-Afrique Hotel. Two or three of them would be found with their Mercedes wrapped around a palm tree every morning. During the 1970s I came to know a number of them, mostly British-educated hollow men dying inside of their own hypocrisy and corruption.
Both Obama and the American public should be very careful of what they wish for. As the horrible example of Obama's father shows, there is nothing worse for an embittered outsider manipulating the system from within than to achieve his goals - and nothing can be more terrible for the system. Even those who despise America for its blunders of the past few years should ask themselves whether the world will be a safer place if America retreats into a self-pitying shell.
ROYAL BABYLON - KARL SHAW
THE ALARMING HISTORY OF EUROPEAN ROYALTY
Queen Victoria warned that it was unwise to look too deeply into the Royal houses of Europe – that the ‘black spots’ were best kept from prying eyes. This unique book reveals all.
Since 1714 Britain has been ruled by a clan of inbred Germans with a history of mental instability and a talent for profligacy and debauchery. But, compared to their blue-blood cousins across the Channel, they are neither remarkable nor particularly mad. In the last three hundred years, Europe has been plagued by dysfunctional rulers – the insane kings of Spain, the psychopathic kings of Prussia, the sex-fixated French kings, the famously inbred Habsburgs of Austria, and, of course, the drunken, debauched and always dangerous czars of Russia.
This unusual and amusing account of the great and the sordid will make even
the most ardent royalist wonder whether Europe’s republics really miss this
collection of madmen, philanderers, sexual misfits, sociopaths and tragic
emotional cripples. (325 pages)
Royal Babylon has in one stroke completely cleansed me of any notions that it is kind of a cute idea to let the British Royal family linger in the background of our nation's future. It also woke me up completely to the fact that they really aren't even 'British'. I'm more British than the Royal family!! And I'm 4th or 5th generation Australian!! Beyond that, I will guarantee that this horrific documented history of inbreeding, madness, STDs, syphilis, inbreeding, mass philandering, inbreeding, Nazi sympathising and inbreeding again will cure ANY reader of proceeding beyond mere curiousity to affection for the idea of monarchy.
What a sick, sick history!! Almost a milennium of mass suffering, war, national upheaval and slaughter for the majority of people while a very very priveleged minority wallowed in massive excess and madness for no better reason than a documented history of inbreeding (the royal lineage) and a fairly savvy sense of self-preservation (and the funds to ensure it).
This book doesn't cover just the British Royal family, it is a history of all the royal families in Europe. It is an easy read, it's not a heavy historical tome, but it succeeds where these fail: by unrolling almost endlessly the history of insanity and excess in an easily digested format. I've read a lot of history and was familiar with the more obvious figures of royal lunacy like Ludwig of Bavaria, Henry viii, George the Regent, the Romanovs (enough said), Catherine the Great (earlier), but I've never seen it compressed and presented like this and as it stands, Royal Babylon is a damning indictment of the divine right of anyone to rule anybody and the modern day equivalent of retaining these people at vast expense to the average person for no good reason.
The author is circumspect about the current royal families, referring once to Prince Charles as a 'frankenstein' and making the point that of the 10 royal families that remain in Europe, 7 are heavily related to the British royal family. But honestly, at the end of this book it's a case of 'nuff said!'. It certainly did it for me, I am now completely an avowed Republican!
About 200 years ago, England's greatest republican confidently predicted the imminent downfall of the House of Hanover. "Hereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy," he wrote. "It puts it in the most ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or idiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common mechanic, but to be a king requires only the animal figure of a man -- a sort of breathing automaton. This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of men."
Thomas Paine had good reason to believe that he was on fairly safe ground. The reigning King of England was evidently insane and reduced to conversing with long-dead friends and indecently exposing himself to servants. The King's brother Henry had just become the first member of the British royal family to be sued for adultery. The rest of the royals, especially the King's seven sons, were reviled throughout the land. One of them was even suspected of having murdered his manservant and raping his own sister. The heir to the throne, an unstable, bloated philanderer unable to step outside his front door without risk of being pelted by the London mob, was locked in the most publicly disastrous royal marriage since Henry VIII was obliged to remove Catherine Howard's head.
Those of Her Majesty's subjects who saw the blitz of British royal embarrassments of the mid-1990s and concluded that the British monarchy had never been worse represented were presumably ignorant of standards set by earlier generations. In the realm of royal behavior, Prince Charles's devotion to his mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, probably qualifies as fidelity. Most of the men who have held the title "Prince of Wales" were an embarrassment, none more so than Prince Charles's great-great-grandfather, Edward VII, a man who took the family motto, "I serve," into another dimension.
From the day the Hanoverians first set foot on British soil in 1714, apart from during the reigns of George V, George VI and Queen Elizabeth II, the British royal family has never been popular, nor does it deserve to have been.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, British kings and queens -- Shelley's "royal vampires" -- were subject to regular attacks from the press for their profligacy, their indolence, their stupidity or for their squalid private lives. And then a curiously repressed minor royal from Germany, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, made the situation of his family even more difficult by forcing them into a straitjacket labeled MORAL FIGUREHEADS TO THE NATION, dooming the British royals to an endless struggle to keep up appearances and keep a lid on their family scandals.
The "English" Royals, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin? (and Diana's
Children?) all Rothschild sociopathic bastards?
From 22 June 1815 the Rothschilds owned the Bank of England and many of the British royals were more or less permanently drugged as a result of their doctors being Freemasons who used the royals as guinea pigs to cure their family illnesses of porphyria, haemophilia and syphilis. As the medical almanacs show, London physicians were sometimes the last to get information and were up to five centuries behind the times. Queen Victoria (24 May 1819–22 January 1901) was the ‘granddaughter’ of mad King George III and his not very royal wife.
Victoria became Princess Regent aged 11 and Queen at 18 and 27 days. She was neither bright, nor quick-witted, and her family nickname ‘Drina’ suited her perfectly.
Albert did not take to Victoria at first and it required some inducements, like guaranteed anal sex and a royal palace to live in.
Queen Victoria (20) married her ‘first cousin’ Prince Albert (20) and they shared many cultural features, although their first cousin status
was not biological. For both, their biological father was illegitimate and Princess Viktoria and Princess Luise were merely sisters-in-law.
But due to centuries of inbreeding there were some similiar physical and inheritable features. If Albert was not the father of one child, his
features could still be ascertained as present in that child. This was the Rothschilds’ reasoning in arranging Victoria’s marriage with Albert.
As such, the London head of the Rothschilds’ banks, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, officially died on 28 July 1836, but there are reasons to
believe he lived behind the scenes until 1850. He should be considered the potential father to some of Queen Victoria’s children and was in a position to sire her first seven children. Equally, his son Lionel Nathan Rothschild (1808–79) could have sired all of Victoria’s children. As it was, with Alois Hitler, they shared the burden.
Prince Edward went on to sire the most import figure of WWII, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (1874–1965) with Jenny Jerome. From here, the Jewish-run Rothschild-Windsor war could really escalate. Winston Churchill was Winston Rothschild-Windsor Churchill. His father was King Edward VII and his grandfather and great-grandfather was Nathan Mayer Rothschild. On his maternal side his mother was Jenny Jerome and his grandfather was Leonard Walter Jerome, a wealthy Wall Street speculator, owner of the New York Times, and a Jew. Winston Churchill was at least three-quarters Jew by blood and a full Jew by virtue of his mother.
Still just a rumor Humm....
Was Stalin a Rothschild?
By Clifford Shack
Edmond Rothschild Stalin
Joseph Stalin was born Iosef Vissarionovich Zhugashvili on December 18, 1878 in Gori, Republic of Georgia.
The identity of Josef Stalin's biological father is, however, shrouded in mystery.
According to the official story, Stalin's father,Beso Zhugashvili, was a cobbler from Gori, a city in the Republic of Georgia. Beso was a drunk and a wife beater who also beat Stalin. It is said that the marriage between Beso and Keke, Stalin's mother, was arranged to hide the identity of Stalin's real father. There were rumors circulating, during Stalin's lifetime, that his real father was the explorer Przhevalsky. People uttering these rumors during Stalin's reign of terror were not murdered because Stalin enjoyed the association. Przhevalsky was a well known Russian hero.
Joseph (Iosif) Dzhugashvili or "Soso", as his mother called him in Georgian fashion, was directly responsible for murdering millions of people. It has been said that Stalin was responsible for the murder of about 20,000,000 people during the years 1924-1953.
Stalin is quoted as saying, "One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."
Quiet cousins, John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV and "Bill Clinton"
So who fathered Stalin?
Since it had been officially proven by the Austrian government that the Rothschilds were plausibly biologically connected to Adolph Hitler, I suggest here that a member of the great Rothschild banking house may have fathered Stalin. That would make Hitler and Stalin cousins, explaining more than one mystery of the last century.
Stalin was not born in London, Paris, Frankfurt,Vienna or Naples- the major capital cities of Europe where prominent members of the Rothschild banking family dwell.Stalin was born in Gori, a city in the Republic of Georgia. So how could a European Rothschild father a child in Transcaucasia,Central Asia? [transcaucasia is a geographical region south of the Caucasus Mountains, encompassing the independent states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.]
What would bring an aristocratic member of the Rothschild family to Transcaucasia? Rothschilds are all about money. Great money. They are not bankers to people like you and I but bankers to countries. What could possibly interest them in Transcaucasia? Georgia's main export was and still is wine. The Rothschilds already had plenty of that. Armenian mines produce copper, zinc, gold, and lead but not in any significant quantities to merit the attention of the Rothschilds.
At first I thought that a Rothschild could have been on his way to the great horse markets of Central Asia in an effort to enhance the quality of the family's thoroughbred breeding lines.
While the horse market is a possible explanation, there was another attraction in the Caucasus. There was something quite valuable in the regon of Transcaucasia that demanded the attention of the powerful Rothschild banking house.
Due east of the Republic of Georgia is the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan was very important to the future of Europe's greatest banking family.
Azerbaijan had (and still has) OIL! PLENTY of OIL.
In 1878, the time of Stalin's birth, the great Russian oil business was getting under way and the shrewd Rothschilds planned on capitalizing on Russian oil in a big way-through secret monopolization.
[This is the story of just how the Rothschilds would secretly come to rule Russia and therefore become the sole player in Russian oil. Their trump card was their dirty little secret-Josef Stalin.]
Why would a Rothschild find himself in Stalin's Republic of Georgia? The answer is really quite simple. For a Rothschild to travel to the Baku oil fields in Azerbaijan, he must travel through...Georgia!
Logistically, the Rothschild yacht would sail from the shores of, possibly, France, and arrive at the port of Poti or Batumi.(Batumi was not incorporated into Georgia until March of 1878,coincidently the year of Stalin's birth).
The Rothschild travel party would traverse Georgia where about 100 miles inland they would reach Gori, Stalin's birthplace. Gori would have provided a logical rest stop. It is not inconceivable that they would be guests of a wealthy Jewish wine merchant.(It would also,perhaps, provide an opportunity for intimacy with a pretty laundress in the employ of said wine merchant).
After Gori, the Rothschild travel party would continued another fifty miles further to the Georgian capital of Tflis (now Tbilisi).
In Tiflis of 1878, as VIPs, the Rothschild's noble entourage would undoubtedly be received in royal fashion by the Viceroy of the Caucasus- the Grand Duke Michael Nicolaevich of Russia.
[Grand Duke Michael Nicolaevich of Russia (October 13, 1832 – December 18, 1909) was the fourth son and seventh child of Tsar Nicholas I of Russia and Charlotte of Prussia.He served for a long time (1862-1882) as the Governor General (viceroy)of Caucasia, being seated in Tbilisi.-Wikipedia]
The huge palace of the Grand Duke was surely a fitting rest-stop for a Rothschild on his way to the Baku oil fields. I can easily imagine the banker and the Grand Duke discussing the future of Russian oil while drinking glasses of delicious local wine. Together, the Rothschilds and Tsarist Russia would dominate the world of oil, eventually out-producing and out-selling the Standard Oil Company owned by John D. Rockefeller.
I believe the Grand Duke had an indirect role in the mystery of Stalin's father. According to the latest biography on Josef Stalin, "Young Stalin" by Simon Sebag Montefiore,(just released in October 2007)
Stalin's mother was employed by the Grand Duke!
To quote Montefiore:
"Within this royal palace home of Nicholaevich was employed a laundress named Ekaterina Djugashvili, Keke for short".
Stalin's mother, Keke, worked for both the Viceroy in Tflis AND the wine merchant of Gori! Did the traveling Rothschild party visit both these places en route to Baku? It would seem naturally so! After Stalin and the Bolsheviks murdered the Russian royal family, when Stalin secured his dictatorship he would give his mother the huge royal palace in Tflis for a residence .
If it has been established that it IS plausible that a Rothschild could have fathered Stalin we must ask whether it can be proven. But before we can answer that it is necessary to narrow down our list of possible "father" suspects.
Which Rothschild was in the best position to be in Transcaucasia in 1878? (Once a prime suspect can be identified, finding proof one way or the other becomes simple. Not easy necessarily, but simple.)
Was there a Rothschild in Gori or Tflis in 1878? Josef Stalin was born on December 18, 1878. This puts his time of conception, forty weeks (nine months) prior, around March 18, 1878.
After Stalin's ascent to the leadership of Soviet Russia, during his first major interview with correspondents of a major Swedish newspaper, he lied about the year of his birth. Stalin claimed to have been born in 1879. I believe that Stalin lied in an effort to prevent the possible discovery of his true biological father. I believe the year 1878 holds a key clue to the discovery of Stalin's hidden origins. I believe Stalin knew this.
Why did Stalin try to alter his year of birth? Nothing of major historical significance occurred in Transcaucasia in March of 1879. Certainly nothing occurred of historical importance to suggest the personal presence of a member of the powerful Rothschild family in the area.
March 1878 was quite different.
You see, the key to the success of the Rothschild's Russian oil business depended on the ability to transport oil from Baku in Azerbaijan; across the Republic of Georgia to a destination on the Black Sea- the seaport of Batumi.
The problem prior to 1878 was that the Port of Batumi was not under Russian control.It was owned by the Turkish Ottomans. Instigating a war between the Russians and the Turks would correct this logistical problem. (By the way, I do insinuate that the Rothschilds instigated the war. They needed Batumi under Russian control for the future of their oil interests.) The transfer of Batumi occurred as a result of a Russo-Turkish War 1877-78. The Treaty of San Stefano was the preliminary treaty settling things between Russia and Turkey. It was signed on March 3, 1878 at San Stefano (Yesilkoy), a village west of Istanbul.
Was there a Rothschild in attendance at the Treaty signing? Bankers together with their lawyers have been known to attend Treaty signings significant to their business interests.(Hamburg banker,Max Warburg,for example,attended the signing of the Treaty of Versailles,this laid the groundwork for WWII, an event which directly and indirectly reaped huge profits for European banking and oil interests.)
Again I ask, did a Rothschild family member attended the signing of the San Stefano Treaty? Also, did he proceed afterwards to survey the newly acquired Port of Batumi. The port was the keystone of the future expanded Russian Oil industry. For Russian oil barons, Batumi was the long-awaited gateway to the world; access to both the Far East and the West. How would the oil of Baku reach Batumi? The oil would eventually traverse the Republic of Georgia via the Rothschild-financed Transcaucasus railroad.
After visiting Batumi, did our mystery Rothschild proceed on to Tflis to celebrate the passing of the Treaty of San Stefano with the Grand Duke, offering a wine toast to the future of Russian oil within the confines of the royal palace. Did Rothschild have intimacy with the pretty, willing laundress employed by the Grand Duke? If so, such an innocent affair would have dramatic effects on the future of Russia oil and the Russian people.
Did the Rothschild-infused laundress returned to Gori, to the employ of her wine merchant employer? Did Stalin's mother and Yakov Egnatschvili quietly raise a Rothschild infant. Did Josef Stalin named his first son, Yakov (Jacob) because it was the name of the wine merchant of Gori or because Yakov was also the name of the father of our unknown Rothschild? (Coincidently, Yakov was the Hebrew name of Baron James de Rothschild- patriarch of the French branch of the Rothschild family.)
It was no coincidence that Stalin worked for the Rothschilds? In fact, Stalin, according to Simon Montefiore, was funded by the Rothschilds! Was Stalin a "revolutionary", an enemy of capitalism and all that the Rothschilds symbolized or a hidden, clever Rothschild "plant"? Were the Rothschilds funding a "revolutionary" or were they funding their secret weapon against Tsarist control of Russian oil?
I suggest that Josef Stalin's rise in communist Russian politics was a Rothschild coup aimed at monopolizing the entire Russian oil industry. Secrecy is the Rothschild modus operandi.
secret to Rothschild success and longevity is ruthlessness and secrecy.
Initially bankers to the Russian royalOnce the Romanovs were removed and their
man, Stalin, placed at the
helm of Russian power, the Rothschild empire would enslave the peoples of
Central Asia and exploit the natural resources beneath their feet for many
years. family, the Rothschilds, eventually
became their executioners, using puppets with hidden affiliations to execute
their agenda. The Rothschilds are never afraid of nationalization as long as they
quietly control the policies of the countries through money supply- a Rothschild
So which Rothschild may have fathered Stalin?
Edmond de Rothschild of the Paris branch of the Rothschild bank is, IMHO, the most plausible candidate.
Some other links:
Stalin and the Rothschilds is one of the more bizarre connections that I discovered while writing a book on the dictator’s early life. Stalin worked for the Rothschilds;
he burnt down their refinery and ordered
the assassination of their managing director — yet later they helped fund
Lenin and Stalin. There were always rumours, but my discovery of a
long-forgotten memoir in the archives of Tbilisi now reveals the true story.
In December 1901 Stalin, aged 23, arrived in the Black Sea oil port Batumi, which was dominated by the Rothschild and Nobel dynasties. One day Stalin came home late boasting, ‘Guess why I got up so early this morning? Today I got a job with the Rothschilds!’ Then he almost crooned, ‘I’m working for the Rothschilds! I’m working for the Rothschilds!’ One of his comrades, who wrote the memoir, joked, ‘I hope the Rothschilds will prosper from this moment onwards!’ Stalin sniggered, thrilled to be working for the dynasty that personified the wicked glamour of international capital.
On Stalin’s first day at work the Rothschilds’ refinery mysteriously caught fire. Stalin bragged to his comrade, ‘Your words came true.’ The Rothschilds did indeed prosper with Stalin as an employee. Stalin the arsonist next organised a brutal strike. When the Rothschilds’ director refused his demands, Stalin ordered his assassination: the gun jammed and the director fled back to Paris.
This was not the end of Stalin’s relations with the Rothschilds. In 1907 he moved to the lawless boom city Baku, home of super-rich oil barons who were much the same as today’s oligarchs. To finance Lenin, Stalin’s gangster outfit of hitmen and bank robbers used protection rackets, piracy, blackmail and kidnapping. The Rothschilds were hugely powerful in Baku, yet the Tsar’s secret police and Bolshevik memoirists recorded how the Rothschilds contributed to Stalin’s funds, even paying him off to stop a strike.
The Rothschilds never knew that they had employed the future supreme pontiff of Marxism-Leninism — nor that he burnt down their refinery. The family shrewdly sold their Russian interests in 1912. Only now have they returned to Russia. I recently recounted this to Jacob Rothschild, sending him a postcard of young Stalin on which I wrote, ‘Your Employee of the Month 1902!’
Business diary: Was Stalin a Rothschild?
Edited by Simon Goodley
Last Updated: 11:33PM BST 25 May 2007
It's well known that the former Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, was such a good communist that he once worked for the Rothschilds, the banking and wine family. But now I stumble on a more sensational theory, which suggests the relationship was far more intimate.
In a lengthy piece on a personal website, one Clifford Shack argues that Stalin was fathered not by Vissarion Dzhugashvili but by Baron Edmond de Rothschild, who, he argues, could have met the tyrant's mother while visiting Georgia on a wine trip.
It's all a bit sketchy and at times the argument seems a trifle far fetched but it's easily settled via a DNA test (Stalin's daughter's still alive). Could I possibly impose and pluck a strand of chairman Baron David de Rothschild's hair, I ask an NM Rothschild spokesman?
"I'll get back to you," he sighs.
Mind you do.
Regarding Madoff and many others ...
Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
By Alan Deutschman
Odds are you’ve run across one of these characters in your career. They’re glib, charming, manipulative, deceitful, ruthless — and very, very destructive. And there may be lots of them in America’s corner offices.
One of the most provocative ideas about business in this decade so far surfaced in a most unlikely place. The forum wasn’t the Harvard Business School or one of those $4,000-a-head conferences where Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists search for the next big thing. It was a convention of Canadian cops in the far-flung province of Newfoundland. The speaker, a 71-year-old professor emeritus from the University of British Columbia, remains virtually unknown in the business realm. But he’s renowned in his own field: criminal psychology. Robert Hare is the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist. The 20-item personality evaluation has exerted enormous influence in its quarter-century history. It’s the standard tool for making clinical diagnoses of psychopaths — the 1% of the general population that isn’t burdened by conscience. Psychopaths have a profound lack of empathy. They use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends. They seduce victims with a hypnotic charm that masks their true nature as pathological liars, master con artists, and heartless manipulators. Easily bored, they crave constant stimulation, so they seek thrills from real-life “games” they can win — and take pleasure from their power over other people.
On that August day in 2002, Hare gave a talk on psychopathy to about 150 police and law-enforcement officials. He was a legendary figure to that crowd. The FBI and the British justice system have long relied on his advice. He created the P-Scan, a test widely used by police departments to screen new recruits for psychopathy, and his ideas have inspired the testing of firefighters, teachers, and operators of nuclear power plants.
According to the Canadian Press and Toronto Sun reporters who rescued the moment from obscurity, Hare began by talking about Mafia hit men and sex offenders, whose photos were projected on a large screen behind him. But then those images were replaced by pictures of top executives from WorldCom, which had just declared bankruptcy, and Enron, which imploded only months earlier. The securities frauds would eventually lead to long prison sentences for WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.
“These are callous, cold-blooded individuals,” Hare said.
“They don’t care that you have thoughts and feelings. They have no sense of guilt or remorse.” He talked about the pain and suffering the corporate rogues had inflicted on thousands of people who had lost their jobs, or their life’s savings. Some of those victims would succumb to heart attacks or commit suicide, he said.
Then Hare came out with a startling proposal. He said that the recent corporate scandals could have been prevented if CEOs were screened for psychopathic behavior. “Why wouldn’t we want to screen them?” he asked. “We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to handle billions of dollars?”
It’s Hare’s latest contribution to the public awareness of “corporate psychopathy.” He appeared in the 2003 documentary The Corporation, giving authority to the film’s premise that corporations are “sociopathic” (a synonym for “psychopathic”) because they ruthlessly seek their own selfish interests — “shareholder value” — without regard for the harms they cause to others, such as environmental damage.
Is Hare right? Are corporations fundamentally psychopathic organizations that attract similarly disposed people? It’s a compelling idea, especially given the recent evidence. Such scandals as Enron and WorldCom aren’t just aberrations; they represent what can happen when some basic currents in our business culture turn malignant. We’re worshipful of top executives who seem charismatic, visionary, and tough. So long as they’re lifting profits and stock prices, we’re willing to overlook that they can also be callous, conning, manipulative, deceitful, verbally and psychologically abusive, remorseless, exploitative, self-delusional, irresponsible, and megalomaniacal. So we collude in the elevation of leaders who are sadly insensitive to hurting others and society at large.
On the broad continuum between the ethical everyman and the predatory killer, there’s plenty of room for people who are ruthless but not violent. This is where you’re likely to find such people as Ebbers, Fastow, ImClone CEO Sam Waksal, and hotelier Leona Helmsley. We put several big-name CEOs through the checklist, and they scored as “moderately psychopathic”; our quiz on page 48 lets you try a similar exercise with your favorite boss. And this summer, together with New York industrial psychologist Paul Babiak, Hare begins marketing the B-Scan, a personality test that companies can use to spot job candidates who may have an MBA but lack a conscience. “I always said that if I wasn’t studying psychopaths in prison, I’d do it at the stock exchange,” Hare told Fast Company.
“There are certainly more people in the business world who would score high in the psychopathic dimension than in the general population. You’ll find them in any organization where, by the nature of one’s position, you have power and control over other people and the opportunity to get something.”
There’s evidence that the business climate has become even more hospitable to psychopaths in recent years. In pioneering long-term studies of psychopaths in the workplace, Babiak focused on a half-dozen unnamed companies: One was a fast-growing high-tech firm, and the others were large multinationals undergoing dramatic organizational changes — severe downsizing, restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, and joint ventures. That’s just the sort of corporate tumult that has increasingly characterized the U.S. business landscape in the last couple of decades. And just as wars can produce exciting opportunities for murderous psychopaths to shine (think of Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic), Babiak found that these organizational shake-ups created a welcoming environment for the corporate killer. “The psychopath has no difficulty dealing with the consequences of rapid change; in fact, he or she thrives on it,” Babiak claims. “Organizational chaos provides both the necessary stimulation for psychopathic thrill seeking and sufficient cover for psychopathic manipulation and abusive behavior.”
And you can make a compelling case that the New Economy, with its rule-breaking and roller-coaster results, is just dandy for folks with psychopathic traits too. A slow-moving old-economy corporation would be too boring for a psychopath, who needs constant stimulation. Its rigid structures and processes and predictable ways might stymie his unethical scheming. But a charge-ahead New Economy maverick — an Enron, for instance — would seem the ideal place for this kind of operator.
But how can we recognize psychopathic types? Hare has revised his Psychopathy Checklist (known as the PCL-R, or simply “the Hare”) to make it easier to identify so-called subcriminal or corporate psychopaths. He has broken down the 20 personality characteristics into two subsets, or “factors.” Corporate psychopaths score high on Factor 1, the “selfish, callous, and remorseless use of others” category. It includes eight traits: glibness and superficial charm; grandiose sense of self-worth; pathological lying; conning and manipulativeness; lack of remorse or guilt; shallow affect (i.e., a coldness covered up by dramatic emotional displays that are actually playacting); callousness and lack of empathy; and the failure to accept responsibility for one’s own actions. Sound like anyone you know? (Corporate psychopaths score only low to moderate on Factor 2, which pinpoints “chronically unstable, antisocial, and socially deviant lifestyle,” the hallmarks of people who wind up in jail for rougher crimes than creative accounting.)
This view is supported by research by psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, who interviewed and gave personality tests to 39 high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminals and psychiatric patients. The executives were even more likely to be superficially charming, egocentric, insincere, and manipulative, and just as likely to be grandiose, exploitative, and lacking in empathy. Board and Fritzon concluded that the businesspeople they studied might be called “successful psychopaths.” In contrast, the criminals — the “unsuccessful psychopaths” — were more impulsive and physically aggressive.
The Factor 1 psychopathic traits seem like the playbook of many corporate power brokers through the decades. Manipulative? Louis B. Mayer was said to be a better actor than any of the stars he employed at MGM, able to turn on the tears at will to evoke sympathy during salary negotiations with his actors. Callous? Henry Ford hired thugs to crush union organizers, deployed machine guns at his plants, and stockpiled tear gas. He cheated on his wife with his teenage personal assistant and then had the younger woman marry his chauffeur as a cover. Lacking empathy? Hotel magnate Leona Helmsley shouted profanities at and summarily fired hundreds of employees allegedly for trivialities, like a maid missing a piece of lint. Remorseless? Soon after Martin Davis ascended to the top position at Gulf & Western, a visitor asked why half the offices were empty on the top floor of the company’s Manhattan skyscraper. “Those were my enemies,” Davis said. “I got rid of them.” Deceitful? Oil baron Armand Hammer laundered money to pay for Soviet espionage. Grandiosity? Thy name is Trump.
In the most recent wave of scandals, Enron’s Fastow displayed many of the corporate psychopath’s traits. He pressured his bosses for a promotion to CFO even though he had a shaky grasp of the position’s basic responsibilities, such as accounting and treasury operations. Suffering delusions of grandeur after just a little time on the job, Fastow ordered Enron’s PR people to lobby CFO magazine to make him its CFO of the Year. But Fastow’s master manipulation was a scheme to loot Enron. He set up separate partnerships, secretly run by himself, to engage in deals with Enron. The deals quickly made tens of millions of dollars for Fastow — and prettified Enron’s financials in the short run by taking unwanted assets off its books. But they left Enron with time bombs that would ultimately cause the company’s total implosion — and lose shareholders billions. When Enron’s scandals were exposed, Fastow pleaded guilty to securities fraud and agreed to pay back nearly $24 million and serve 10 years in prison.
“Chainsaw” Al Dunlap might score impressively on the corporate Psychopathy Checklist too. What do you say about a guy who didn’t attend his own parents’ funerals? He allegedly threatened his first wife with guns and knives. She charged that he left her with no food and no access to their money while he was away for days. His divorce was granted on grounds of “extreme cruelty.” That’s the characteristic that endeared him to Wall Street, which applauded when he fired 11,000 workers at Scott Paper, then another 6,000 (half the labor force) at Sunbeam. Chainsaw hurled a chair at his human-resources chief, the very man who approved the handgun and bulletproof vest on his expense report. Dunlap needed the protection because so many people despised him. His plant closings kept up his reputation for ruthlessness but made no sense economically, and Sunbeam’s financial gains were really the result of Dunlap’s alleged book cooking. When he was finally exposed and booted, Dunlap had the nerve to demand severance pay and insist that the board reprice his stock options. Talk about failure to accept responsibility for one’s own actions.
While knaves such as Fastow and Dunlap make the headlines, most horror stories of workplace psychopathy remain the stuff of frightened whispers. Insiders in the New York media business say the publisher of one of the nation’s most famous magazines broke the nose of one of his female sales reps in the 1990s. But he was considered so valuable to the organization that the incident didn’t impede his career.
Most criminals — whether psychopathic or not — are shaped by poverty and often childhood abuse as well. In contrast, corporate psychopaths typically grew up in stable, loving families that were middle class or affluent. But because they’re pathological liars, they tell romanticized tales of rising from tough, impoverished backgrounds. Dunlap pretended that he grew up as the son of a laid-off dockworker; in truth, his father worked steadily and raised his family in suburban comfort. The corporate psychopaths whom Babiak studied all went to college, and a couple even had PhDs. Their ruthless pursuit of self-interest was more easily accomplished in the white-collar realm, which their backgrounds had groomed them for, rather than the criminal one, which comes with much lousier odds.
Psychopaths succeed in conventional society in large measure because few of us grasp that they are fundamentally different from ourselves. We assume that they, too, care about other people’s feelings. This makes it easier for them to “play” us. Although they lack empathy, they develop an actor’s expertise in evoking ours. While they don’t care about us, “they have an element of emotional intelligence, of being able to see our emotions very clearly and manipulate them,” says Michael Maccoby, a psychotherapist who has consulted for major corporations.
Psychopaths are typically very likable. They make us believe that they reciprocate our loyalty and friendship. When we realize that they were conning us all along, we feel betrayed and foolish. “People see sociopathy in their personal lives, and they don’t have a clue that it has a label or that others have encountered it,” says Martha Stout, a psychologist at the Harvard Medical School and the author of the recent best-seller The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us (Broadway Books, 2005). “It makes them feel crazy or alone. It goes against our intuition that a small percentage of people can be so different from the rest of us — and so evil. Good people don’t want to believe it.”
Of course, cynics might say that it can be an advantage to lack a conscience. That’s probably why major investors installed Dunlap as the CEO of Sunbeam: He had no qualms about decimating the workforce to impress Wall Street. One reason outside executives get brought into troubled companies is that they lack the emotional stake in either the enterprise or its people. It’s easier for them to act callously and remorselessly, which is exactly what their backers want. The obvious danger of the new B-Scan test for psychopathic tendencies is that companies will hire or promote people with high scores rather than screen them out. Even Babiak, the test’s codeveloper, says that while “a high score is a red flag, sometimes middle scores are okay. Perhaps you don’t want the most honest and upfront salesman.”
Indeed, not every aberrant boss is necessarily a corporate psychopath. There’s another personality that’s often found in the executive suite: the narcissist. While many psychologists would call narcissism a disorder, this trait can be quite beneficial for top bosses, and it’s certainly less pathological than psychopathy. Maccoby’s book The Productive Narcissist: The Promise and Perils of Visionary Leadership (Broadway Books, 2003) portrays the narcissistic CEO as a grandiose egotist who is on a mission to help humanity in the abstract even though he’s often insensitive to the real people around him. Maccoby counts Apple’s Steve Jobs, General Electric’s Jack Welch, Intel’s Andy Grove, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, and Southwest Airlines’ Herb Kelleher as “productive narcissists,” or PNs. Narcissists are visionaries who attract hordes of followers, which can make them excel as innovators, but they’re poor listeners and they can be awfully touchy about criticism. “These people don’t have much empathy,” Maccoby says. “When Bill Gates tells someone, ‘That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard,’ or Steve Jobs calls someone a bozo, they’re not concerned about people’s feelings. They see other people as a means toward their ends. But they do have a sense of changing the world — in their eyes, improving the world. They build their own view of what the world should be and get others recruited to their vision. Psychopaths, in contrast, are only interested in self.”
Maccoby concedes that productive narcissists can become “drunk with power” and turn destructive. The trick, he thinks, is to pair a productive narcissist with a “productive obsessive,” or conscientious, control-minded manager. Think of Grove when he was matched with chief operating officer Craig Barrett, Gates with president Steve Ballmer, Kelleher with COO Colleen Barrett, and Oracle’s Larry Ellison with COO Ray Lane and CFO Jeff Henley. In his remarkably successful second tour of duty at Apple, Jobs has been balanced by steady, competent behind-the-scenes players such as Timothy Cook, his executive vice president for sales and operations.
But our culture’s embrace of narcissism as the hallmark of admired business leaders is dangerous, Babiak maintains, since “individuals who are really psychopaths are often mistaken for narcissists and chosen by the organization for leadership positions.” How does he distinguish the difference between the two types? “In the case of a narcissist, everything is me, me, me,” Babiak explains. “With a psychopath, it’s ‘Is it thrilling, is it a game I can win, and does it hurt others?’ My belief is a psychopath enjoys hurting others.”
Intriguingly, Babiak believes that it’s extremely unlikely for an entrepreneurial founder-CEO to be a corporate psychopath because the company is an extension of his own ego — something he promotes rather than plunders. “The psychopath has no allegiance to the company at all, just to self,” Babiak says. “A psychopath is playing a short-term parasitic game.” That was the profile of Fastow and Dunlap — guys out to profit for themselves without any concern for the companies and lives they were wrecking. In contrast, Jobs and Ellison want their own companies to thrive forever — indeed, to dominate their industries and take over other fields as well. “An entrepreneurial founder-CEO might have a narcissistic tendency that looks like psychopathy,” Babiak says. “But they have a vested interest: Their identity is wrapped up with the company’s existence. They’re loyal to the company.” So these types are ruthless not only for themselves but also for their companies, their extensions of self.
The issue is whether we will continue to elevate, celebrate, and reward so many executives who, however charismatic, remain indifferent to hurting other people. Babiak says that while the first line of defense against psychopaths in the workplace is screening job candidates, the second line is a “culture of openness and trust, especially when the company is undergoing intense, chaotic change.”
Europe is far ahead of the United States in trying to deal with psychological abuse and manipulation at work. The “antibullying” movement in Europe has produced new laws in France and Sweden. Harvard’s Stout suggests that the relentlessly individualistic culture of the United States contributes a lot to our problems. She points out that psychopathy has a dramatically lower incidence in certain Asian cultures, where the heritage has emphasized community bonds rather than glorified self-interest. “If we continue to go this way in our Western culture,” she says, “evolutionarily speaking, it doesn’t end well.”
The good news is that we can do something about corporate psychopaths. Scientific consensus says that only about 50% of personality is influenced by genetics, so psychopaths are molded by our culture just as much as they are born among us. But unless American business makes a dramatic shift, we’ll get more Enrons — and deserve them.
Manager as Sociopath: An Interview With An Honest Boss
February 20, 2007 | By Jack Yoest
To be a great manager, you must be a sociopath. Yes, The Devil Wears Prada. And ask Hugh MacLeod.
Let me know if you have ever had such an Honest Boss
The Manager as Sociopath: A 12 Step Program
April 25, 2006 | By Jack Yoest
Your Business Blogger advises a number of very competent business leaders and managers. Each looking to take their organizations to the next level.
But change is required. Brutal. Mean spirited. Humorless. Dark.
To become a spectacular success, there is only one solution:
Become a sociopath. Or start thinking like one.
One in 25 is a sociopath;
that's 24 you are not competing against.
Need to fire someone? Think like a sociopath.
Need to hire someone? Think like a sociopath.
Need to close a manufacturing plant? Think like a sociopath.
Need to increase sales? Think like a sociopath.
Need to be on budget? Think like a sociopath.
Need to step over fellow managers? Think like a sociopath.
This takes training and practice and sacrifice. A sociopath's kind of sacrifice.
Start with these sacrificial lambs:
Dump your wife or spouse or other. Jack Welsh and Rush Limbaugh and Barney Frank come to mind.
Dump church or synagogue or mosque or coven.
No. Join a mosque.
Dump the kids.
Dump the relations. (Except for your rich Uncle Bingham.)
Dump the non-profit volunteering.
Dump the political parties. (But continue to donate to the Democratic National Convention.)
From the American Society of Sociopaths or AS... well, never mind.
(Twelve steps, modeled after AA, definitely without permission)
1. We admit that we are powerless over our character flaw - that our lives have become unmanageable -- we like it that way.
2. We have come to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity -- but we don't care.
3. We have made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God or Society, as we understand Him/Her/Them -- if we trusted them more than we trusted our own judgment and responsibility.
4. We have made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves -- and have found nothing wrong.
5. We have admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being(?) the exact nature of our wrongs -- perfection.
6. We are entirely ready to have God remove all of these defects of character -- (assuming he put them there in the first place?)
7. We humbly [sic] ask Him to remove our shortcomings -- easy job, since there are few.
8. We have made a list of all persons we have harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all -- by getting out of their lives.
9. We will make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others -- (see number
10. We will continue to take personal inventory and when we are wrong promptly admit it -- however, other people will surely take on this responsibility for us.
11. We have sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understand Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out -- daddy replacement?
12. Having had this spiritual awakening as a result of these Steps, we will carry this message to other Sociopaths, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. (see also sex addicts anonymous)
Remember, an effective sociopath has no conscience and can do anything without feeling guilty. Normal people, who can be dismissed as pathetic empathetics, exist only to be ruled and managed.
Organisational sociopaths: rarely challenged, often promoted. Why?
Purpose – Organisations sometimes select and promote the wrong individuals for managerial positions. These individuals may be incompetent, they may be manipulators and bullies. They are not the best people for the job and yet not only are they selected for positions of authority and responsibility, they are sometimes promoted repeatedly until their kind populate the highest levels of the organisational hierarchy. The purpose of this paper is to address this phenomenon by attempting to explain why it occurs and why organisational members tolerate such destructive practices. It concludes by proposing a cultural strategy to protect the organisation and its stakeholders from the ambitious machinations of the organisational sociopath.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors develop an explanatory framework by attempting to combine elements of the theory of memetics with structuration theory. Memetic theory helps to analyse culture and communication of beliefs, ideas, and thoughts. Structuration theory can be used to identify motives and drives. A combination of these theoretical approaches can be used to identify the motives of organisational sociopaths. Such a tool is also useful for exploring the high level of organisation tolerance for sociopathic managers.
Findings – Organisational tolerance and acceptance for sociopathic managerial behaviour appears to be a consequence of cultural and structural complexity. While this has been known for some time, few authors have posited an adequate range of explanations and solutions to protect stakeholders and prevent the sociopath from exploiting organisational weaknesses. Reduction of cultural and structural complexity may provide a partial solution. Transparency, communication of strong ethical values, promotion based on performance, directed cooperation, and rewards that reinforce high performing and acceptable behaviour are all necessary to protect against individuals with sociopathic tendencies.
Research has identified numerous causes and explanations for managerial bullying, deceit, manipulation, and greed. This includes the existence of psychological traits such as narcissism, where managers misuse the organisation as a vehicle for furthering their own goals at the organisation's expense, using tactics such as manipulation and exploitation (Lasch, 1979). When such bullying behaviours occur without remorse, or goals of self gratification are pursued without consideration for the well-being of others, they can be termed as sociopathic behaviours. Surprisingly, and in apparent contradiction to every rational management principle, Kets de Vries (2003) points out that sociopathic managers often rise rapidly through the organisational ranks into positions of increasingly greater power.
How does this relate to the topic of deviance and toxic managerial behaviours? There are a number of means by which an individual can acquire power. These means may be of a legitimate or an illegitimate nature and the sociopath may choose the latter. Acquisition of power in organisations generally demands acceptable completion of established rituals and routines. These rituals and routines are accepted by cooperating and colluding groups who have no reason to benefit from change and who have every reason to benefit from the status quo. These rituals and routines may be designed to provide career paths as well as career speed humps and roadblocks, a means of indoctrination, or they may act as selection filters as well as providing recognition and rewards for performance. Some employees lack the ability, energy, motivation, or perseverance to successfully complete these rituals and routines, or they may simply not desire managerial responsibility.
Unfortunately, the narcissists, the greedy, the pretenders, and those with a high need for power do covet higher managerial positions, largely to satisfy their power needs. They will either attempt to acquire power by conforming to the demands of the organisation's rituals and routines or they will attempt to gain power through illegitimate means. Both approaches provide pathways for achieving the individual's nefarious ambitions. Criteria for selecting a particular pathway will be dependent on the ambitious individual's values, determination, personality, and ability. The nature of the rituals and routines will also influence or impact on the decision criteria. The ambitious individual may not be prepared to leave promotion or career decisions in the hands of others, perhaps he or she is not capable of meeting expected performance standards, perhaps they fear the competition, or they may be driven to acquire power by any means. Such individuals may be driven to monopolise the organisational machinery and its rituals and routines to achieve need fulfilment and power ambitions. Employees who are not similarly motivated will have little chance or will find fewer opportunities for promotion when competing against the ambitious narcissists, the greedy, the pretenders, and those with a high need for power.
While structural complexity and cultural reinforcement are key determinants for facilitating recruitment and selection of individuals who are predominantly driven by self interest, collusive behaviours will cement and reinforce their positions of power. Such people are consummate manipulators, if they have one skill that stands above the rest; it is their ability to manipulate others. While such manipulative skills may sometimes benefit the organisation, the costs, according to (Conger, 1990) can be excessive.
Figure 1 Organisational factors that encourage, facilitate, and reinforce deviant (pathological) managerial behaviours
So How many are there?
Four Million Sociopaths in America.... (~4
percent of adult males)
The overiding sign of sociopathy is a total LACK OF Empathy. They literally don't care.
Realize that these people want to be positions of power and control. They are in every area of our government. 4 percent (and more likely much more) are in our executive, senate, congress, justice, state and local governments.
From the previous articles it appears society is creating a sociopathic society where socio's are protected and rewarded. To them, there must be sacrifice and who better to meat it out then sociopaths?
The Psychopathic Influence
Both the financial elite and their servants who maintain this system, appear to exhibit behavior that is consistent with symptoms associated with a medical disorder known as psychopathy.(*) Psychopaths, also called sociopaths, are categorized as those who exhibit superficial charm and intelligence, and are absent of delusions or nervousness.
Their traits include:
Deceitful and manipulative behavior (either goal-oriented or for the delight of the act itself)
Lack of remorse or shame
Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
Incapacity for love
Poverty of general emotions
Loss of insight
Unresponsiveness in personal relations
A frequent need for excitement
An inflated self-worth
An ability to rationalize their behavior
A need for complete power
A need to dominate others
Psychopathy is basically an emotional disorder. The book, The Psychopath, by James Blair, Karina Blair, and Derek Mitchell, states, "The crucial aspect of psychopathy is ... the emotional impairment." According to Dr. J. Reid Meloy's book, The Psychopathic Mind, although psychopaths don't feel emotion in a normal sense, they do experience boredom, envy, exhilaration, contempt, sadistic pleasure, anger, and hints of depression.
Generally, those who believe it's caused by environmental factors use the term sociopath, and believers of the biological theory use the term psychopath. Psychopathy closely resembles Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD or APD) or Conduct Disorder (CD) as outlined in the DSM-IV. These disorders are detected using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revisited (PCL-R), the DSM-IV, and other diagnostics.
These character types, comprise about 4% of the (male) population and span every level of society. Psychopaths can be found in every race, culture, profession and class. Because the term psychopath has been used to describe APD types and sociopaths, in this chapter I'll use it as a universal label for these three character types.
Later when I'm explaining how psychopaths always mask themselves when seeking positions of power, it will help to remember the following: If a rational person tries to apply their logic while trying to understand the reason for an objective or act of a psychopath, they will fail. This will be explained in more detail later. Likewise, when a rational person hears of the possibility that a massive lie has been told to a population by a trusted leader, and they attempt to use their logic to determine weather or not such a lie is possible, they will usually not believe the truth (that they have fallen for a huge lie).
The reason for this is that although most of us can identify with small lies, we find it difficult to conclude that such a massive lie is possible. When I use the term massive lie, I don't just mean a complete falsehood regarding a major event, but also the scope of its influence (global) and the amount of people that have fallen for it.
In his book, The Mask of Sanity, Dr. Hervey Cleckley, says that even during the most "solemn perjuries" they show "no difficulty at all in looking anyone tranquilly in the eyes." He adds that that they will "lie about any matter, under any circumstances." He explains that it is difficult to express how completely straightforward they appear when telling a blatant lie.
"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
"Lying, deceiving, and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths," agreed Dr. Robert Hare, in his book, Without Conscience. "When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom perplexed or embarrassed--they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be consistent with the lie."
Psychopaths are always able to justify their actions, no matter how brutal. They have, "an ability to rationalize their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable, and justified," says Dr. Cleckley. Dr. Hare added, "Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, [and] are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused," which, says Dr. Hare, "is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior."
Psychopathy is usually untreatable. Most therapists won't work with them because they often end up damaged in the process. Dr. Hare explained, "Such counseling would be wasted on psychopaths." Some of them will even reflect the wishes of the therapist and pretend to be getting better.
In his book, People of The Lie, psychiatrist Dr. Scott Peck had this to say: "Among themselves therapists will not infrequently refer to a patient's psychopathology as being 'overwhelming.' We mean this literally. We literally feel overwhelmed by the labyrinthine mass of lies and twisted motives ... into which we will be drawn if we attempt to work with such people..."
Wikipedia describes that, "traditional therapeutic approaches actually make them, if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also untreatable." Basically psychopaths are the way they are for life. In most legal jurisdictions they are considered sane. So technically, they're not mentally ill, just different.
Dr. Scott Peck concludes, "I have learned nothing in twenty years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond," he says, "to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar with."
Where Are They?
When people hear the word psychopath, most think of the famous serial killers locked away in prison. However, most don't end up in prison or mental hospitals. Dr. Cleckley wrote, "The true difference between them and the psychopaths who continually go to jails or to psychiatric hospitals is that they keep up a far better and more consistent outward appearance of being normal."
"This outward appearance," says Dr. Cleckley, is essentially a mask, which, "may include business or professional careers that continue in a sense successful, and which are truly successful when measured by financial reward or by the casual observer's opinion of real accomplishment."
"Many psychopaths never go to prison or any other facility," agreed Dr. Hare. "They appear to function reasonably well--as lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, mercenaries, police officers, cult leaders, military personnel, business people, writers, artists, entertainers, and so fourth--without breaking the law." He continued, "Their intelligence, family background, social skills, and circumstances permit them to construct a facade of normalcy."
"Corrupt and callous politicians, social or career fast climbers, authoritarian leaders, abusing and aggressive persons, etc., are among them" wrote Dr. Renato Sabbatini in his article, The Psychopath's Brain. "A common characteristic," says Dr. Sabbatini, "is that they engage systematically in deception and manipulation of others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted non-violent sociopaths can be found in our society."
The Psychopath's Brain: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n07/doencas/index.html
Most of these people are not just right in your churches, schools, charitable organizations, and workplaces, but by their very nature, they are likely running them. It is a core trait of the psychopath to place themselves in positions of influence, not for public service, but for power. "The experience of pleasure is not reciprocal for the psychopath," stated Dr. Meloy, "it is available only through sadistic channels of power and control." Achieving power for the sake of having power is the nature of the psychopath. "They love to have power and control over others," agreed Dr. Hare.
The need for absolute power over others and the wish to inflict pain for the enjoyment of watching others suffer, are almost never apparent to the casual observer. The reason for this is that another core trait of the psychopath is disguise. So unfortunately, these individuals usually mask themselves as good-natured people. If they have tremendous wealth, you can bet that they'll create charitable organizations as part of their mask.
They are well aware that their mental makeup is drastically different from the majority. They have a sixth sense for detecting and exploiting any weakness you may have. At a very early age they learn that they can inflict mental and emotional harm on others with ease. They also learn how to detect others like themselves out of a crowd of normal people. Beginning in their childhood, most of them learn to mimic normal emotional reactions in order to blend in with society.
An article on Dr. Hare's website called, Psychopaths Among Us, by Robert Hercz, describes how Dr. Hare was contacted by Nicole Kidman, who wanted his advice on how to play the part of a psychopath for her film, Malice. Dr. Hare uses the anecdote of a psychopath who had just witnessed an accident where a mother watched her child get killed by a car. There's blood all over the place, and the psychopath experiences no emotion, but instead, is trying to avoid getting blood on her shoes. The psychopath notices the mother's emotional reaction to the accident and is fascinated. She goes home, looks in the mirror, and begins to mimic the facial expressions of the mother. "That's the psychopath," revealed Dr. Hare.
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, states that, "any emotions which the primary psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions." They are adept at, "using their charm and chameleonlike abilities to cut a wide swath through society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them," Dr. Hare warns.
"More often than not," says Dr. Cleckley, "the typical psychopath will seem particularly agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered. Alert and friendly in his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests. There is nothing at all odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the concept of a well-adjusted, happy person."
"Psychopaths are often witty and articulate," concurred Dr. Hare. "They can be amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with quick and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely but convincing stories that cast themselves in a good light. They can be very effective in presenting themselves well and are often very likable and charming."
Remember, most of them don't psychically hurt people, so this is about mental and emotional domination. To accomplish these objectives, they will use their mask of sanity to place themselves in positions within your community. These positions may include school boards, charitable organizations, churches, politics, law enforcement, or any position which they believe will offer them power over others. These are the places where most psychopaths end up, not jail.
A Different Species
Some researchers agree that the traits exhibited by these people produce a division stronger than age, race, and religion, which places them in a new category of people. In other words, these people are almost not human as we know it. The word antisocial does not describe someone who prefers to sit at home rather than attend gatherings. More accurately it means antihuman. Most people can't bring themselves to understand the mind-set of a psychopath. Dr. Hare explained, "Imagining the world as the psychopath experiences it is close to impossible."
In his book, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, Dr. Andrew M. Lobaczewski wrote, "The pathocratic world, the world of pathological egotism and terror, is so difficult to understand for people raised outside the scope of this phenomenon that they often manifest childlike naivet鬠even if they have studied psychopathology and are psychologists by profession."
But, if you can, try to imagine someone who seeks power for no reason other than to have power, or someone who deceives just to experience the delight of having done so. Or someone who tortures another person physically or emotionally for the enjoyment of watching them suffer. Imagine someone doing these things, and not losing a moment of sleep at night (zero remorse). And add to all this, the ability to conceal themselves from an extremely naive public. Psychopaths are essentially aliens that look human. Probably one of the best skills to learn is how to detect and avoid a psychopath.
"The typical person, of whatever nationality, wants only to enjoy success in his job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel," describes Gary Allen. "He wants to provide for his family in sickness and in health and to give his children a sound education. His ambition stops there," says Allen. "He has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be king."
He continues, "Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have [and] who march to a far different drum." He asks, "Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power?" In my opinion, we shouldn't because we know that they do exist, and consist of about 4% of the population during any period. "And if these men happen to be billionaires," ponders Allen, "is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to size power for themselves?" As I've demonstrated, true history supports this claim exactly.
Dr. Hare refers to them as "intraspecies predators." "There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life," he says. "If you think about it," he adds, "you will realize that what is missing in this picture are the very qualities that allow human beings to live in social harmony." "It is not a pretty picture," he warns, "and some express doubt that such people exist."
A 2005, report entitled, Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy, by North Carolina Wesleyan College, describes them as, "morally depraved individuals who represent the 'monsters' in our society. They are unstoppable and untreatable predators whose violence is planned, purposeful and emotionless."
In addition to carrying out goal-oriented acts, the psychopath will also deceive and create chaos for no reason other than the enjoyment of doing so. "He will," says Dr. Cleckley, "in fact, commit such deeds in the absence of any apparent goal at all." This critical factor is often the one which baffles most rational people. When seeking an explanation for the behavior of a psychopath, they will attempt to apply reason. But, when dealing with a psychopath, we must understand that psychopathy is the reason.
One day a scorpion and a frog were by a river's edge and both needed to get across to the other side. The scorpion said to the frog, "Mr. Frog, would you be so kind as to let me on your back as you swim across this river? I have important business to conduct on the other side and I cannot swim in such a strong current." The frog was a little perturbed and so began to question the scorpion's motives. The frog spoke, "Mr. Scorpion, while I can appreciate the fact that you have business to conduct on the other side of this river, please consider what you are saying."
"You are a scorpion. You have a large stinger at the end of your tail. As soon as I let you on my back you will proceed to sting me which I might add IS your nature." The scorpion, ready for this, replied, "My dear Mr. Frog, it is clearly not in my interest to sting you at all! I do need to get to the other side and I PROMISE that no harm will come to you." Well, this made a great deal of sense to the frog, so the scorpion crawled on his back to make the trek across the river.
The frog was making good time getting across when all of a sudden, in the middle of the river no less, the scorpion began to sting the frog repeatedly. The frog, shocked at this development, cried, "Why, oh why are you doing this? You said you needed to get to the other side to conduct your business!" The scorpion replied casually, "Mr. Frog, you said it yourself. I am a scorpion. I have a large stinger at the end of my tail. And yes, it is in my nature to sting you."
Psychopaths in Politics
If this 4% of the (male) population exists at all levels of society at any given period, is it possible that some would seek top positions of influence? Of course. Remember, a need for absolute power over others is a core trait of the psychopath. Goal-oriented deceitfulness, superficial charm, an outward friendly appearance, and having no remorse, are other traits which will allow them to achieve their goals. If they are also people of tremendous wealth, they will definitely use this to further their objectives. And because deceitfulness is a core psychopathic trait, this will probably be done by creating a humanitarian front organization.
Evil people are often busy building for themselves various fronts for disguise and to further their ambitions. Dr. Peck described, "They are likely to exert themselves more than most in their continuing effort to obtain and maintain an image of high respectability." So, unlike in the movies, evil does not reveal itself as the bad guy dressed in black, or the monster in plain site. Evil will very rarely expose itself to public light. It must hide. And it almost always hides under the guise of something righteous.
In fact, rather than hiding in the shadows dressed in black, it disguises itself in suits, uniforms, and charitable organizations, which allow it to deceive us into thinking it's our savior. This enables it to cause far greater damage. "While evil may manifest itself obviously ... it rarely does so," Dr. Peck proclaimed, and added, "those who are evil are masters of disguise."
Now let's examine the track record of the people who control the planet. They have created wars for profit and control, which have resulted in the deaths of millions of people, for which they exhibit no remorse. They've allowed attacks to occur, created depressions, and overthrown governments to further their ambitions. They have repeatedly lied about these events using the media, which they control, and academia, which they also control by their Tax-exempt Foundations.
These wealthy people masquerade as the saviors of society. They disguise themselves using public front organizations, which appear to be humanitarian in nature. They've repeatedly not only lied about major historical events, but have deliberately created these catastrophes for their own benefit. Their own publications indicate that they plan to install a global dictatorship with them in complete control. These people are textbook psychopaths.(**) They are antihuman!
Compared to regular law-breaking criminals, these people appear to be OK, on the surface. But as we've learned, lies, deception, and disguise are standard traits of those who are evil. "[They] come from the very highest social strata," wrote Allen. "They are immensely wealthy, highly educated and extremely cultured. Many of them have lifelong reputations for philanthropy. Nobody enjoys being put in the position of accusing prominent people of conspiring to enslave their fellow Americans, but the facts are inescapable."
If you were to research the people throughout history that have committed atrocities against populations, you would probably find that most were psychopaths. Although mainstream history books do describe some of these events, they don't emphasize the pattern which they were part of. This pattern consists of a steady stream of psychopaths lying, deceiving and murdering their way to the top, which then resulted in the atrocities. This re-occurring theme seems to be the norm.
Regarding this, Dr. Lobaczewski said, "We then usually reach the conclusion that the deed would not have taken place ... since the pathological factor sealed its occurrence or became an indispensable component it its origin. The hypothesis thus suggests itself that such factors are commonly active in the genesis of evil." He explained, "Within this interlocking structure, one kind of evil feeds and opens doors for others regardless of any individual or doctrinal motivations." Finally, he suggests, "Since pathological factors are present within the syntheses of most instances of evil, they are also present in its continuum."
"Because their willfulness is so extraordinary--and always accompanied by a lust for power--I suspect that the evil are more likely than most to politically aggrandize themselves," described Dr. Peck. Dr. Sabbatini wrote, "Under stressing social situations such as in wars, general poverty and breakdown of the economy, sweeping epidemics or political fighting, etc., sociopaths may acquire the status of regional or national leaders and saviors... When they are in positions of power, they can inflict far more damage than as individuals."
Professor Marrs commented, "Yet, in public, they impress us as men who are likeable, intelligent, refined, fair-minded, tolerant, thoughtful, kind, and gentile men who sincerely care about such matters as the environment, the plight of the hungry and starving overseas, the jobless, and the poverty-stricken. Moreover, they often are recognized as leaders in the legitimate quest for world peace and tranquility." He continued, "Many are active in church work and charitable organizations. Others give freely to good causes." Recognizing this facade, he added, "No one would suspect for a moment what actually goes on in the deep, dark recesses of their diabolical minds."
Another extremely useful skill to learn is the ability to detect this pattern of decay in a nation under a pathological influence. Dr. Lobaczewski's book, Political Ponerology explains this pattern in detail. He has experienced this process personally while living in Poland under both Nazi and Communist occupation.(***) Once you realize that psychopaths control America and the NATO nations, the reason for endless wars and never-ending turmoil becomes clear. Once you understand the nature of the psychopath, it makes perfect sense.
When psychopaths rule a society, it will exhibit their traits. Generally it will be heavily corrupted. But because deception is a primary trait of the psychopath, it will appear humane. Its traits can be observed from the highest level of government down to the street level. If you wanted to witness the madness of a civilization under psychopathic rule, you need not visit the state capital or a major city, because even the smallest village will exhibit these traits.
When the controlling faction of a society is evil the sickness permeates into the lower levels. Immoral attitudes are projected, while moral ones are ridiculed, and enemies are created. The destructive process ends with a holocaust, genocide or persecution of some manner. The New World Order is such a movement.
In November of 1975, Congressman Lawrence P. McDonald stated that the most important issue of our time is the "drive of the Rockefellers and their allies to create a one-world government, combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control." He warned that this drive is "international in scope," and "incredibly evil in intent."
Ross wrote, "I don't know about you, but these ... activities seriously concern me, because my children and grandchildren will suffer many times greater than we do today under the control of these EVIL MONSTERS." [Emphasis in original] He added, "I have tried to find worse terms for them, but this is the best that I can think of to describe them."
When a nation or other organization begins this process of evil, psychopaths and other deviants are attracted to it like a magnet. Like-minded individuals are installed in key positions of influence. Regarding the current epidemic, this would include the federal agencies which are allegedly carrying out these Cointelpro operations and hitting people with Non-lethal Weapons, as well as the citizen networks which stalk targets in public.
As already demonstrated, you must capture the streets and a percentage of the population in order to install a dictatorship. To do this, a portion of the society is selected to enforce the dictator's rule on the street level. Historical evidence suggests that this portion usually consists of the core operational centers of a society, e.g., factories, hospitals, schools, civic centers, religious organizations, law enforcement, utility companies, stores, etc.
Dr. Lobaczewski described this in the following way: "The actions of this phenomenon affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every village, small town, factory, business, or farm. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country, creating a 'new class' within the nation. This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the 'others.'" The "others" are apparently the people who have been targeted for persecution.
The Hidden Evil
It's very difficult to describe with words an event that must be experienced in order to understand. The event I'm referring to is the observation of the psychopath or psychopathic system in its true form, after the mask has been removed. It can be described as something deeply horrific. This is a gut-wrenching experience for a normal person, and can cause severe trauma, especially if they can't escape it.
"If someone has personally experienced such a nightmarish reality," says Dr. Lobaczewski, "he considers people who have not progressed in understanding it within the same time frame to be simply presumptuous, sometimes even malicious." "This experience," he continues, "[is] unceremoniously rejected by ... [people and] becomes a psychological burden for him, forcing him to live within a narrow circle of persons whose experiences have been similar."
This encounter with a psychopathic element has been the experience of many Mobbing and Hidden Evil targets across the planet. McKinney wrote that one objective of these harassment campaigns is to instill a perverted sense of loyalty toward the agency responsible for the harassment. This makes perfect sense when the pathological factor is considered. "Sadistic control is also an element of perversion," wrote Dr. Meloy, which is an indication of "psychopathic disturbance."
McKinney also mentioned that these agencies appear to treat their targets as objects while harassing them. "Psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification," explains Dr. Hare. "The weak and the vulnerable--whom they mock, rather than pity--are favorite targets." This helps to explain the reports of people being targeted by the Hidden Evil for no particular reason, other than being decent. A psychopathic program will target such people.
Just as the creators of this program are masked as humanitarians, the program itself is masked as beneficial and necessary. Naive individuals who participate, may not immediately recognize this. But a percentage of those who control the weapons which torture civilians (it takes a psychopath to do this), as well as those on the lower levels who follow and harass targets, are psychopaths. And they're aware of the true nature of this program. That's why the joined.
"The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group's propaganda purposes," says Dr. Lobaczewski. "Average people succumb to the first layer's suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well." "Anyone with certain psychological deviations," He explains "especially if he is wearing the mask of normality ... immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him."
The pathological factor also helps to clarify why people who are, arguably, more spiritually and morally evolved than the masses, are being identified and targeted. According to Dr. Lobaczewski, these types of individuals are the first to be targeted in regimes controlled by psychopaths. Dr. Meloy explained that the psychopath's "perception of others' pleasures arouses only envy and greed in themselves." And that they receive, "gratification of sadistic impulses through intentional infliction of emotional or physical pain upon others."
"Psychopathic individuals who never enter psychotherapy are paradigms of this hatred of goodness," says Dr. Meloy. According to Dr. Meloy, although envy is not consciously felt, it is the driving force for the motivation of their destructive behavior. He describes this behavior as "manipulative cycling" which includes a "mocking, [and] controlling attitude" while attacking their targets.
"The manipulative cycle," explains Dr. Meloy, "both enhances his narcissism and protects his vulnerability." This cycle is ongoing because the threat to the inflated self is ever present. He describes this cycle as a purification process for the psychopath. "The desire to control and degrade the actual object . . . may be fueled by the sadistic pleasure inherent in the behavior," he says.
The mocking and controlling behavior exhibited by these federal agencies against their targets, appears to be part of the manipulative cycling which Dr. Meloy speaks of. This makes even more sense when we consider Dr. Lobaczewski's premise, which states that the controlling psychopathic faction of a society (the financial elite), will recruit lower-level psychopaths to do their bidding. These lower-level deviants naturally seek employment in law enforcement, security, the military, politics, or other positions which they believe will offer them power.
A small portion of the population have a psychological makeup which is much different than most. They are completely aware of their difference. They also know that most people are not aware of this profound separation. The difference includes an emotional deficiency, accompanied by a lack of remorse, which allows them to operate outside of standard moral boundaries. They are able to conceal this difference to some degree and usually appear to be generous and friendly.
They consistently engage in antisocial behavior which includes destroying people's lives, in order to feed their inflated egos. During this process they frequently enjoy mocking their targets, which they see as weak, or are envious of. They will inflict pain upon others for no reason other than the enjoyment of doing so. They span all levels of society. Some authors consider them to be a different species of humans.
Psychopaths naturally gravitate toward positions of power. Many historical atrocities were caused by psychopaths. An organization or nation under a psychopathic influence will become saturated with its sickness. It will exhibit these destructive traits, from the upper levels, down to the smallest village. The Hidden Evil is a psychopathic program which exists in a society controlled by psychopaths.
* It's nice to know that there's an actual scientific category that these people can be placed in. I first learned that psychopathy was likely the specific illness that the creators of this program suffer from while listening to author and radio host Alan Watt at http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/. He now hosts a show on the Republic Broadcasting Network.
** This charge is based on my unprofessional opinion. A true diagnosis is a complex matter involving an in-depth diagnostics using the PCL-R, or DSM, as well as input from friends, family and employers.
*** Ponerology is derived from the Greek word poneros, which means evil. Political Ponerology is the study of the growth of political evil. According to the author of Political Ponerology, Zbigniew Brzezinski of the Trilateral Commission attempted to prevent the book from being published.
* It's nice to know that there's an actual scientific category that these people can be placed in. I first learned that psychopathy was likely the specific illness that the creators of this program suffer from while listening to author and radio host Alan Watt at http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/. He now hosts a show on the Republic Broadcasting Network.
October 25, 2006
Psychodynamics of Sado-Masochism and its Scientific Societal Manipulation by the Dominant Minority -
Hour 1, Hour 2 - transcript
March 28, 2007
Predatory Pathocracy, Psychopathy and Their Prey - The Passive Public - mp3 - transcript
March 29, 2007
Prophets of Profit and How Psychopaths Make a Killing - mp3 - transcript
March 30, 2007
Machiavellian Masters robbing the Wealth of Nations - mp3 - transcript
April 4, 2007
The Best Laid Plans of Psychopaths Go Oft' Astray - mp3 - transcript
August 3, 2007
Psychopathic Psychopomps and Their Quest for Civilian Submission - mp3 - transcript
Nov. 5, 2007
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN:
"Psychopathy of the Dominant Minority and Political Ponerology" - mp3 - transcript
A study into the character traits of the ultimate predatory species.
(Book: "Political Ponerology" by Andrzej M. Lobaczewski - ISBN: 1-897244-18-5, Red Pill Books.)
Nov. 21, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" on RBN:
Prometheus Risen, Culling Vision:
"Men of Letters, Science Occupation,
Obsessed with Reducing Population,
Microscope World, Limited View,
Masses are Junk Genes, Superior Few,
All of This to Please Their Master,
Psychopathic, Paranoid, Visions Disaster,
Each One in Hope Their Life be Spared
By Worldly God, One Who Dared
Plant His Standard and Unfurled,
His Plan Began, 'Brave New World' " - mp3 - transcript
Topics of show covered in following links:
"GLOBAL TRENDS 2025: THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL'S 2025 PROJECT" (dni.gov).
"Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World" [PDF File, 33.5 MB, at archive.org].
"National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (THE KISSINGER REPORT) December 10, 1974" [PDF file] (at lifesitenews.com).
"Malthusian snobs pray for cure for overpopulation" by Brendan O'Neill (thefirstpost.co.uk) - Nov. 14, 2008.
"Hairspray linked to boys' birth defect" (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 22, 2008.
"DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036" [PDF file, 6 MB] (U.K. Department of Defence Document).
"STABILITY OPERATIONS OCTOBER 2008" [PDF file] HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (usacac.army.mil).
Let's look at Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit....
Like many Americans, I look forward to seeing a female president, but can we please wait a little longer so we can elect one who isn't: A very obvious psychopath
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! ... That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain
Madness in great ones must not unwatch’d go - Shakespeare
That last line is for the benefit of any psychiatrist who believes there is some ethical reason for not declaring publicly that this power-hungry creature is a dangerous psychopath.
Test for Psychopathy Try scoring Hillary before and after reading about her
Ok, how about Hillary and Obama:
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
September 25, 2008
Any piece that begins with the following quotes has automatically got my attention; and this is especially the case when it is offered in the context of the warlike political style of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that borders on the psychopathic, with the former of the two being the most accomplished and ruthless disciple of the Alinsky model for radicals:
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.'
-- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
"There Is Only The Fight --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."
-- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."
-- The Nation
In his piece today at American Thinker, James Lewis frames the kind of political behavior we are seeing since the "Boomer Left" took over the Democratic Party as psychopathic for its lack of conscience, and most especially when Barack Obama was promoted to a position of prominence among Democrats, as he emerged unto the scene having been carefully molded and packaged by the far left radical setting of southside Chicago and the far left side of the party. Here are a few excerpts to peak your interest:
[...] A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
[...] Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in their faces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
Today we can see the Left's rage reaction to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. The New York Sun quoted one feminist saying "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows ...People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president -- our potential next president."
The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
A British Leftist writing for Pravda (!) called "Sarah Palin - The Devil in disguise...
Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas ... cheap little guttersnipe ... suppose you shut up ... you pith-headed little bimbo from the back of beyond ... So next time suppose you keep your mouth shut and while you're at it, make sure the members of your family keep their legs shut too. ... "
That warlike rage has been systematically whipped up over decades by the Left. That's what college "Women's Studies" does, just as "Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.
Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
Lewis goes on to write that the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths and become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience, which Alinsky called "pragmatic radicalism." In this he differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological, and was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead. As we see in Barack Obama and the politics of destruction practiced by the Boomer Left, Alinsky's teachings are very much alive and much practiced today. And as was the case with Alisnky, it's all about power and influence, and nothing to do with what's right for America. Barack Obama's change is clearly the wrong kind of change for our great nation.
Read Lewis's entire piece here ... http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_alinskys_rule.html
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals. Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
The 96 percent "normal" people are getting their arses kicked by
the 4 percent "abnormal" people.
We have a social system that allows and promotes psychopathic/sociopathic individuals and groups into positions of authority and "rule". That is a very dangerous situation.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’
Montague Ullman, M, D.
In psychiatry there is a diagnostic entity variously known as psychopath, sociopath and antisocial personality disorder. The central feature of this disorder is the failure to develop any ethical standards of social behavior, The concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is foreign to the psychopath. That remarkable advice is replaced by "do unto others as it pleases you regardless of consequences." We do not know for sure the cause of such behavior, whether it is genetic in origin, the result of early developmental trauma, or a combination of the two. The outstanding feature is that the psychopath has a natural talent for using and exploiting others and does so with such skill that true motives remain concealed by ingratiating ways and apparent normality. At some point the bubble bursts and the victim awakens to the reality that they have been taken.
In a democratic society government is supposed to serve the needs of every member of that society. There are two models for such societies, Both involve capitalism. The social democratic societies, such as in Scandinavia, temper the profit motive so as to restrict the massive inequities and ensure that health, education, security and opportunity is available to all. They do this by a system of taxation that succeeds in narrowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots so that a significant proportion of the population is not in trouble.
In the United States where capitalism is given a much freer rein there is the possibility of the profit motive getting so out of hand that those on top are enriched at the expense of those left behind, That is "wild capitalism". The recent run of failures of formerly very profitable corporations are a prime example of that, and how painful it is for those who are ultimately victimized by it. Victimhood is the characteristic feature of psychopathy.
A corporation has been endowed with personhood by the Supreme Court. It is not a person but it is run by persons. If the ethical standards of those at the top fail to maintain a certain level of social responsibility, the result is the insidious onset of corporate psychopathic behavior. A few get very rich and the others wake up one day to find themselves abandoned by the institution they trusted. We now have to take into account the corporation as a psychopathic entity outfitting all prior attempts on the part of governmental regulating agencies to control its behavior. A reactionary government succumbing to corporate power colludes in this happening by weakening regulatory controls, In his book "The Corporation", Joel Bakan offers a thorough account of corporate psychopathy.
The damage in human terms resulting from psychopathic behavior, individual or corporate, leaves a destructive trail behind. The individual psychopath contaminates whatever circle he moves in. Corporate psychopathy contaminates the government which is responsible for setting certain ethical limits to corporate behavior. Excessive lobbying and financial largesse influences those who make the laws and those who have the responsibility for executing the laws.
The title of Hervey Cleckley's classic volume, "The Mask of Sanity," says it all. The psychopath is someone who seems comfortable with himself and his surroundings, often of superior intelligence, capable of turning on the charm said generally creating a positive impression. The problem is it's all fake. There is no genuine empathy, no sense of responsibility or concern for anyone but himself. We are now witnessing large scale corporate and political corruption being unmasked. Money churned out by corporate psychopathy has influenced legislative and executive functions to the point where the former has surrendered its unique power to declare war and the latter to begin a war based on falsehoods fed to the American public.
The analogy between the individual psychopath and the corporation behaving as a psychopathic entity is limited but frighteningly meaningful. I will discuss the analogy to the extent to which it conforms to the current diagnostic criteria of the American Psychiatric Association as noted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV, 1994). The term psychopathy has been replaced by Antisocial Personality Disorder. The criteria will be noted in their relevance to the notion of corporate psychopathy.
The listing of the criteria is preceded by the following statement.
There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since the age of 15 years as indicated by three or more of the following: (criteria)
Comment: This, of course, does not literally apply to a corporation. Corporations do have a beginning with the incorporation followed by a growth period which then leads to a successful or unsuccessful maturity. The temptation to skirt the law may occur at any time. Early indications involve looking for loopholes in the law, setting up phoney offshore subsidiaries and courting political power to ease regulatory restrictions.
The Diagnostic Criteria
1. failure to conform to social norms with regard to lawful behavior as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
Comment: This is true for some psychopaths but not all. Many of them manage to live a long and parasitic life, never see a day in prison and die quietly of old age. Corrupt corporations reach positions of great power and they do this by going beyond social norms. They seek out loopholes in the law, incorporate offshore, curry favor with politicians, manipulate stock shares and engage in illegal accounting practices. In their drive for power and profit they pursue a path where when caught, those at the top still walk away with fabulous sums while the workers and the shareholders are left holding a very empty bag.
2. deceitfulness as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
Comment : Conning others speaks to the heart of psychopathy. Lying consciously or unconsciously is the instrument by means of which a psychopath establishes a beachhead with his prey. It comes packaged in various ways - charm, wit, good looks and cunning. His individual goal is money, love or power. Corrupt corporations are out for money and power and maneuver the agencies of government in pursuit of their goals. Love is an irrelevant emotion as this plays out.
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
Comment: The Iraq War is a case in point when corporate psychopathy influences the political structure.
4. irritability and aggressiveness as indicated in repeated physical fights or assaults
Comment: This is characteristic of psychopaths who pursue a career in crime. There is aggression and fighting in the world of corporate psychopathy but this is acted out in the court to save or expand one's own turf.
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
Comment: Again the relevance of corporate psychopathy to the political structure has played a role in the Iraq war, a war that has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.
6. reckless disregard for safety of self or others consistent with irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
Comment: When the word safety is used here in a more general sense, e.g. financial security, it is relevant to corporate psychopathy. Once greed takes over honesty goes out the window. Accounting becomes cover-up. Stock maneuvering enriches the executives at the expense of the workers and shareholders. When corrupt companies fail, workers lose.
7. lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another
Comment: The lack of genuine remorse is another basic feature of psychopathy. The corporation as an entity cannot feel remorse but the people who run it can, at least to some extent, in their personal lives and on rare occasions when the law catches up with them and confronts them with the tragic consequences of their actions. The fact that a corporation may have taken a psychopathic course does not mean that the individuals responsible are psychopaths, although there may be an occasional one among them. They are, however, in an emotionally compromising and awkward place. On the one hand, they have participated in the creation of a psychopathic entity that wreaks havoc on people and the environment. On the other hand, at home in their private lives they are no different than the rest of us except for their high lifestyle. The only residue of psychopathy in their personal lives is their enjoyment of ill-gotten gains. A more stark example of this is the emotional compartmentalization of the concentration camp guard who is very much the psychopath at his job and the family man at his home.
I have briefly sketched the extent to which the concept of corporate psychopathy fits into the current diagnostic criteria of anti-social personality. The diagnosis rests on meeting at least three of the criteria. I have developed the correspondence based on meeting six of the seven (1,2,3,5,6,7). The concept of corporate psychopathy fits snugly into these six.
The criteria as noted in the manual do not go far enough in capturing the essence of psychopathy, As R.D. Hare and others have pointed out, they are attuned to a certain segment of the criminal population and do not sufficiently emphasize the personality traits of the psychopath, traits which enable them to pursue a psychopathic way of` life quite well within the accepted bounds of society.
It is often the case that psychopaths are gifted with a natural talent for ingratiating themselves. They walk among us wearing "the Mask of Sanity". Impervious to genuine feeling, lacking in empathy they manage to get what they want from others and tragically on occasion manipulate an entire nation.
They are to be found at every level of the social strata including the professions, the business world and most unfortunately the political world as well, Corporate psychopathy is a plague that wreaks havoc on people, on the environment and on the moral status of the nation that tolerates it. Unlike genuine infectious disorders, a chronic phase precedes the acute one. It extends over the period when the corporation reaps extravagantly large profits. The acute phase is ushered in when the financial maneuverings can no longer keep the corporation afloat. It ends up in a trip to the morgue leaving precious little to salvage.
Corrupt corporations feed on money and power, The former comes in part from the U.S. Treasury and ultimately from the general public. To maintain this flow they seek power. The government is where the power is. Individual psychopaths rely on their personality and manipulativeness to get what they need from another person. Psychopathic corporations face a more complex task. They have to influence all three branches of our government, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive, to go along with survival tactics motivated by greed rather than the welfare of the public. Corporations have been in business a long time and have succeeded admirably. We have created a new generation of robber barons but this time they are playing for much higher stakes. The pathological fallout is no longer limited to our own borders. Their reach extends globally, involving us politically, environmentally and militarily with countries rich and poor. Illness knows no geographical limits.
The Legislative Branch
The members of the Congress are prime targets for corporate bribery. Lobbying is one thing. Lobbying backed by generous financial contributions is another. Recent legislation, for example, designed to lower the cost of drugs does more to insure the continuing huge profits of the drug companies. To restrain corporate greed it would have been better to control drug prices than to leave many with the choice between feeding a family or buying needed drugs. Pharmaceutical companies do not only bribe legislators, they also find ways that amount to bribery to influence the physician's choice of drugs.
Legislators are also pressured to favor corporate power over the protection of the environment. We have failed to come to terms with global warming under pressure from the coal and oil industry. Our public lands, long a treasured heritage, are under siege by oil and gas interests, as are our forests by the lumber industry. Added to this is the need for more effective monitoring of the industrial pollution of air and water.
Individual psychopaths are small-time pickpockets compared to the huge sums of money that corrupt corporations manage to remove from the pockets of each of us. The ultimate victim is the public at large. We buy what they are selling. The individual psychopath when he is caught in a criminal act goes to jail. The criminal corporation goes to court, and until recently most often civil court rather than criminal court. In the case of the former, fines are levied which may or may not have the desired effect (there are recidivists). Criminal offenders receive sentences not commensurate with the damage they have done. The complex nature of corporate crime makes it more difficult to litigate. Lower level officials are often the ones that are scapegoats. Finally, there are insufficient prosecutory resources to thoroughly handle every referral.
Individual psychopaths are untreatable. Nor do we know much about the prevention. The prognosis is not quite as bad in the case or corporate psychopathy. Some are so mortally wounded that sudden death occurs. For some a radical overhaul may be a successful treatment. Jail is simply an isolation word to temporarily prevent the illness from spreading. Prevention is the only approach to a cure. We know the causative virus is greed. An effective serum awaits the day when we succeed (if ever) in separating money from politics. We face the choice of closing our eyes to the very infectious nature of the virus and the plague it has produced, or radically rooting it out by seriously investing our resources in manufacturing that serum.
The government as it is now functioning is not in a position to prepare the services necessary to immunize the public. Each of us is faced with the task of creating our own antibodies by getting closer to an awareness of the extent to which we have been infected and do what is necessary to usher in wiser leaders,
The Executive Branch
We are profoundly ignorant of the etiology and prevention of psychopathy in the individual. This is not so in the case of corporate psychopathy. Deregulation, the money trail to power, and our materialistic concentration all pave the way to unmitigated greed. Legal penalties retard or stop the illness in individual cases of corporate psychopathy but do not get at the root of the problem. In the light of the legislative failure at prevention, our only hope resides in an executive branch that has insight into the scope and nature of the illness and the way both government and our lifestyle has contributed to its existence, Of the three branches of government, the executive can be the most important in initiating a program of prevention. The world knows the price that society has paid for leaders that are poseurs or "strong men". Finding the proper leader who could initiate a genuine effort at prevention is a daunting one. We need a leader who has the courage to look into a magic mirror that reveals all the ways these malignant organisms have worked their way into the avenues of government and into the lives of the citizenry it is there to protect. He or she would have to have the foresight and vision of our Founding Fathers, the honesty of Abe Lincoln and the capacity of a war president like F.D.F in keeping the country united instead of splitting it into two hostile factions.
Although the virus responsible for corporate psychopathy has been endemic at least since Theodore Roosevelt's time, it has now risen to epidemic proportions. We are dealing with a virus that ravages people and the environment and has caused a palpable degree of moral fallout. Robert Hare, in his book, Without Conscience, refers to this latter change as resulting in a "camouflage society." He cites the role of corporate power as fostering a cultural atmosphere "where egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being cool, manipulativeness and so forth are tolerated and even valued. Even more important is the reality that the ullman* linkage of corporate psychopathy to political power is a recipe for totalitarianism.
Our country is more divided along party lines than it has been in a long time. If we, the people, can come together in the recognition of this deepening illness in our midst, we can more effectively strive to eliminate it. Instead of a politically divided Supreme Court, we are in need of a Mayo Clinic of last resort. After all, doctors don't work along party lines in their efforts at healing.
Twilight of the Psychopaths
by Dr. Kevin Barrett
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by CIA mind-control subject Mark David Chapman
When Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he said it would be a good idea. But that oft-cited quote, is misleading, assuming as it does that civilization is an unmitigated blessing.
Civilized people, we are told, live peacefully and cooperatively with their fellows, sharing the necessary labour in order to obtain the leisure to develop arts and sciences. And while that would be a good idea, it is not a good description of what has been going on in the so-called advanced cultures during the past 8,000 years.
Civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own included, have been based on slavery and “warfare.” Incidentally, the latter term is a euphemism for mass murder.
The prevailing recipe for civilization is simple:
1) Use lies and brainwashing to create an army of controlled, systematic mass murderers;
2) Use that army to enslave large numbers of people (i.e. seize control of their labour power and its fruits);
3) Use that slave labour power to improve the brainwashing process (by using the economic surplus to employ scribes, priests, and PR men). Then go back to step one and repeat the process.
Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, injure, and generally inflict great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse. The inventor of civilization — the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers—was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies — especially military hierarchies.
Military institutions are tailor-made for psychopathic killers. The 5% or so of human males who feel no remorse about killing their fellow human beings make the best soldiers. And the 95% who are extremely reluctant to kill make terrible soldiers — unless they are brainwashed with highly sophisticated modern techniques that turn them (temporarily it is hoped) into functional psychopaths.
In On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman has re-written military history, to highlight what other histories hide: The fact that military science is less about strategy and technology, than about overcoming the instinctive human reluctance to kill members of our own species. The true “Revolution in Military Affairs” was not Donald Rumsfeld’s move to high-tech in 2001, but Brigadier Gen. S.L.A. Marshall’s discovery in the 1940s that only 15-20% of World War II soldiers along the line of fire would use their weapons: “Those (80-85%) who did not fire did not run or hide (in many cases they were willing to risk great danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages), but they simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges” (Grossman, p. 4).
Marshall’s discovery and subsequent research, proved that in all previous wars, a tiny minority of soldiers — the 5% who are natural-born psychopaths, and perhaps a few temporarily-insane imitators—did almost all the killing. Normal men just went through the motions and, if at all possible, refused to take the life of an enemy soldier, even if that meant giving up their own. The implication: Wars are ritualized mass murders by psychopaths of non-psychopaths. (This cannot be good for humanity’s genetic endowment!)
Marshall’s work, brought a Copernican revolution to military science. In the past, everyone believed that the soldier willing to kill for his country was the (heroic) norm, while one who refused to fight was a (cowardly) aberration. The truth, as it turned out, was that the normative soldier hailed from the psychopathic five percent. The sane majority, would rather die than fight.
The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs. Evidently, psychopaths exercised an enormous amount of power in seemingly sane, normal society.
How could that be? In Political Ponerology, Andrzej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests) psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths.
So-called conspiracy theorists, some of whom deserve the pejorative connotation of that much-abused term, often imagine that secret societies of Jews, Jesuits, bankers, communists, Bilderbergers, Muslim extremists, papists, and so on, are secretly controlling history, doing dastardly deeds, and/or threatening to take over the world. As a leading “conspiracy theorist” according to Wikipedia, I feel eminently qualified to offer an alternative conspiracy theory which, like the alternative conspiracy theory of 9/11, is both simpler and more accurate than the prevailing wisdom: The only conspiracy that matters is the conspiracy of the psychopaths against the rest of us.
Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve their disproportionate power. And as that power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld—the criminal syndicate or overlapping set of syndicates that lurks above ordinary society and law just as the underworld lurks below it. In 9/11 and the 9/11 wars, we are seeing the final desperate power-grab or “endgame” (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men, economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops experts and PR specialists—in short, the whole sick crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. It was their terror of losing control that they projected onto the rest of us by blowing up the Twin Towers and inciting temporary psychopathic terror-rage in the American public.
Why does the pathocracy fear it is losing control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. As George H. W. Bush said to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992, “If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” Given that Bush is reported to have participated in parties where child prostitutes were sodomized and otherwise abused, among his many other crimes, his statement to McClendon should be taken seriously.
Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others’ emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.
Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the normal human being — a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish — militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely as possible.
Above all, we need to inform the public about how psychopaths co-opt and corrupt normal human beings. One way they do this, is by manipulating shame and denial — emotions foreign to psychopaths but common and easily-induced among normals.
Consider how gangs and secret societies (psychopaths’ guilds in disguise) recruit new members. Some criminal gangs and satanist covens demand that candidates for admission commit a murder to “earn their stripes.” Skull and Bones, the Yale-based secret society that supplies the CIA with drug-runners, mind-rapists, child abusers and professional killers, requires neophytes to lie naked in a coffin and masturbate in front of older members while reciting the candidate’s entire sexual history. By forcing the neophyte to engage in ritualized behaviour that would be horrendously shameful in normal society, the psychopaths’ guild destroys the candidate’s normal personality, assuming he had one in the first place, and turns the individual into a co-opted, corrupt, degraded shadow of his former self — a manufactured psychopath or psychopath’s apprentice.
This manipulation of shame has the added benefit of making psychopathic organizations effectively invisible to normal society. Despite easily available media reports, American voters in 2004 simply refused to see that the two major-party presidential candidates had lain naked in a coffin masturbating in front of older Bonesmen in order to gain admission to Skull and Bones and thus become members of the criminal overworld. Likewise, many Americans have long refused to see that hawkish elements of the overworld, operating through the CIA, had obviously been the murderers of JFK, MLK, RFK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X, ChÈ, AllendÈ, Wellstone, Lumumba, Aguilera, Diem, and countless other relatively non-psychopathic leaders. They refuse to see the continuing murders of millions of people around the world in what amounts to an American holocaust. They refuse to see the evidence that the psychopaths’ guilds running America’s most powerful institutions use the most horrific forms of sexualized abuse imaginable to induce multiple-personality-disorder in child victims, then use the resulting mind-control slaves as disposable drug-runners, prostitutes, Manchurian candidates, and even diplomatic envoys. And of course they refuse to see that 9/11 was a transparently obvious inside job, and that their own psychopath-dominated military-intelligence apparatus is behind almost every major terrorist outrage of recent decades.
All of this psychopathic behaviour at the top of the social hierarchy is simply too shameful for ordinary people to see, so they avert their gaze, just as wives of husbands who are sexually abusing their children sometimes refuse to see what is happening in plain view. If deep, deep denial were a river in Egypt, American citizens’ wilful blindness would be more like the Marianas Trench.
But thanks to the power of the internet, people everywhere are waking up. The only obvious non-psychopath among Republican presidential candidates, Ron Paul, also happens to be the only candidate in either party with significant grassroots support.
If “love” is embedded in the Revolution Ron Paul heralds, that is because Dr. Paul — a kindly, soft-spoken physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies — implicitly recognizes that government is the invention and tool of psychopaths, and therefore must be strictly limited in scope and subjected to a rigorous system of checks and balances, lest the psychopath’s tools, fear and hatred, replace love as the glue that binds society together.
The decline in militarism since World War II in advanced countries, the spread of literacy and communications technology, and the people’s growing demands for a better life, together represent a gathering force that terrifies the pathocracy, (those alternately competing-then-cooperating gangs of psychopaths who have ruled through lies, fear and intimidation since the dawn of so-called civilization).
Since nuclear weapons have made war obsolete, the pathocracy is terrified that its favourite social control mechanism — ritualized mass slaughter — is increasingly unavailable. And if war was the great human tragedy, the pathocrats’ pathetic attempt at a war-substitute — the transparently phoney “war on terror” — is repeating it as sheerest farce.
Truly, we are witnessing the twilight of the psychopaths. Whether in their death throes they succeed in pulling down the curtain of eternal night on all of us, or whether we resist them and survive to see the dawn of a civilization worthy of the name, is the great decision in which all of us others, however humbly, are now participating.
About the writer:
Dr. Kevin Barrett, co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth, LINK, has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin. Barrett became a 9/11 truth activist in 2004 after reading David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor and conducting follow-up research that convinced him Griffin had accurately summarized evidence indicating 9/11 was an inside job.
In the summer of 2006, Republican state legislators and Fox newscasters demanded that Barrett be fired from his job teaching an introductory Islam class at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but the University refused to buckle, and Barrett got high marks from his students. He has appeared in several documentary films, lectures widely on 9/11 and hosts three radio programs on three different patriot networks.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." -
He called himself The Beast 666.
Why do you think they perform the Cremation of Care at Bohemian Grove?
The root of the whole attitude is Satanic.
High School Psychopaths...
Borderline personality organization and psychopathic traits in nonclinical adolescents:
Relationships of identity diffusion, primitive defense mechanisms and reality testing with callousness and impulsivity traits
Henri Chabrol, MD, PhD
Although psychotherapeutic observation and empirical data suggest a link between borderline and antisocial personality disorder or traits in adolescents, there is no study on the relationships of borderline personality organization (BPO) and psychopathic traits in adolescents.
The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of structural criteria of (BPO) as assessed by the French version of the Borderline Personality Inventory (BPI), with psychopathic traits, as assessed by
the French version of the Levenson Self–Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), in a nonclinical sample of 243 adolescents.
Significant correlations were found between the BPI scales of identity diffusion, primitive defense mechanisms, impaired reality testing, and psychopathic traits of callousness and impulsivity, suggesting that BPO may contribute to psychopathic traits in nonforensic, nonclinical adolescents. (Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 70, 160-170)
Endorsement rates on the Borderline Personality Inventory (BPI)
and the Levenson Self–Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)
Endorsement rates on the BPI were relatively high:
On the identity diffusion dimension, the percentages of participants responding agree strongly ranged from 9% (“Sometimes I feel that people and things around me are not real”) to 23% (“I often don’t know what I really want”).
On the primitive defense mechanisms dimension, they ranged from 11% (“People often appear to me to be hostile”) to 17% (“My feelings towards other people quickly change into opposite extremes [e.g., from love and admiration to hate and disappointment]”).
On the impaired reality testing dimension, they ranged from 5% (“I have the feeling that other people have injected their thoughts into my mind”) to 14% (“I have had the feeling that my thoughts were audible”). The mean endorsement rate (agree strongly) across all items was 13%. Endorsement rates on the LSRP were also relatively high.
On the callousness scale, the percentages of participants responding agree strongly ranged from 8%(“I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do”) to 19% (“For me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with”).
On the impulsivity/conduct problems scale, they ranged from 7% (“I quickly lose interest in the tasks I start”) to 43% (“I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people”). The mean endorsement rate (agree strongly) across all items was 16%. This rate did not differed significantly from the mean endorsement rate of the BPI (p = .34).
Endorsement on the BPI and LSRP was sufficient to assume adequate representation of borderline and psychopathic attributes and to permit analyses and interpretation of the results.
Correlations between LSRP scores and BPI scales
Correlations were calculated separately for boys and girls.
There were no significant differences in correlation coefficients between
boys and girls. So correlations were calculated on the whole sample.
Callousness dimension and impulsivity/conduct problems dimension were moderately
correlated (r = .23, p < .01). The correlation matrix for BPI scales is
presented in Table 1. All BPI scales were positively and significantly related.
According to Cohen (1992), the strength of the relationships was high.
The correlations between callousness and impulsivity/conduct problems dimensions and BPI scales are presented in Table 2. All correlations were positive and significant. According to Cohen, all the
relations of the Callousness dimension with BPI scales were weak, whereas all the relations between the Impulsivity/conduct problems dimension ranged from moderate to high.
The structural criteria of BPO showed significant correlations with psychopathic traits. These results support both Kernberg’s (1978, 1981) theory of personality organization, especially with regard to the
overlap between BPO and antisocial features, and Fonagy’s (1999) assumption that “fractionation” (splitting) of mental representations (mentalization) is associated with antisocial behavior.
Further studies should address the relation between BPO and psychopathic traits in adolescents in clinical and forensic samples.
This study suggests the relevance of BPO in the understanding of antisocial features in nonforensic, nonclinical adolescents.
Psychopathic traits (callousness, egocentricity, and manipulativeness) appeared to be linked to BPO, suggesting that they are not due to present social influences or experiences but express developmental issues.
There is an intersection of normal adolescent development, borderline personality disorder, psychopathic traits, and antisocial behavior that is of interest both in making correct diagnoses and in structuring systems (other than the criminal justice system) to deal with antisocial behavior in adolescent populations.
Children Reflect The Treatment They Receive
by James Kimmel, Ph.D.
"The societies for the prevention of cruelty to babies and children concern themselves only with the grossest sort of abuse. Our society must be helped to see the gravity of the crime against infants that is today considered normal treatment."
Jean Liedloff, The Continuum Concept1
We live in a society that is rapidly becoming a nation of sociopaths. The root cause of this is not the loss of family values. Neither is it the consequence of parents who are in themselves sociopaths or emotionally disturbed individuals. The cause, instead, is the conventional, but abnormal, ways in which we rear our children. From the moment of birth, children are deprived of that which humans evolved to have – the prolonged nurturing natural to our species. We - parents, community and government - are unwilling to make the commitment to our children that is their birthright. We bring children into the world - but do not accept our responsibility to be there to care for them.
In our lack of commitment to our children they are deprived of the human attachment that is their biological and genetic "expectation" at birth. We deny them the biological mothering experience that is the basis for human sociability and often, parcel their care off to strangers, who usually have even less of a commitment to them than we do. Because our children are not our first priority, the best some of us can give them is "quality time". In a nation of individuals whose major priority is "me," we perceive caring for another, including our own children, as self-sacrifice and loss of self. We seek more and better day-care centers but not the types of help that could enable us to stay at home to care for our children. Nor does our government offer financial help, as other nations do, that allows at least one parent to be at home to care for their infant.
The fact that new human life is not our first and foremost priority indicates that individual human life is not our primary value. The ways in which we respond to infants, even when we do value them, suggests that we do not know how to convey to them that they are valuable. We are simply not friendly to the life we create.
Our ways of caring for infants and children are actually sociopathic in that they are aggressively antisocial and asocial. It is common practice to force infants to spend long periods of time alone in their cribs, to sleep alone, and to ignore their crying, so that they will leave us alone and learn to accept being alone. Spanking, hitting and punishing children are widely accepted methods for teaching children to behave. If we treated another adult the way we commonly treat our children, we would be subject to criminal and/or civil action. Imposing one's will on another person is considered a crime in our society. Yet with children, it is actively encouraged. The only conclusion is that children are not seen as persons.
In our efforts to get children to behave in the ways we want, we utilize methods of control which are culturally condoned forms of violence. Based on our long-standing traditional belief that children are a form of property, we treat them as objects to be manipulated and molded in directions that will be comfortable for us.
Peter and Judith Decourcy have expressed our societal perception of children in the following passage:
In many ways we do not think of children as people with the rights and privileges of adults. Physical punishment and psychological harassment are considered acceptable methods of controlling a child. Children are often punished in a variety of unusual and ingenious ways that would not be tolerated in the most backward adult prison, and the parents are not subjected to social censure or legal interference. It is as if children were objects, bits of property belonging to the parents, to be used in any way the parents see fit.2
The strangest and most unrealistic part of our child-rearing beliefs is that our antisocial behavior toward them is supposed to make them become caring social beings. We are blind to the fact that the parent-child relationship is the first and most formative social relationship and the model for the child's interaction with others. Our children are chiefly influenced in their development by who we are in relation to them, not by who we think we are or pretend to be. As Theodore Schwartz put it, "what is important in cultural transmission is not so much what children are taught or not taught, but the ways in which things happen to them and the attitudes of the people around them with whom they are interacting."3
We act in relation to our children in ways that are similar to the psychopathic personality. In our behavior toward them, we are frequently emotionally unstable, perverse and impulsive. By depriving them of our love and affection, and by punishing them to get them to behave, we behave in amoral and asocial ways (sometimes criminal). We lack social judgement in our belief that the way we behave toward them will make them become social individuals. Our reluctance to change the ways we relate to our children, even though we are continually confronted by our failure to change their behavior, indicates that we (community and nation, as well as parents) are unable to learn from experience. By following our conventional infant care and child-rearing practices, we are unwittingly training our children to become sociopaths.
We may not in the totality of our individual lives behave like sociopaths. Most of us are not criminals. But many of us are sociopathic in the way we relate to our children. This is not because we are as individuals deviants from the norm. We are the norm. We are sociopathic parents because our child-rearing traditions, our own life experiences as children, our culture, our government, and many of our experts on infant and child care encourage us to be so.
Corporation as Psychopath
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
People ask -- Rob, Russell, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. What can we do about it?
We say -- read one book, see one movie.
Unfortunately, the movie and the book are available now only in Canada.
But wait -- before you head north of the border -- they will be available here in a month or so.
And believe us, it is worth the wait. (Full disclosure -- our work -- the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s -- is featured in the movie.)
The book is titled:
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. It is by Joel Bakan (Free Press, 2004). http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743247442/commondreams-20/ref=nosim/
The movie is called: The Corporation.
It is by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan.
We've seen an advance copy of the movie. We're read an advance copy of the book.
And here's our review:
Scrap the civics curricula in your schools, if they exist. Cancel your cable TV subscriptions.
Call your friends, your enemies and your family.
Get your hands on a copy of this movie and a copy of this book.
Read the book. Discuss it. Dissect it. Rip it apart.
Watch the movie. Show it to your children. Show it to your right-wing relatives. Show it to everyone. Organize a party around it. Then organize another.
For years, we've been reporting on critics of corporate power -- Robert Monks, Richard Grossman, Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Sam Epstein, Charles Kernaghan, Michael Moore, Jeremy Rifkin.
For years, we've reported on the defenders of the corporate status quo like Milton Friedman, Peter Drucker and William Niskanen.
But Bakan, a professor of law at British Columbia Law School, and Achbar and Abbott have pulled these leading lights together in a 145-minute documentary that grabs the viewer by the throat and refuses to let go.
The movie is selling out major theaters across Canada. And if it detonates here -- which in our view is still a long shot -- the U.S. after all is not Canada -- it could have a profound impact on politics.
The filmmakers juxtapose well-shot interviews of defenders and critics with the reality on the ground -- Charles Kernaghan in Central America showing how, for example, big apparel manufacturers pay workers pennies for products that sell for hundreds of dollars in the United States -- with defenders of the regime -- Milton Friedman looking frumpy as he says with as straight a face as he can -- the only moral imperative for a corporate executive is to make as much money for the corporate owners as he or she can.
Others agree with Friedman. Management guru Peter Drucker tells Bakan: "If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast." And William Niskanen, chair of the libertarian Cato Institute, says that he would not invest in a company that pioneered in corporate responsibility.
Of course, state corporation laws actually impose a legal duty on corporate executives to make money for shareholders. Engage in social responsibility -- pay more money to workers, stop legal pollution, lower the price to customers -- and you'll likely be sued by your shareholders. Robert Monks, the investment manager, puts it this way: "The corporation is an externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing machine (shark seeking young woman swimming on the screen). There isn't any question of malevolence or of will. The enterprise has within it, and the shark has within it, those characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed."
Business insiders like Monks and Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface Corporation, the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer, lend needed balance to a movie that otherwise would have been dominated by outside critics like Chomsky, Moore, Grossman and Rifkin. Anderson calls the corporation a "present day instrument of destruction" because of its compulsion to "externalize any cost that an unwary or uncaring public will allow it externalize."
"The notion that we can take and take and take and take, waste and waste, without consequences, is driving the biosphere to destruction," Anderson says, as pictures of biological and chemical wastes pouring into the atmosphere roll across the screen.
Like Republican Kevin Phillips is doing as he criss-crosses the nation, pummeling Bush from the right, Anderson and Monks are opening a new front against corporate power from inside the belly of the beast. They are stars of this movie and book.
The movie and the book drive home one fundamental point -- the corporation is a psychopath.
Psychologist Dr. Robert Hare runs down a checklist of psychopathic traits and there is a close match.
The corporation is irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy the corporate goal, everybody else is put at risk.
Corporations try to manipulate everything, including public opinion.
Corporations are grandiose, always insisting that "we're number one, we're the best."
Corporations refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and are unable to feel remorse.
And the key to reversing the control of this psychopathic institution is to understand the nature of the beast.
No better place to start than right here. Read the book.
Watch the movie (http://www.thecorporation.tv/).
Organize for resistance.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of 'Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy' (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org/).
ELEVEN INHERENT RULES OF CORPORATE BEHAVIOR by Jerry Mander
The following list is an attempt to articulate the obligatory rules by which corporations operate. Some of the rules overlap, but taken together they help reveal why corporations behave as they do and how they have come to dominate their environment and the human beings within it.
The Profit Imperative: Profit is the ultimate measure of all corporate decisions. It takes precedence over community well-being, worker health, public health, peace, environmental preservation or national security. Corporations will even find ways to trade with national "enemies"—Libya, Iran, the former Soviet Union, Cuba—when public policy abhors it. The profit imperative and the growth imperative are the most fundamental corporate drives; together they represent the corporation's instinct to "live."
The Growth Imperative: Corporations live or die by whether they can sustain growth. On this depends relationships to investors, to the stock market, to banks and to public perception. The growth imperative also fuels the corporate desire to find and develop scarce resources in obscure parts of the world.
This effect is now clearly visible, as the world's few remaining pristine places are sacrificed to corporate production. The peoples who inhabit these resource-rich regions are similarly pressured to give up their traditional ways and climb on the wheel of production-consumption. Corporate planners consciously attempt to bring "less developed societies into the modem world" to create infrastructures for development, as well as new workers and new consumers. Corporations claim that they do this for altruistic reasons to raise the living standard—but corporations have no altruism.
Theoretically, privately held corporations—those owned by individuals or families—do not have the imperative to expand. In practice, however, their behavior is the same. Such privately held giants as Bechtel Corporation have shown no propensity to moderate growth.
Competition and Aggression: Corporations place every person in management in fierce competition with each other. Anyone interested in a corporate career must hone his or her ability to seize the moment. This applies to gaining an edge over another company or over a colleague within the company. As an employee, you are expected to be part of the "team," but you also must be ready to climb over your own colleagues.
Corporate ideology holds that competition improves worker incentive and corporate performances and therefore benefits society. Our society has accepted this premise utterly. Unfortunately, however, it also surfaces in personal relationships. Living by standards of competition and aggression on the job, human beings have few avenues to express softer, more personal feelings. (In politics, non-aggressive behavior is interpreted as weakness.)
Amorality: Not being human, corporations do not have morals or altruistic goals. So decisions that maybe antithetical to community goals or environmental health are made without misgivings. In fact, corporate executives praise "non-emotionality" as a basis for "objective" decision-making.
Corporations, however, seek to hide their amorality and attempt to act as if they were altruistic. Lately, there has been a concerted effort by American industry to appear concerned with environmental cleanup, community arts or drug programs. Corporate efforts that seem altruistic are really Public relations ploys or directly self-serving projects.
There has recently been a spurt of corporate advertising about how corporations work to clean the environment. A company that installs offshore oil rigs will run ads about how fish are thriving under the rigs. Logging companies known for their clearcutting practices will run millions of dollars' worth of ads about their "tree farms."
It is a fair rule of thumb that corporations tend to advertise the very qualities they do not have in order to allay negative public perceptions. When corporations say "we care," it is almost always in response to the widespread perception that they do not have feelings or morals.
If the benefits do not accrue, the altruistic pose is dropped. When Exxon realized that its cleanup of Alaskan shores was not easing the public rage about the oil spill, it simply dropped all pretense of altruism and ceased working.
Hierarchy: Corporate laws require that corporations be structured into classes of superiors and subordinated within a centralized pyramidal structure: chairman, directors, chief executive officer, vice presidents, division managers and so on. The efficiency of this hierarchical form (which also characterizes the military, the government and most institutions in our society) is rarely questioned.
The effect on society from adopting the hierarchical form is to make it seem natural that we have all been placed within a national pecking order. Some jobs are better than others, some lifestyles are better than others, some neighborhoods, some races, some kinds of knowledge. Men over women. Westerners over non-Westerners. Humans over nature.
That effective, non-hierarchical modes of organization exist on the planet, and have been successful for millennia, is barely known by most Americans.
Quantification, Linearity, Segmentation: Corporations require that subjective information be translated into objective form, i.e. numbers. The subjective or spiritual aspects of forests, for example, cannot be translated, and so do not enter corporate equations. Forests are evaluated only as "board feet."
When corporations are asked to clean up their smokestack emissions, they lobby to relax the new standards in order to contain costs. The result is that a predictable number of people are expected to become sick and die.
The operative corporate standard is not "as safe as humanly possible," but rather, "as safe as possible commensurate with maintaining acceptable profit."
Dehumanization: In the great majority of corporations, employees are viewed as ciphers, as non-managerial cogs in the wheel, replaceable by others or by machines.
As for management employees, not subject to quite the same indignities, they nonetheless must practice a style of decision making that "does not let feelings get in the way." This applies as much to firing employees as it does to dealing with the consequences of corporate behavior in the environment or the community.
Exploitation: All corporate profit is obtained by a simple formula: Profit equals the difference between the amount paid to an employee and the economic value of the employee's output, and/or the difference between the amount paid for raw materials used in production (including costs of processing), and the ultimate sales price of processed raw materials. Karl Marx was right: a worker is not compensated for full value of his or her labor—neither is the raw material supplier. The owners of capital skim off part of the value as profit. Profit is based on underpayment.
Capitalists argue that this is a fair deal, since both workers and the people who mine or farm the resources (usually in Third World environments) get paid. But this arrangement is inherently imbalanced. The owner of the capital—the corporation or the bank always obtains additional benefit. While the worker makes a wage, the owner of capital gets the benefit of the worker's labor, plus the surplus profit the worker produces, which is then reinvested to produce yet more surplus.
Ephemerality: Corporations exist beyond time and space: they are legal creations that only exist on paper. They do not die a natural death; they outlive their own creators. They have no commitment to locale, employees or neighbors. Having no morality, no commitment to place and no physical nature (a factory, while being a physical entity, is not the corporation). A corporation can relocate all of its operations at the first sign of inconvenience—demanding employees, high taxes and restrictive environmental laws. The traditional ideal of community engagement is antithetical to corporation behavior.
Opposition to Nature: Though individuals who work for corporations may personally love nature, corporations themselves, and corporate societies, are intrinsically committed to intervening in, altering and transforming nature. For corporations engaged in commodity manufacturing, profit comes from transmogrifying raw materials into saleable forms. Metals from the ground are converted into cars.
Trees are converted into boards, houses, furniture and paper products. Oil is converted into energy. In all such energy, a piece of nature is taken from where it belongs and processed into a new form. All manufacturing depends upon intervention and reorganization of nature. After natural resources are used up in one part of the globe, the corporation moves on to another part.
This transformation of nature occurs in all societies where manufacturing takes place. But in capitalist, corporate societies, the process is accelerated because capitalist societies and corporations must grow by extracting resources from nature and reprocessing them at an ever-quickening pace. Meanwhile, the consumption end of the cycle is also accelerated by corporations that have an interest in convincing people that commodities bring material satisfaction. Inner satisfaction, self-sufficiency, contentment in nature or a lack of a desire to acquire wealth are subversive to corporate goals.
Banks finance the conversion of nature insurance companies help reduce the financial risks involved. On a finite planet, the process cannot continue indefinitely.
Homogenization: American rhetoric claims that commodity society delivers greater choice and diversity than other societies. "Choice" in this context means product choice in the marketplace: many brands to choose from and diverse features on otherwise identical products. Actually, corporations have a stake in all of us living our lives in a similar manner, achieving our pleasures from things that we buy in a world where each family lives isolated in a single family home and has the same machines as every other family on the block. The "singles" phenomenon has proved even more productive than the nuclear family, since each person duplicates the consumption patterns of every other person.
Lifestyles and economic systems that emphasize sharing commodities and work, that do not encourage commodity accumulation or that celebrate non-material values, are not good for business. People living collectively, sharing such "hard" goods as washing machines, cars and appliances (or worse, getting along without them) are outrageous to corporate commodity society.
Native societies—which celebrate an utterly non-material relationship to life, the planet and the spirit—are regarded as backward, inferior and unenlightened. We are told that they envy the choices we have. To the degree these societies continue to exist, they represent a threat to the homogenization of worldwide markets and culture. Corporate society works hard to retrain such people in attitudes and values appropriate to corporate goals.
In undeveloped parts of the world, satellite communication introduces Western television and advertising, while improvements in the technical infrastructure speed up the pace of development. Most of this activity is funded by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, the Inter-American Bank and the Asian-American Bank, all of which serve multinational corporate enterprise.
The ultimate goal of corporate multinationals was expressed in a revealing quote by the president of Nabisco Corporation:
"One world of homogeneous consumption. . . [I am] looking forward to the day when Arabs and Americans, Latinos and Scandinavians, will be munching Ritz crackers as enthusiastically as they already drink Coke or brush their teeth with Colgate." Page 31
In the book, Trilateralism, editor Holly Sklar wrote: "Corporations not only advertise products, they promote lifestyles rooted in consumption, patterned largely after the United States.... [They] look forward to a post-national age in which [Western] social, economic and political values are transformed into universal values... a world economy in which all national economies beat to the rhythm of transnational corporate capitalism.... The Western way is the good way; national culture is inferior."
Form Is Content: Corporations are inherently bold, aggressive and competitive. Though they exist in a society that claims to operate by moral principles, they are structurally amoral. It is inevitable that they will dehumanize people who work for them and the overall society as well. They are disloyal to workers, including their own managers. Corporations can be disloyal to the communities they have been part of for many years. Corporations do not care about nations; they live beyond boundaries. They are intrinsically committed to destroying nature. And they have an inexorable, unabatable, voracious need to grow and to expand. In dominating other cultures, in digging up the Earth, corporations blindly follow the codes that have been built into them as if they were genes.
We must abandon the idea that corporations can reform themselves. To ask corporate executives to behave in a morally defensible manner is absurd. Corporations, and the people within them, are following a system of logic that leads inexorably toward dominant behaviors. To ask corporations to behave otherwise is like asking an army to adopt pacifism.
Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. —Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.
Excerpted from: IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SACRED: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, Sierra Club Books, 730 Polk St.. San Francisco, CA 94109.
Psychopaths & sycophants
Max McKeown 23 Apr 2007
Far too many organisations are stuffed with sycophants prepared to overlook anything shady, illegal, or unethical as long as they are getting to hang around and share some power. Even if that means pandering to a corporate psychopath.
Leaders need followers, right? It doesn't follow that anyone who doesn't lead is a follower but what if a subset of leaders are psychopathic - or at least antisocial and unburdened by conscience - while a subset of followers are sycophantic - those who are willing to please leaders in exchange for power and privilege, or even the promise or proximity of power and privilege?
What if the two groups are symbiotic? You need those who forgo the respect of self and peers to achieve privilege to be willing to carry out the desires of those psychopaths who have power and no, or little, conscience.
In fact these two groups share much in common. They consider other people and other people's feelings expendable and differ in ways that make them necessary to each other's success.
Identifying psychopaths is both difficult and easy. A mnemonic that can be used to remember the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, ordinarily considered to be the umbrella term that includes psychopaths, is "CORRUPT":
C - cannot follow law
O - obligations ignored
R – remorselessness
R – recklessness
U – underhandedness
P - planning deficit and
T – temper.
Only three or more of these are viewed as necessary to point towards an antisocial personality disorder, so you can assess yourself and anyone else against the seven criteria – none of which require the individual to have killed anyone!
For those who want to delve deeper, you might want to consider Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, a 20 item evaluation list () that identifies the one per cent of the human race who don't have to struggle with their conscience because it is largely or wholly absent. http://www.hare.org/welcome/
Since organisations generally don't screen for such behavioral traits – particularly not for senior leadership positions - they are more often impressed than appalled (or perhaps both) at the decisiveness of such individuals.
It's something that Kurt Vonnegut, an American novelist "known for works blending satire, black comedy, and science fiction", recognized in his book "A Man Without A Country", where he described leaders gathering around them "upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography" plus "most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or PPs, the medical term for smart, personable people who have no consciences".
"Some people are born deaf, some are born blind or whatever, and this book is about congenitally defective human beings of a sort that is making this whole country and many other parts of the planet go completely haywire nowadays" Vonnegut wrote.
PPs get along because they "are presentable" and because "they are so decisive". And. "unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a **** what happens next. Simply can't"
Vonnegut's argument was focused on political leaders but his list of actions that have to be done every single day whatever the cost (and preferably where there is a cost, since the psychopath likes hurting others), is familiar to many who have worked in frenzied environments.
You know, "Do this! Do that! Fire them! Buy ABN Ambro! Sell Orange! Cut Perks! Move the Company HQ! Cut the bottom 10 per cent! Reengineer! Six Sigma! Change! Change! Change!..."
So if Vonnegut was right, or even partially right, that "only nut cases want to be president," to what extent is the same true of corporations?
After all, it is easier to be decisive if you have no empathy for others or fear of consequence. It's also easier to be manipulative if you don't care if you're caught and you get off on the thrill-seeking.
In fact, the more change that is going on, the more fun life is for the psychopath. More sane people need time to think – which leaves them vulnerable to attack - while less attention gets paid to the underlying reasonability and morality of decisions that are being taken.
And how much more so is this if the psychopathic leader is surrounded by sycophants (think Henry Gonzales, embattled US Attorney General, or Harry Whittington, the guy who said how "deeply sorry he was for what US VP Cheney had to go through after Dick had shot Harry in the face).
And just look at all those who are willing to overlook anything shady, illegal, or unethical as long as they are getting to hang around and share some of that power. That's the REAL reason the top team gets spoilt and handpicked.
There's much more to say about the link between psychopaths and sycophants but this is a column not a paper so let's leave it with some questions.
How psychopathic are your leaders? Why not do the test and find out! How sycophantic are his or her nearest supporters? And if you find yourself in a high PS/BS environment – what are you going to do about it?
Being warned is a good start. But what then? Do you pretend to be a psychopath or sycophant, mirroring (but not believing) the behavior that lets people get promoted?
Or do you find another way that neutralizes the sickness or simply lets the empathic among us prosper?
This covers the formation of the NWO / Bush administration but equally
applies to today's environment.
The building of a sociopathic society.
Can an Entire Country Go Mad?
by Ernest Partridge - Dissident Voice - April 28, 2003
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. . . . A wise man fears, and departs from evil: but the fool rages and is confident." -- Proverbs
Can an entire country go mad? Of course it can!
And history provides many examples: the Salem Colony during the witch trials (and its 20th century counterpart, the McCarthy mania), Nazi Germany, Cambodia under Pol Pott, and arguably the United States under George Bush.
Worse yet, most people living at a time of national derangement, perceive that condition as perfectly normal, and even “moral.” And pity the poor soul who sees things differently: the “one-eyed person in the land of the blind.” http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/wonderland.htm
If we are even to suggest that the American public has, by and large, gone bonkers, we should begin with a definition of “sanity” and, by implication, of “insanity.”
Perhaps Sigmund Freud said it best: a sane person is someone with an operating “reality principle” – someone who checks his beliefs against the readily-available promptings of “the real world.”
Of course, each and every one of us falls short of complete congruence with “reality” – it’s the price we pay for our finitude, our mortality.
“Sanity” does not mean perfection; it merely means sufficient commerce with the real world to allow us to survive both day-by-day and in the long term – thus “sane” individuals obey traffic laws, learn from their mistakes and practical experience and, in the case of moral sanity, they recognize in others their worth and their capacity for joy and suffering. Furthermore, sanity implies a capacity to critically evaluate one’s experience, to distinguish fact from fiction, and to further adapt to the real world through that experience and knowledge.
Insanity, by implication, suggests a kind of “habitation” in an unreal, made-up world. The megalomaniac who believes he is Napoleon, to put it bluntly, is not Napoleon. The schizophrenic hears voices that nobody in fact utters. The paranoid is in constant fear of non-existent threats. The psychopath can not recognize the human worth and the capacity for pleasure and pain in others, and so on.
A deranged society is often, but surely not always, made so by a deranged leadership. This is especially likely when that leadership has effective control of the media. Then the leaders possess the means to convey their delusions to much of the public at large.
Now I don’t wish to claim that one George Bush has lost all his marbles, though I suspect that he may be “a few bulbs short of a full marquee” (Garrison Keilor). George Bush’s “world” may, to a disturbing degree, be out of sync with the real world.
That’s a startling charge to level at “our leader” and, by extension, at our compatriots. So let’s look at the evidence:
“Solipsism” is the philosopher’s term for the assertion that “all that exists is my mind and its ideas.” It is epitomized by the opening sentence in one of Arthur Schopenhauer’s books: “the world is my idea.” Of course, no sane person believes this (including Schopenhauer). However, the challenge of “escaping solipsism” leads to the core issues of epistemology: how do we demonstrate the existence of other minds and of an independent “outside” physical world. (My late friend, the novelist Edward Abbey, had an ingenious solution: “if someone tells you he is a solipsist, throw a rock at his head. If he ducks, he is a liar.”)
Now, of course, Bush and his gang are not solipsists, and the term, “national solipsism” is meant figuratively. (Literally, the term is self-contradictory – “national” entails a plurality of minds).
In this figurative (and I suspect original) sense, “national solipsism” is a belief, still better an “attitude,” that the world beyond our borders is just what I want it to be and believe it to be, and nothing more. To Bush and his neo-con “handlers,” ours is an uncomplicated world free of unintended consequences. This world need not be studied in order to be understood – the opinions of “experts” are of no interest. Rather, the state of the world is best apprehended by “gut feeling.” So we are free to violate a batch of treaties, to defy the United Nations, and to invade an unthreatening country. And what will the excluded “community of nations” think of this behavior? How will the Arabic and Islamic nations react? Can they retaliate in any troublesome way? We don’t know and we don’t care. Anyhow, we can always bribe or bully our way through, as we did when we collected the “coalition of the willing.” In brief, in the world of the “national solipsists,” our nation is the sole actor; all other nations are completely passive.
Case in point: Syria. When asked “what is the message of the Iraqi attack” to other countries in the region, Richard Perle casually said: “you’re next!” To Perle and others of like mind, the governments of Syria, Iran, North Korea, or wherever, upon hearing this and contemplating the fate of Iraq and its leader Saddam, will simply passively await their fate in fear and dread, making no alliances or other preparations that might surprise us. Instead, they will wait helplessly, like condemned prisoners in their cells, awaiting the sentence of the court.
And that kind of an assumption is just plain crazy.
In point of rational fact, the remark “You’re next!” must surely provoke strategic planning in Syria, etc., and for that matter in numerous nations throughout the world. Similarly, reactive strategic planning is the certain response abroad to the Bush regime’s flagrant violation of treaties, and its disregard of international law and institutions. We are not the only nation on earth with “national interests” to attend to, although the neo-cons behave as if this were so.
Suppose one were to directly confront Perle, or Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld with the question, “Do you really believe that other countries will stand idly and passively by as they contemplate the fate of Iraq, as they read the text of ‘Project for a New American Century,’ and as they hear that taunting remark, ‘you’re next’?” Surely they would reply, quite truthfully, that they don’t really believe in the complete passivity of nations abroad. But the essential point is that they act as if they believed this! Provocative remarks (‘you’re next!”), violations of treaties, habitual lying, unprovoked attacks upon harmless and disarmed countries – all this is done by the Bush team as if they firmly believed that the U.S. government and its military can do whatever it damned pleases, without fear of “surprises” and retaliation from other regimes and non-governmental organizations such as al Qaeda.
In short, their beliefs in rational reflective moments are fundamentally disconnected from their actions and their policies. And that is clinically insane behavior. Moreover, to the degree that this disconnection between certifiable knowledge (“justified-true-belief”) and operative foreign policy doctrine infects the general public, via the “vector” of a compliant media, that public “catches” a bad case of the crazies from its government.
Sooner or later, the Bushistas and the American public will find out, to their astonishment and chagrin, that “the world” beyond will not tolerate this behavior much longer, and moreover, that the community of nations, comprising the “other” 95% of the world’s population, is quite capable of devastating, albeit non-military, retaliation.
Science be damned -- “the world is my idea”
Solipsism, or “subjectivism gone mad,” is reflected in Bush’s attitude toward science, and in the consequent policies of his administration. According to the Bushevik subjective metaphysic, the physical world is also just what we want it to be, scientific expertise and proof be damned. And so, when the threat of global warming is affirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, consisting of 2000 of the leading atmospheric scientists of the world, and when the IPCC findings are confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, the Bush regime responds by “shooting the messenger” – by arranging the firing of the IPCC Chairman, Thomas Watson. Furthermore, the Bush EPA then removes a section on climate change from its annual report. Similarly, Bush energy policy is apparently based on the belief that petroleum reserves are infinite – contrary to scientific information and economic statistics. . “We don’t want to believe what the scientists tell us, so it ain’t so.”
Economics is not a “hard science” – to say the least of it. Nonetheless, there are a few compelling economic principles that are ignored at the peril of society. One is that huge deficits far into the future, with no indication of reversal, leads inexorably to fiscal collapse. Another principle is that the way to “stimulate” an economy is to direct funds to those who will spend and/or invest in the near future (that’s most of us), and not to those who will send these funds to offshore banks or to set up low-wage industries abroad (i.e., to the fortunate top 2%). But never mind all that. George Bush has “a promise to keep” – to his political contributors. And, at least in this case, he keeps his promises.
Another bit of economic lunacy: “Compulsive behavior” – persisting in an activity that has clearly been shown to be useless or even counter-productive – is a compelling indicator of some loose screws in the cognitive clockwork. In extreme cases, it calls for strait-jackets and padded cells. Now consider “supply-side,” “trickle-down” economic policies (i.e., “reverse Robin-Hoodism" – throwing money at the rich), which proved to be a colossal failure during the Reagan and Bush-I administrations. When Bill Clinton dumped “supply side,” two conservative Texas Professors of Economics, (and Senator and Congressman respectively) Dr. Phil Gramm and Dr. Richard Armey, predicted economic disaster. Instead, there followed eight years of unprecedented growth and prosperity. But never mind that, with Bush the Sequel we get supply side, the sequel. Experience refutes supply-side economics, and eight Nobel Laureate economists have denounced it. But so what? George Bush’s “gut” says otherwise, therefore “supply side” theory is true.
Psychopathology: “Who cares what you think?”
Psychopathy – the failure to recognize, much less to empathize with, the personal human dignity, rights, and feelings of others, is displayed in the Bush administration de-funding of Medicare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, and furthermore, in the callous disregard of the lives and safety of the unfortunate Iraqis beneath the U.S. military’s cruise-missiles, shells, and bombs. Sure enough, the Bush word-smiths recognize compassion as a politically potent concept – hence “Compassionate Conservatism.” But the astute citizen will (untypically) follow Richard Nixon’s advice: “don’t pay attention to what [they] say, pay attention to what [they] do.”
“The Truth is Out There”
The Bush administration has an uncanny ability to concoct lies and, when “found out,” to “move on” unscathed. This accomplishment stands as a tribute to their mastery of the black arts of public relations and propaganda.
Consider the “justifications” for the attack on Iraq – in particular, those presented by Colin Powell to the UN Security Council. (a) Saddam Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and (b) Saddam Hussein is in close cahoots with al Qaeda terrorists. As it turns out, the case for WMDs was based on a collapsing structure of plagiarized term papers, forged documents, rumors and false reports, even as the UN inspectors were failing to find any independent evidence of WMDs. And even the CIA reported that there was no evidence linking Saddam with al Qaeda. Furthermore, it was a plain verifiable fact that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. And yet, so effective is the Bush propaganda machine, that a majority of the American public now believes that Saddam had WMDs “at the ready,” and that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Significantly, the corporate media has taken no great pains to disabuse the public of these flat-out misconceptions.
In other words, the American public’s “reality principle” was, in these cases, deliberately and effectively sabotaged, resulting in a case of mass-derangement.
And yet, “the truth is out there.” The facts about Saddam, WMDs, al Qaeda, 9/11 are not secret, nor are the opinions of atmospheric scientists, petroleum geologists. The opinions of world-renowned economists are on the record, and if that doesn’t suffice, the economic statistics – unemployment, consumer confidence, inventories, stock prices, etc. – are published for all to see.
Yet, to the neo-conservative and fundamentalist dogmatists in the Bush administration, none of this matters. “Screw reality, we have our doctrine – and we have the interests of our ‘sponsors’ to tend to.”
Likewise, although the facts are out there in front of the eyes of the public, yet they refuse to see. Meanwhile, the subservient corporate media have instituted a successful campaign of “mass distraction,” while the Congress and the Courts are no help, since they no longer work for “We the People.”
Corruption and despotism, like cockroaches, scurry for cover when the light is cast upon them. Thus the most dependable route out of this pit that we the people find ourselves in, is the route prescribed by Thomas Jefferson and fellow founders of our republic: a free and diverse media, a vigorous and well-funded system of education, and the resulting open discussion of competing ideas. Unfortunately, now that the corporate media at home have abandoned us, we must now look to the foreign press and the internet for our news and information.
So wake up, America. Reality calls!
And reality won't budge an inch to accommodate our fantasies.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a philosopher with a specialty in moral philosophy (ethics) and environmental ethics, who resides in the San Bernardino mountains, east of Los Angeles, CA. He has taught at several campuses of the University of California and at the University of Colorado. He is the editor and sole writer of the website, The Online Gadfly. He is also co-editor of The Crisis Papers with Bernard Weiner, where this essay first appeared ( http://www.crisispapers.org/ ).
Teaching Psychopathy/Sociopathy to Teenagers:
6 Teenagers Are Charged After Classmate’s Suicide
It is not clear what some students at South Hadley High School expected to achieve by subjecting a freshman to the relentless taunting described by a prosecutor and classmates.
Certainly not her suicide. And certainly not the multiple felony indictments announced on Monday against several students at the Massachusetts school.
The prosecutor brought charges Monday against six teenagers, saying their taunting and physical threats were beyond the pale and led the freshman, Phoebe Prince, to hang herself from a stairwell in January.
The charges were an unusually sharp legal response to the problem of adolescent bullying, which is increasingly conducted in cyberspace as well as in the schoolyard and has drawn growing concern from parents, educators and lawmakers.
In the uproar around the suicides of Ms. Prince, 15, and an 11-year-old boy subjected to harassment in nearby Springfield last year, the Massachusetts legislature stepped up work on an anti-bullying law that is now near passage. The law would require school staff members to report suspected incidents and principals to investigate them. It would also demand that schools teach about the dangers of bullying. Forty-one other states have anti-bullying laws of varying strength.
In the Prince case, two boys and four girls, ages 16 to 18, face a different mix of felony charges that include statutory rape, violation of civil rights with bodily injury, harassment, stalking and disturbing a school assembly.
Appearing with state and local police officials on Monday, Ms. Scheibel said that Ms. Prince’s suicide came after nearly three months of severe taunting and physical threats by a cluster of fellow students.
“The investigation revealed relentless activities directed toward Phoebe to make it impossible for her to stay at school,” Ms. Scheibel said. The conduct of those charged, she said, “far exceeded the limits of normal teenage relationship-related quarrels.”
It was particularly alarming, the district attorney said, that some teachers, administrators and other staff members at the school were aware of the harassment but did not stop it. “The actions or inactions of some adults at the school were troublesome,” Ms. Scheibel said, but did not violate any laws.
Christine Swelko, assistant superintendent for South Hadley Public Schools, said school officials planned to meet with the district attorney this week or next. “We will then review this evidence and particularly the new information which the district attorney’s office has but did not come to light within the investigation conducted by the school,” Ms. Swelko said in a statement.
Ms. Prince’s family had recently moved to the United States from a small town in Ireland, and she entered South Hadley last fall. The taunting started when she had a brief relationship with a popular senior boy; some students reportedly called her an “Irish slut,” knocked books out of her hands and sent her threatening text messages, day after day.
At South Hadley High School, which has about 700 students, most students and teachers refused on Monday to talk about the case. Students waited for parents in the pouring rain and a sports team ran by, with one student telling reporters, “Go away.”
Ashlee Dunn, a 16-year-old sophomore, said she had not known Ms. Prince personally but had heard stories spread about her in the hallways.
“She was new and she was from a different country, and she didn’t really know the school very well,” Ms. Dunn said. “I think that’s probably one reason why they chose Phoebe.”
On Jan. 14, the investigation found, students abused her in the school library, the lunchroom and the hallways and threw a canned drink at her as she walked home. Her sister found her hanging from a stairwell at home, still in her school clothes, at 4:30 p.m.
Some of the students plotted against Ms. Prince on the Internet, using social networking sites, but the main abuse was at school, the prosecutor said.
“The actions of these students were primarily conducted on school grounds during school hours and while school was in session,” Ms. Scheibel said.
Ms. Scheibel declined to provide details about the charges of statutory rape against two boys, but experts said those charges could mean that the boys had sex with Ms. Prince when she was under age.
Legal experts said they were not aware of other cases in which students faced serious criminal charges for harassing a fellow student, but added that the circumstances in this case appeared to be extreme and that juvenile charges were usually kept private.
The Massachusetts House and Senate have passed versions of an anti-bullying law, but disagreement remains on whether all schools will be required to conduct staff training about bullying — a provision in about half the states with such laws and one that is vital, said Robert O. Trestan, Eastern States Civil Rights Counsel of the Anti-Defamation League, which has led the effort for legislation in Massachusetts.
The prospective law, Mr. Trestan said, is aimed at changing school cultures and preventing bullying, but would not label bullying a crime because it is a vague concept. “These indictments tell us that middle school and high school kids are not immune from criminal laws,” he said. “If they violate them in the course of bullying someone, they’ll be held accountable. We don’t need to create a new crime.”
A South Hadley parent, Mitch Brouillard, who said his daughter Rebecca had been bullied by one of the girls charged in Ms. Prince’s death, said he was pleased that charges were brought. One of the students was charged separately in a case involving his daughter.
“My daughter was bullied for three years, and we continually went to the administration and we really got no satisfaction,” Mr. Brouillard said, adding, “I was offered an apology a few weeks ago that they should have handled it differently.”
The school has convened an anti-bullying task force, which met Monday, to help determine how to deal with bullying. “That’s the really clear message we’re trying to send — if you see anything at all, online, through friends, you have to tell us,” said Bill Evans, an administrator leading a group subcommittee.
The task force must also consider whether state law affects existing procedures. “The big question out there is what the legislature will impose on school districts,” Mr. Evans said.
Harvey Silverglate, a lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., who has argued that proposed cyberbullying laws are too vague and a threat to free speech, said that he thought the charges announced Monday would pass legal muster. The sorts of acts of harassment and stalking claimed in the charges were wrong under state law, Mr. Silverglate said, but a question would be whether they were serious enough to constitute criminal violations, as opposed to civil ones.
“There is a higher threshold of proof of outrageous conduct needed to reach the level of a criminal cause of action, in comparison to the lower level of outrageousness needed to prove a civil violation,” he said.
A lawsuit involving another case of high school bullying, in upstate New York, was settled on Monday. A gay teenager had sued the Mohawk Central School District, saying school officials had not protected him.
In the settlement, the district said it would increase staff training to prevent harassment, pay $50,000 to the boy’s family and reimburse the family for counseling, The Associated Press reported. The boy has moved to a different district.
Prosecutor: 9 teens charged in bullying that led to girl's suicide - March 30, 2010
In the indictments, returned Friday but not made public until Monday, the Hampshire County grand jury charged 17-year-old Sean Mulveyhill of South Hadley with statutory rape, violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting, criminal harassment and disturbance of a school assembly.
The indictments charged 18-year-old Austin Renaud of Springfield with statutory rape.
Kayla Narey, 17, of South Hadley, was charged with violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting, criminal harassment and disturbance of a school assembly.
Charges against another three girls included violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting; two were also charged with stalking.
Three other girls from South Hadley were named in four delinquency complaints from Hampshire Franklin Juvenile Court. Their charges included violation of civil rights with bodily injury resulting, criminal harassment and disturbance of a school assembly, violation of civil rights, criminal harassment and assault by means of a dangerous weapon. One of the juveniles was charged in a separate complaint involving a second victim, Scheibel said.
The bullying of Prince was common knowledge to most of the student body and to certain faculty, staff and administrators, Scheibel said. At least four students and two faculty members had intervened during the harassment, but the school's code of conduct was inconsistently enforced, she said.
Though the faculty, staff and administrators' behavior was not deemed criminal,
"the actions, or inactions, of some adults at the school are troublesome," she said.