The other day I made a comment on the SOTT blog to the effect that things were getting pretty warm for the administration over the past few weeks, what with the Prosecutor’s purge and Bush’s “Fascist Law Czar” – Gonzales – getting ready to be called on the carpet in a serious way and that now, with the Va. Tech. Massacre as the subject of the latest media feeding frenzy, Gonzales is basically off the hook.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the growing movement for impeachment that is supposed to reach a fever pitch at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28. That has taken a back seat as well.
One of the QFG researchers wrote some insightful comments on the situation as follows:
Maybe I’m stretching it a bit, but I was seeing it as sort of a mini 9/11 (an orchestrated event) and having some parallels. The shooter being “programmed” like the suicide bombers (well, maybe *all* shooters are programmed in some way), two separate events with one being the main focus (WTC and Pentagon), endless broadcasts of the shooter’s clips on TV (same with burning WTC buildings) to extract maximum loosh from a grieving public, little details coming out like the gun receipt in the backpack (but then why file off the gun’s serial numbers?) compared to the passports that survived destruction and were conveniently found in 9/11. Oh, and the “islamic” sounding letters on the shooter’s arm. Again, I guess if you look hard enough, you can find parallels in any event of this type. To me, it seemed like the same “model.”
I forget where I read it yesterday, but some article brought up all the stuff that’s happened in April around this date over the years, the Branch Davidian thing, the Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine, and now this. Like all within a week or so.
That old saying should be “beware the Ides of April” instead of “March!”
Another QFG member later wrote the following:
Just a few thoughts and observations I had on the VT massacre, which happened on the day I was traveling and unfolded during a week in which I did not access the internet at all – only a hotel TV with CNN and Fox News. I just returned and here are my thoughts:
*Probable distraction. Week-long news dominance provides cover. Not necessarily for Gonzales, but both issues may be covering something else.
*Social programming leading to acceptance of more “real strictures” to be enacted as a result. Fox went nuts with “experts” suggesting crazy stuff like arming teachers. Usual short-sighted emphasis on pre-emption rather than prevention.
*Media painting “oddball” or “loner” people as threats to society rather than leaders and promoting conformist, herd-mentality followers as “good.” Many suggestions that non-conformists should be committed to institutions immediately, despite the fact that jails are the largest mental institutions in the USA. Mental illness isn’t a profitable one. One man was interviewed who committed his son whose mental illness he says began with belief that the US was behind 9/11 and wearing a “tin foil hat.”
*Obscenely unbalanced coverage of VT compared to Iraq where many more people were murdered probably every day this week.
*Media people getting psychosis and psychopathy wrong and the absurdity of them “painting a mental picture” and going “inside the mind” of the killer.
*Horrified that people are threatening Cho’s parents so that they have to have police protection and move every night. Revenge mentality just like 9/11. Reminded me of the death threats against the innocent Duke “rapists” who were victims of an unbalanced woman and a psychopathic attorney.
Of course, the first thing that I (and others) thought of when I heard of the VA. Tech shootings was “Greenbaum.” For those of you not familiar with this Project Paperclip-generated mind control program (or even Project Paperclip), you might want to get up to speed pretty quick. After all, “they” are trying to convince you that a “Cho” could be anyone, anywhere. That’s not true, but the truth is pretty scary: there are a lot of mind-controlled people walking the streets, working in average jobs, living next door to anybody, and you really do need to have the knowledge of what you are dealing with in order to protect yourself and your loved ones. And believe, me, it ain’t what the MSM is telling you.
Take Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, for example. According to his brother, David Kaczynski, Ted was unwittingly part of the MK-ULTRA-CIA mind control program for three years at Harvard, and then at the University of Michigan and probably U.C. Stanford. In recalling some of the details of his brother’s involvement in the covert behavior modification program, David Kaczynski says of his older brother, “In a sense, he wasn’t paranoid; he was in a sense conspired against.”
This whole incident, of course, takes us back to Oklahoma City…
When I saw the face of the alleged Oklahoma Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, I knew I had seen that expression before. I couldn’t quite place the memory until a few days later when I read in a news article that Mr. McVeigh had told someone that the government had implanted a computer chip in his hip to track him! The bells rang and the lightbulb lit! I knew where I had seen that look before.
He was young, about 26 or 27, blond, blue-eyed, clean- cut, powerfully built and definitely suffering. His body- language said it all. The young man sitting across from me was overwhelmed by terror. His eyes darted to the right and the left as though expecting a blow from any quarter, and he was coiled as tightly as an overwound clock spring. His story was not entirely unique, but the level to which it had affected him was profound, possibly the worst I had seen, and I knew he needed help NOW.
Several months previously, I had been contacted by the owner of a large book store in a nearby city. She frequently referred clients to me for hypnosis. Generally they are the run-of-the-mill New Agers desiring past-life regressions out of simple curiosity, but sometimes the situations are quite serious and troubling. “Luke’s” case, (a pseudonym) was one of the latter.
Maggie, (pseudonym), the book store owner, sponsored and promoted many seminars and classes in her store and she had met Luke at one of these. She knew something was troubling him, but it was some time before he confided in her. Now, he was telling his story to me.
“The government is experimenting on me,” he told me with anguish in his voice. “I don’t know why or how, but there are a lot of people in on this and they are trying to drive me crazy.”
“What makes you think the government is experimenting on you?” I asked.
“I KNOW they are. They have my house bugged, my phone is tapped, they have some kind of thing planted in me to control my thoughts, and they have people everywhere watching me.”
“What kind of people are watching you, where are they, and how do you know this?”
“The people who live around me are part of the project. They have them planted everywhere — at McDonalds, at the laundromat, in the stores, at the restaurant, where I work. They put drugs into my food to knock me out and then they come and take me and experiment on me. Then, when they put me back, I can hear the people next door discussing me.” He paused and looked at me pleadingly. “I know you think I am crazy, but you have to believe me. Something REAL is happening to me. It is not just in my mind and I am not making it up. I sleep with a gun under my pillow because someday they are going to make a mistake and I am not going to be completely out when they come!”
And the story goes on. Luke’s anguish, paranoia and utter terror were real and tangible. He was my first Greenbaum victim.
Then, of course, there was Jonestown. It was SO convenient that Congressman Leo Ryan was taken out by the alleged suicidal cult members of Jim Jones’ “People’s Temple.’
No one ever questioned who ordered the assassination of Congressman Leo Ryan as he departed from the notorious Jonestown. “Jim Jones ordered…” was all the public needed to hear. “Bizarre cult” assassinates Congressman, then lurches into a macabre orgy of suicide and murder at the command of their deranged leader, Jim Jones. Stop the investigation! No need. We already got “the story.”
But was Jones really a lone madman as we were told? Is it really a plausible story that more that nine hundred people took their own lives willingly, simply because he told them to? Or is there more to the story than what we have been told?
As it happens, not very long after the horrible events of that day, the rumors began. There were things that simply did not make sense and there were many clues to the presence of the CIA. As more bits and pieces were revealed, it was clear that the evidence pointed in the direction of strange human experiments in mind control, even genocide. At best, Jonestown was a CIA-run camp set up as an experimental laboratory for the secret government’s efforts to reprogram the American psyche. There are suggestions of parallel “Jonestowns”. At worst, Jonestown served a dual purpose: to create the fear of “cults” in the Global mind AND it got rid of Leo Ryan.
Leo Ryan, it seems, was a problem for the secret government, the “National Security State.”
…[M]ost who knew Leo Ryan agreed he had flamboyance, tenacity, nerve and a knack for drawing attention to social abuses. A man who marched to the beat of his own drum, he galled bureaucrats, some of whom, according to a former aide, viewed the Democratic congressman from Northern California as the worst-case-scenario bull in their china shop.
After the riots in Watts in 1965, Ryan, then a California state legislator, traveled to that community under a false identity and became a substitute teacher to investigate conditions in the black community. Five years later, he again went undercover and had himself strip-searched and locked up in Folsom State Prison to discover what life in such a facility was really like. In 1978, he made plans to spend that Christmas season incognito once again, this time as a Postal Service employee to investigate complaints of bad working conditions.
As a congressman, his brassiness caused him to routinely do things which to others were unthinkable, such as “dropping in” at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to interrogate the spymasters about what they hadn’t been telling Congress.
“He was,” according to a source formerly close to Ryan, and who once accompanied him on a trip to Langley, “a pain in their ass.”
As a member of the House of Representatives’ International Relations Committee and its foremost CIA critic, he was the House sponsor of the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, a 1974 law that required the CIA to notify eight separate committees of Congress-totaling some 200 legislators and staff-prior to conducting undercover operations.
Hughes-Ryan also banned CIA covert paramilitary operations which were not expressly approved by the president and Congress. The agency hated this, a former Ryan associate told Freedom. But the Hughes-Ryan Amendment, which seriously restricted CIA covert operations internationally, was only one index of Leo Ryan’s impact.
In 1975, Ryan leaked word of the CIA’s involvement in the Angolan civil war to CBS newsman Daniel Schorr, creating a wave of major embarrassment for the agency which reverberated for years.
In 1977 and 1978, Ryan pressured the agency to reveal the extent of its involvement in psychiatric “mind-control” experiments. Among the tests he pushed to expose were those performed in the early 1970s on inmates at a state hospital in Vacaville, California, which may have included among their subjects Donald DeFreeze, known as “Cinque,” a central figure in the 1974 kidnapping of Patricia Hearst.
Having said all of that, certainly there have been cults that committed suicide or slaughtered one another when faced with some terrible calamity. Masada is an example:
It is strange that a place known only because 960 Jews committed suicide there in the first century C.E. should become a modern symbol of Jewish survival. What is even stranger is that the Masada episode is not mentioned in the Talmud. Why did the rabbis choose to ignore the courageous stance and tragic fate of the last fighters in the Jewish rebellion against Rome?
It would be easy to assume that the problem we are looking at is a matter of intelligence. We could say that it’s hard for an intelligent person to really understand this mindset because, obviously, if an intelligent person is confronted with a demand to “change your beliefs or die,” what’s the problem? We could say that a really intelligent person isn’t going to believe in all that salvation nonsense anyway, but we are obviously not dealing with a lot of very bright people here. But that would be missing the mark, I think. Let’s look in a slightly different direction for some clues.
In the year 1096, when the rampaging crusaders who had been called to make war against the Muslims decided along the way to turn against the local Jews, things got ugly very fast. You could say that what happened then has become the model for all cult suicides since (excluding any Mind Control experiments, though such programs have a lot in common with religions in general and Judaism in particular as we shall see). Since the Jews had been invited to live in Mainz and had been given special privileges by the Archbishop, (causing some bad feelings against them on the part of the non-Jews in the town, it should be mentioned), when the crusaders began to get out of hand, the Jews turned to the Archbishop for protection. The Archbishop did everything he could and then, when he had reached a position where he knew that his palace would be stormed and all would die, he came up with a plan to save the Jews. A Jewish chronicler of the time tells us:
[The Archbishop] called to R. Kalonymous [an esteemed Jew] and said to him: “I cannot save you. Your God has abandoned you; he does not wish to leave you a remnant and a residue. I no longer have sufficient strength to save you or to assist you henceforth. Therefore, know what you must do – you and your band that stands with you. Either believe in our deity or bear the sins of your ancestors.”
R. Kalonymous the pious answered him and cried out in anguish; “It is true that our God does not wish to save us. Therefore your words are true and correct, that you no longer have the power to assist. Give me till tomorrow to respond to your words.”
Then R. Kalonymous returned to his comrades, the pious ones, and told them the words of the archbishop. They all arose together and made a benediction over their sacrifice and accepted the judgment unanimously and singleheartedly and took upon themselves the yoke of the fear [of God]. First, before he returned to the archbishop, R. Kalonmyous the pious took his son Joseph, kissed him, and slaughtered him. When the archbishop heard that he had slaughtered his son, he was exceedingly angry. He said: “Now I certainly do not wish to assist you further.”
When the villagers heard what the archbishop had said, they gathered against them, along with the crusaders, to kill the Jews. Meanwhile R. Kalonymous on that day returned to the archbishop. On the way, R. Kalonymous learned and heard what the archbishop had said. When he returned before him, he took a knife in his hand. He came before him and wished to kill him. But the Archbishop’s men and indeed the archbishop himself were aware of the fact. He ordered that he be removed from his presence.
How to understand this kind of thinking?
To Jews, the mythical “revelation on Sinai” is taught as the high point in all of human history. God’s alleged direct appearance to Moses is supposed to have distinguished that little group from all others and made them “chosen.” Never mind that this story is a fiction that was created for the very purpose of political control over a large group of people, the medieval Jew believed it with all his heart. This meant that one could not question the ways of God, and if the situation demanded that they be put to death or kill themselves for the “unity of God’s name,” then “Blessed are we if we do his will and blessed are all those who are killed and slaughtered and die for the Unity of his Name.”
Some of them dressed themselves in their ceremonial clothing and waited passively to be killed. Others took matters into their own hands. A cry rang out through the bishop’s courtyard:
“Let us offer ourselves up before our Father in heaven. Anyone who has a knife should come and slaughter us for the sanctification of the unique Name [of God] who lives forever. Subsequently, let him pierce himself with his sword either in his throat or in his belly or let him slaughter himself.”
They all stood – men and women – and slaughtered one another… They were all slaughtered. The blood of the slaughter flowed through the chambers in which the children of the sacred covenant were. They lay in slaughtered rows – the infant with the elderly – … making sounds like slaughtered sheep.
The Jews that did not wait passively for their end, or take their own lives, fled from chamber to chamber in the bishop’s palace. In each, the offer of conversion was made, and those that did not accept were slaughtered. According to the Jewish chronicler, all the Jews remained steadfast, rejecting the option of baptism though we understand that his account is undoubtedly slanted for a religious and/or political agenda.
One chamber in the palace held out until evening and there a very famous incident played out. Now, you have to realize that this sort of thing is referred to as “kiddush ha-Shem,” or “sanctification of the Divine Name, and these stories were written to promote the idea that this was deeply moral behavior.
There was a notable lady, Rachel the daughter of R. Isaac ben R. Asher. She said to her companions: “I have four children. On them as well have no mercy, lest these uncircumcised come and seize them and they remain in their pseudo-faith. With them as well you must sanctify the Holy Name.”
One of her companions came and took the knife. When she [Rachel] saw the knife, she cried loudly and bitterly. She beat her face, crying and saying: “Where is your steadfast love, O Lord?” She took Isaac, her small son – indeed he was very lovely – and slaughtered him. She had said to her companions: “Wait! Do not slaughter Isaac before Aaron.” But the lad Aaron, when he saw that his brother had been slaughtered, cried out: “Mother, Mother, do not slaughter me!” He then went and hid himself under a bureau.
She took her two daughters, Bella and Matrona, and sacrificed them to the Lord God of Hosts, Who commanded us not to abandon pure awe of him and to remain loyal to him. When the saintly one finished sacrificing her three children before our Creator, she then lifted her voice and called out to her son: “Aaron, Aaron, where are you? I shall not have pity on you either.”
She pulled him out by the leg from under the bureau, where he had hidden, and sacrificed him before the sublime and exalted God. She then put them under her two sleeves, two on one side and two on the other, near her heart. They convulsed near her, until the crusaders seized the chamber. They found her sitting and mourning them. They said to her: “Show us the money which you have under your sleeves.” When they saw the slaughtered children, they smote and killed her. […]
When the enemy (Christian crusaders) came before the town (Wevelinghofen, north of Cologne), some of the pious ones ascended the tower and threw themselves into the Rhine River that flows around the town and drowned themselves in the river and all died. Only two young men did not die in the water – R. Samuel the bridegroom ben R. Gedaliah and Yehiel ben R. Samuel. Cherished in life – for they loved each other exceedingly, they were not parted in death. When they decided to throw themselves into the water, they kissed one another and held one another and embraced one another by the shoulders and wept to one another and said: “Woe for our youth, for we have not been deemed worthy to see seed go forth from us or to reach old age. Nonetheless, let us fall into the hands of the Lord. He is a steadfast and merciful God and King. Better to die here for his great Name and to stroll with the saintly ones in paradise than that these uncircumcised and unclean seize us and sully us against our will with their evil waters.” (Baptism)
Subsequently, those [Jews] that remained in the town, who did not go up on the tower, came and saw the others who had drowned. They found there the two good friends, totally saintly, clasped together. When the pious Samuel saw his son Yehiel, who had thrown himself in the water but had still not died – he was a comely young man, as majestic as the Lebanon, he cried out: “Yehiel, my son, my son! Stretch out your neck before your father, and I shall offer you up as a sacrifice before the Lord… I shall make the benediction for slaughtering and you shall respond amen.” R. Samuel the pious did so and slaughtered his son with sword in the water.
When R. Samuel the bridegroom ben R. Gedaliah heard that his friend Yehial the saintly had acceded to his father, that he slaughter him in the water, then he decided to do the same. He called to Menahem, who was the sexton in the synagogue of Cologne, and said to him: “By your life, take your sharp sword and examine it carefully that it have no defect and slaughter me likewise, so that I not see the death of my friend. Make the benediction for slaughtering and I shall respond amen.” These pious ones did thus. When they were slaughtered together, prior to death, they clasped one another by the hand and died together in the river.
When R. Samuel the elder, the pious, the father of R. Yehial saw this act of sanctification they had undertaken, he also said to Menahem the pious, the sexton: “Menahem, conquer your will like a warrior and slaughter me with the same sword with which I slaughtered my son Yehiel. I have examined it well and it has no defect that might void the slaughtering.” […]
Thus, these pious ones sanctified the holy Name of the zealous and avenging [God] in the water. Now come all inhabitants of the world and see! Was there ever anything like this, such a declaration of the unity of the [Divine] Name, from the days of Adam? How great was the strength of the father, whose mercies were not aroused for his son.
Apparently, not all of the young Jews of Cologne accepted martyrdom.
When Sarit the young lady, the bride, saw that they had killed themselves with their swords and had slaughtered one another – she was beautiful and comely and exceedingly lovely in the eyes of those who beheld her, she wished to flee, out of fear of what she saw through the window. When her father-in-law Judah ben R. Abraham the pious saw that this was the intention of his daughter-in-law, he called to her and said: “My daughter, since you were not permitted to be wed to my son Abraham, you will not be wed to any other, to the foreigners.”
He seized her and held her outside the window and kissed her on the mouth and raised his voice in weeping, along with the lass. He cried out loudly and very bitterly and said to all those standing there: “Behold, all of you. This is the bridal canopy of my daughter, my bride, that I make this day.” They all wept with great weeping and wailing and mourning and moaning. The pious Judah said to her: “Come and lie in the bosom of Abraham our ancestor. For in one moment you shall acquire your future and shall enter the circle of the saintly and pious.”
He took her and placed her in the bosom of his son Abraham, her betrothed, and cut her with his sharp sword into two pieces. Subsequently he also slaughtered his son.
There was, in addition, a servant of the Lord who was a true convert. He asked Rabbi Moses, the high priest [an honorific title], and said to him: “My lord, if I slaughter myself for the unity of his great Name, what will be my lot?” He [Rabbi Moses] said to him: “You shall sit with us in our circle, for you shall be a true convert and sit with the rest of the saintly true converts in their circle. You shall be with our ancestor Abraham, who was the first of the converts.” When the pious one heard this, he immediately took the knife and slaughtered himself. Indeed his soul is bound up in the bond of life, in paradise, in the light of the Lord. [Quoted by Robert Chazan,In The Year 1096, Jewish Publication Society, 1996]
The animosity and unbridled violence of the Rhinelanders against the Jews was profound and it was this – what we would call today – “cult-like” behavior that actually intensified the potent animosity against them. In particular, the Christians could not comprehend the Jewish killing of their own children. Of course, to the Jews, the willingness to offer up their children in sacrifice to their god was considered to be the highest form of heroism and absolute proof of the truth of their religion.
Then there are other cases where the people certainly did not want to die and made many efforts to resolve an issue, but because of government – and other – interference, things got way out of control and a horrible tragedy resulted. In short, the destruction of the Branch Davidians had little, if anything, to do with a real “cult” mind-set.
There was the clear and obvious culpability of the U.S. Attorney General, Janet Reno, in the case of the Branch Davidians. That situation flushed out all the ADL created “cult experts” (such as criminal Rick Ross) and, as a consequence, a whole lot of innocent people were murdered in broad daylight by the U.S. government.
Millions of Americans are beginning to discover the truth about what really happened February 28, 1993: BATF agents in National Guard helicopters zoomed in on the Branch Davidians’ church and home, Mount Carmel Center, with guns blazing, killing unarmed Davidians. Ground agents mortally wounded David Koresh’s unarmed father-in-law who stood at the front door with Koresh as he begged BATF agents to stop the attack on a building filled with 82 women and children. BATF agents–and FBI agents who took over from them–knew that more than a dozen agents would face prosecution if America learned the truth.
BATF and FBI agents in Waco conspired, either explicitly or silently, to lie to and harass the Davidians to keep them inside Mount Carmel so agents would have an excuse to destroy the building, its incriminating evidence, and the defiant witnesses calling for justice. A study of the April 19, 1993 gas and tank attacks suggests they were a successful systematic effort to render Mount Carmel an inescapable fire trap. [Waco]
There are real “true believers” like the Heaven’s Gate gang that offed themselves to catch a ride on the Hale-Bopp special, but you have to wonder how they got that way: was it their fearless leader, or was it something else?
In mathematics there is something called the “first Law of Construction” posited by George Spencer Brown. It goes:
Draw a distinction.
Call it the first distinction.
Call the space in which it is drawn the space severed or cloven by the distinction.
It seems that this law applies as well to societies, cultures and religions. Cultural and intellectual distinctions or divisions are all about creating “meaning” and identity and orientation for the self. Unfortunately, trying to create meaning for the self that is artificial is really an act of creating conflict, intolerance and violence.
What we have read above is about the distinction between true and false in religion that is at the root of religious distinctions such as those between Jews and Gentiles, Christians and pagans, Muslims and infidels. Once the distinction has been drawn, once it has been declared that there IS such a division between peoples, then it becomes easier and easier to make more and more distinctions, subdivisions of them, endless permutations.
Tradition ascribes this first distinction between “true and false” in religion to Moses – the first monotheist. That isn’t, of course, exactly correct. The first monotheist who attempted to violently impose his distinction on others was Akhenaten. That is probably where “Moses” got the idea. It should be noted that “Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory.” Somehow, the two are mixed up together but this is not the place to discuss that. What is important is that the space that has been imbued with this “Mosaic Distinction” – conflict, intolerance and violence – is the space of Western Civilization due to Jewish influence on socio-cultural norms for the past 2000 years. It is not normal, nor has it ever been, but Western society is so inured in it that it is almost impossible to think outside of it.
The Mosaic distinction was a radically new division which dramatically changed the world in which it was drawn. Some scholars refer to Judaism and its initial division as “counter-religion” because it rejected and repudiated everything that went before and considered everything outside of itself to be idolatry and unclean. Instead of ancient polytheism, where the god of one group was “translated” into the equivalent in another group, leading to peaceful relations between societies, Judaism rejected translation and blocked intercultural translatability and instead promoted intercultural estrangement – or submission.
The concept of idolatry and the violent repudiation of it became stronger and stronger during the course of Jewish history. The later the texts, the more abusive the scorn and abominations they heaped on the heads of “idolators.” This hatred became mutual and the accused idolators did not fail to retaliate against Jews again and again and again. [cf: Jan Assmann: Moses the Egyptian, Harvard Press, 1997]
It is that kind of mind that we are dealing with when we consider not only a person who can be mind-controlled to kill and be killed, whether the programming is from society, religion, or secret government experiments, but also the kind of mind that creates the Distinction. It should be noted that it is not exclusively Jewish nor was it invented by the Jews, but rather by an Egyptian.
Psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski describes for us the kind of mind that invents such divisive doctrines as that of the “Mosaic Distinction” as well as the kinds of individuals that are attracted by it, follow it, propagate it, live and die for it.
Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall herein discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this relationship rather motivated by tradition.
Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.
Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses.
Sometimes they are eccentric and odd.
Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.
They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others.
Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.
Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, whenever the schizoids embitter other people’s lives, that is. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.
The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotions and a feeling for the psychological realities of this essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to the incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which is working as though on sand.
Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity. Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.
The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. … My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.
A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising the younger generation. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper”, transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can take on macro-social proportions if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.
In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are like; they interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation thanks to the participation of their own richer, psychological world-view. However, many readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause. An analysis of the role played by Karl Marx’s works easily reveals all the above-mentioned types of apperception and the social reactions which engendered separations among people. [The Hexateuch as well.] […]
During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix the problems of the world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world-view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world-view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world-view.
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time. […]
The conviction that Karl Marx is the best example of this is correct as he was the best-known figure of that kind. Frostig, a psychiatrist of the old school, included Engels and others into a category he called “bearded schizoidal fanatics”. The famous utterances attributed to Zionist wise men at the turn of the century start with a schizoidal declaration. The nineteenth century, especially its latter half, appears to have been a time of exceptional activity on the part of schizoidal individuals, often but not always of Jewish descent. After all we have to remember that 97% of all Jews do not manifest this anomaly, and that it also appears among all European nations, albeit to a markedly lesser extent. Our inheritance from this period includes world-images, scientific traditions, and legal concepts flavored with the shoddy ingredients of a schizoidal apprehension of reality.
Humanists would like to interpret that era and its legacy by fitting those events into categories of the “humanist tradition.” They search for societal, ideational, and moral causes for known phenomena. Such an explanation, however, can never constitute the whole truth, since it ignores the biological factors which participated in the genesis of the phenomena. Schizoidia is the most frequent factor, albeit not the only one.
In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.
Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict.
The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.
We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.
People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world-view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.
Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.
This last paragraph should be kept in mind when we consider the case of Cho. Let’s look at a few articles that might give us some clues:
First of all, we learn that Cho had been determined by a judge to be mentally ill.
McLEAN, Va. (AP) – Cho Seung-Hui should have been barred from purchasing the guns he used to kill 32 people Monday on the Virginia Tech campus because of a 2005 judge’s ruling on Cho’s mental health, according to federal regulations.
It is unclear, though, whether anybody had an obligation to inform the feds of Cho’s mental-health problems – which could have caused him to be rejected when he tried to buy a gun – because of loopholes in the law that governs federal instant background checks.
Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up clean, despite a judge’s finding in December 2005 that Cho “presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.”
We do not, of course, know whether he was mentally ill because he was born that way or if he was literally “mind-programmed” in the sense that some mad scientists kidnapped him and conducted experiments on him. There are other possibilities, of course. A person can be born with genetic psychological pathologies and those pathologies can be exacerbated in specific ways by familial, social, and cultural influences. This is, of course, the very subject of Andrew Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology, which describes how societies are pathologized. In my article, Official Culture in America: A Natural State of Psychopathy?, I quote several experts on the subject who say that U.S. society is a breeding ground for psychopathy.
Linda Mealey of the Department of Psychology at the College of St. Benedict in St. Joseph, Minnesota, has proposed certain ideas in her paper: The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model. These ideas address the increase in psychopathy in American culture by suggesting that in a competitive society – capitalism, for example – psychopathy is adaptive and likely to increase. In short, the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopaths with the consequence that it is an adaptive “life strategy” that is extremely successful in American society, and thus has increased in the population in strictly genetic terms. What is more, as a consequence of a society that is adaptive for psychopathy, many individuals who are NOT genetic psychopaths have similarly adapted, becoming “effective” psychopaths, or “secondary sociopaths.” In other words, in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society “adaptive” to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone.
Now, there are different kinds of psychopaths, and this is an important point to remember. Here, we are not talking about the “Essential psychopath,” and obviously, Cho was not a charismatic psychopath! He was silent and withdrawn. Does that mean he was not a psychopath? Not necessarily. Let’s see if we can find additional clues:
Virginia Tech gunman Seung-hui Cho was diagnosed with autism after the family emigrated to the United States, a relative in South Korea says.
“From the beginning, he wouldn’t answer me,” Kim Yang-soon, Cho’s great aunt, said in an interview Thursday. He “didn’t talk. Normally sons and mothers talk. There was none of that for them. He was very cold”.
“When they went to the United States, they told them it was autism,” said Kim, 85, adding that the family had constant worries about Cho.
Cho’s uncle gave a similar account, but said there were no early indications that the South Korean student who killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech University in the US had serious problems. The uncle asked to be identified only by his last name, Kim.
Cho “didn’t talk much when he was young. He was very quiet, but he didn’t display any peculiarities to suggest he may have problems,” Kim told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Thursday. “We were concerned about him being too quiet and encouraged him to talk more.”
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that encompasses a broad range of symptoms frequently including impaired social interaction and communication, as well as obsessive interests and behaviour. Autism remains a topic of heated debate in the scientific community, where little is understood about its cause. […]
He said his sister – Cho’s mother – occasionally called around holidays, but never mentioned having any problems with her son.
“She said the children were studying well. She didn’t seem worried about her children at all,” Kim said. “She just talked about how hard she had to work to make a living, to support the children.”
CENTREVILLE, Virginia (CNN) — Cho Seung-Hui’s classmates at Westfield High School in Chantilly, Virginia, had a few nicknames for him.
Some knew him as “the kid who never spoke,” classmate Regan Wilder told CNN.
Others who saw him walking to the bus stop called him “the trombone kid,” another classmate, John Williams, recalled.
“He was just walking with his trombone, all alone,” Williams said on Thursday, three days after Cho carried out the worst mass shooting by a lone gunman in U.S. history.
Cho’s former classmates said other students had crueler names for him.
They said he was often picked on and taunted because he was such a loner.
“Such a quiet, shy kid like that is such an easy target,” Williams said. “And he took it and took it and took it, and built up all that anger and whatever he felt inside. Someone like that is going to explode — it’s destined to happen.” […]
CENTERVILLE, Va.- Over the eight years they spent together at the same high school and college, Chris Davids learned the one way to communicate successfully with Cho Seung-Hui.
He would ask a yes-or-no question, and Cho would respond with a nod or a shake of the head. It was bizarre and awkward, but it was the only way Davids could pass on information.
Davids tried, yet failed, to build a relationship with the youth who refused to speak.
He barely recognized the sound of Cho’s voice until the airing of his now-infamous video manifesto. It was the most Davids had ever heard out of the painfully lonely man.
“In the whole eight years that I knew him, he hadn’t said a word to me directly,” Davids told the Daily News yesterday.
Davids, 21, was one of many this week who gave an inside look into the mind of America’s newest mass murderer. But unlike the slew of professors, peers, and distant relatives who shared their odd encounters with Cho, Davids is one of the few who watched Cho remain silent for nearly a decade.
Davids said he introduced himself to Cho during their first week as freshmen at Centerville High School in Clifton, Va. Cho sat alone at a cafeteria table and Davids thought it was the perfect opportunity to befriend someone who looked like him.
Although Davids is half Korean, people often assume he is Chinese. As a boy, Davids was the target of ridicule because of his ethnicity. He wanted to start his high school career with a happier attitude and a new set of friends.
He spotted Cho and sat down across from him.
Cho “was by himself and I was by myself,” Davids said. “Plus the Asian familiarity was a factor. I thought we could have a bond.”
But Cho refused to talk. Davids sat in silence, finished his lunch, and gave up trying to warm up the eerily quiet teen.
As the years passed, both boys moved on to Westfield High School in Chantilly. Davids took up track and football while Cho remained invisible.
Davids began to run with different groups, but said he still reached out to Cho when they crossed paths. The two worked alongside each other in the Westfield Science Club, a voluntary after-school program. As the other kids played with dry ice and liquid nitrogen, Cho would stand around emotionless and watch.
The two also shared an English class. Davids recalled how Cho had turned red when the teacher asked him to read a story aloud. Two teens laughed at Cho because of his “strange mumbled voice” and yelled ‘go back to China.’ ”
“I felt so bad for him,” Davids said “but what was I supposed to do? I didn’t want to be the target of the whole class.”
Taunts and bullies clouded Davids’ childhood, but his parents made sure he remained strong.
Davids’ father, Hondo, a retired Marine major, led a Boy Scout troop and watched his son as he advanced to become an Eagle Scout.
“Whatever he showed interest in, we stuck him in,” said Davids’ mother, Migi, naming the long list of sports her son played from soccer to tae kwon do. “We made sure he was always in plenty of activities.”
Migi Davids emigrated from South Korea to South Carolina at age 13.
Cho was just 8 when he and his parents and sister left South Korea for the United States in 1992. They moved to Fairfax County, Va., and joined the sizable Korean population there.
By the time Cho was in middle school, his family had moved into a neat cream-colored townhouse in the middle-class section of Centerville.
Cho’s social peculiarities didn’t hold him back from getting accepted to Virginia Tech along with Davids and dozens of their high-school classmates.
Cho majored in English while Davids picked history. For nearly the next four years, the two would pass each other on campus. Their interaction was routine: Davids would wave and Cho would either respond with a nod or just gaze at the ground.
Davids said he rarely thought of Cho until this week. His life has been busy with graduation, a fiancé, and a 6-month-old son. On Tuesday Davids, along with the rest of the world, learned that Cho was the psychopath who taken the lives of 32 Virginia Tech students.
And now the haunted memories won’t stop.
“The realization that I knew him hit me like a rock,” Davids said. “I had a little bit of guilt. Maybe if I tried harder, than maybe this wouldn’t have happened. Now I fear retaliation. I am Korean. He is Korean. I am starting to get the stares.”
Clearly, in spite of his silence, there was a lot going on inside Cho. We see a very troubled young boy who grew into a tragically troubled young man. Was it because of government mind-programming, or was it because he was born with a genetic psychological pathology and his experiences in U.S. society made it worse?
The images of Cho Seung-hui apparently mimicking scenes from a violent South Korean film highlighted concerns about links between screen brutality and violent crime. […]
Professor Paul Harris, of Virginia Tech, has reportedly alerted authorities to apparent similarities between the pictures Cho posted to NBC and scenes from the film.
They show Cho holding a gun to his head, and wielding a hammer, images that appear in the film.
If proved to have influenced the shootings, Oldboy will join a long list of films and TV shows, computer games and music videos blamed for inspiring violent acts.
BLACKSBURG, Va. – If people noticed anything at all about Cho Seung Hui, it seems, they were struck by his silence. He wouldn’t respond in class. He wouldn’t talk to his roommates. Making his way across the Virginia Tech campus, he was quiet as a ghost.
But when he was alone, at a keyboard or in front of a camera, he had volumes to say. “You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience,” he proclaimed in the video he mailed to NBC News between Act One and Act Two of his rampage. “You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.” […]
Eventually there will be many lessons from the tragedy at Virginia Tech, but here is one that already seems clear: colleges and universities urgently need to reevaluate the way they monitor and care for the mental health of their students.
Early adulthood is the development stage at which a number of psychiatric illnesses, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, are most commonly diagnosed. Campus counseling services encounter students suffering from depression, attention-deficit disorder and anxiety. On some high-pressure campuses such as the University of Chicago, students get a day off from classes to learn about suicide prevention. […]
On every campus there are students who don’t talk very much, who don’t seem to have any friends, who don’t go on dates or show up at parties – students who spend most of their time alone. Only a few of these students suffer from serious mental illness, and fewer still pose any danger to themselves or others. But which ones?
Teachers and administrators at Virginia Tech at least were able to identify Cho as deeply troubled. But school policies, state laws and the ethic of unfettered, independent self-exploration – for most students, one of the great things about American universities – in this case conspired to let a sick, dangerous man deteriorate to the point where he became a mass murderer. The evidence so far suggests that Cho Seung Hui was not mentally competent to decline the help he so desperately needed.
This next couple of articles are where the ignorant spinmeisters begin to weave their webs of nonsense.
There were so many warning signs that might have changed the course of events at Virginia Tech – if only school officials and authorities had acted differently. We heard the same after the Columbine massacre, whose eighth anniversary we mark today.
Virginia Tech and Columbine are just two horrific events that were fraught with opportunities to intervene. Surely there is a lesson for authorities that might prevent a next time. […]
Mass killings grab our attention, but psychological problems present a larger danger – suicide. A 1999 Surgeon General’s Report estimated that one in five adults and children have mental disorders. About every two hours, a young person commits suicide, the Association of Suicidology reported in 2002. In Colorado, suicide is the second-highest cause of death after motor vehicle accidents for people ages 10-24, the Mental Health Association of Colorado says.
In Cho’s case, authorities are still piecing together details, hoping to determine precisely what set him off. It’s possible we’ll never know, just as we still don’t know exactly what set off Harris and Klebold. The signs were plentiful that they were angry and out of control. Authorities, friends, family – someone needed to successfully connect the dots.
Obviously, the above writer is blissfully unaware that the Secret Government is only too glad to have such mass killings (and will stage them if necessary) and they certainly do not intend to allow U.S. society to be changed in any way that would prevent such tragedies.
This next article atually leaves me speechless.
Thirty-three people are dead; 32 of them innocents, gunned down by a young man who then killed himself.
We want to know why. We want to understand how such a horrific thing could happen on a bucolic college campus.
Could it have been pre- vented? Do we need better laws? Did university officials ignore the warning signs of a dangerous young man bent on destruction?
Did police fail to protect students in the hours between the first shootings in the dorms and the massacre that ensued in the engineering building later that morning?
It is as if we think that if we come up with the right answers, we can prevent what happened Monday morning at Virginia Tech from ever happening again, anywhere. It is what makes us human – the need to understand, to uncover the pattern that will explain everything, to impose order on anarchy.
In the end, we will never know why Cho Seung-Hui chose to murder students and teachers at Virginia Tech. Surely not by looking for clues in the videos and 1,800-page manifesto he mailed to NBC in the interlude between the first shootings and his final killing spree. […]
Perhaps it is easier in our postmodern age to ascribe illness to evil. Surely no one in his right mind would do the things that Cho did, we want to believe.
But this explanation, like all the others that have been offered to try, even after the fact, to exert some control over what happened, misses the point.
No one is responsible for Cho’s deadly deeds but Cho. He carefully planned the carnage he would wreak. He wrote and recorded a script to blame his victims, then mailed it to the media to ensure his own immortality, which most media outlets have been all too eager to accommodate.
There are no larger lessons to learn from this horror, except perhaps that man is capable of almost limitless evil.
But after Auschwitz and the Killing Fields of Cambodia, after Jeffrey Dahmer and John Evander Couey, after 9/11 and the suicide bombings that occur almost daily in Iraq, do we still need proof that evil exists?
It would be comforting to think we could stop the Cho Seung-Huis from their deadly missions. If only we had stricter gun laws – or maybe if we encouraged everyone to carry guns – we could prevent another Virginia Tech.
If only we could better diagnose and treat mental illness – or else lock up anyone who exhibits violent, antisocial tendencies – we could ensure no one else would die at the hands of a madman. If only . . .
It is human nature to seek solutions. But the capacity for evil is also a part of human nature. It is something we choose, each of us, of our own free will – to do good or evil. Cho Seung-Hui chose evil – and the only bulwark against evil is always to choose good ourselves.
“We will never know?” And that’s okay? “There are no larger lessons to learn from this horror, except perhaps that man is capable of almost limitless evil.” Say what?! I don’t think I’ve ever read anything more ignorant – or – designed to just put the masses back to sleep. “Oh, life is a mystery… ” “God works in mysterious ways…” “So it ever was… don’t get worked up about it.” and so on. This is the very “head in the sand” attitude that is at the root of the problem.
“If a collection were to be made of all the books that describe the horrors of wars, the cruelties of revolutions, and the bloody deeds of political leaders and systems, most people would avoid such a library. In such a library, ancient works would be found alongside books by contemporary historians and reporters. The documentary evidence on German extermination and concentration camps, complete with dry statistical data, describing the well-organized ‘labor’ of the destruction of human life, would be seen to use a properly calm language, and would provide the basis for acknowledging the nature of Evil.
The autobiography of Rudolf Hess, the commander of camps in Osweicim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka, (Birkenau) is a classic example of how an intelligent psychopath thinks and feels.
Our library of death would include works on philosophy discussing the social and moral aspects of the genesis of Evil, while using history to partially justify the blood-drenched ‘solutions’.
The library would show to the alert reader a sort of evolution from primitive attitudes, that it is alright to enslave and murder vanquished peoples, to the present day moralizing which declares that such behavior is barbaric and worthy of condemnation.
However, such a library would be missing one crucial tome: there would not be a single work offering a sufficient explanation of the causes and processes whereby such historical dramas originate, of how and why human beings periodically degenerate into bloodthirsty madness.
The old questions would remain unanswered: what made this happen? Does everyone carry the seeds of crime within, or only some of us? No matter how faithful to the events, nor how psychologically accurate the books that are available may be, they cannot answer those questions nor can they fully explain the origin of Evil.
Thus, humanity is at a great disadvantage because without a fully scientific explanation of the origins of Evil, there is no possibility of the development of sufficiently effective principles for counteracting Evil. […]
In the macro-social phenomenon where Evil runs rampant, ‘Pathocracy’, a certain hereditary anomaly isolated as ‘essential psychopathy’ is catalytically and causatively essential for the genesis and survival of such a State. […]”
And of course, it must be blamed on “normal human nature.”
Recently, Henry See wrote about the U.S. Envrionment of Evil where he reported on a recent article: San Francisco psychologist says environment plays big role in evil behavior.
In “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil,” Zimbardo writes that human nature is dualistic: Each of us, given certain uncontrolled circumstances, is capable of sadistic or abusive behavior. A professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University, Zimbardo, 74, believes this so strongly that he spoke as an expert witness in defense of Staff Sgt. Ivan “Chip” Frederick, the military guard who supervised the night shift on Tiers 1A and 1B at Abu Ghraib, where the beatings, torture and sexual humiliation took place.
“Each of us, given certain uncontrolled circumstances, is capable of sadistic or abusive behavior.”
There you have it. Anyone put into a similar set of circumstances will react in the same way. You, gentle reader of this web site, are capable of the kinds of horrors we have seen at Abu Ghraib, that have been reported at Guantanamo, or that we imagine take place in any one of the many US secret detention centres around the globe.
This idea is a very popular one. It is also used to explain the horrors of Nazi Germany. It implicates each of us because each of us has committed acts for which we are ashamed, for which we feel guilty. Therefore we buy into such an explanation. […]
Does that mean that everyone living under those conditions would turn into a monster?
According to Zimbardo, the answer is yes. But how, then, can we explain those individuals, too few and too rare, who are willing to risk their lives in situations such as that, to help others and go against the tide?
Studying evil, which he defines as “intentionally behaving in ways that harm others,” has occupied Zimbardo for years. He’s lectured on the psychology of evil in classrooms and at professional conferences, and traveled to Brazil where he interviewed men who had been torturers and death-squad executioners. In the book, he draws examples from the 1994 Rwandan genocide of the early ’90s, the lynching of blacks by whites in the American South and the more recent phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers.
He cites examples of men who, at the same time they inflicted evil in the context of work, maintained parallel lives as family men and loving fathers.
The old saw about torturers living parallel lives as “family men and loving fathers” is heard over and over again, as if it explains anything or even offers some “proof” that these men are what they say they are and not psychopaths or another pathological type. Were the children of these people interviewed? Were their wives? What sort of “family life” are we talking about? Given the pathological character of much of what passes for “family life”, the reality may, yet again, be far from the illusion projected. Furthermore, given our distorted understanding of what “love” is, all sorts of predatory activities are classified as “love”, and everyone accepts it. “Caring” for another often means allowing yourself to become food; “loving” someone means using them for food.
Were the women married to these men conditioned to believe that love was following the dictates of one’s husband? That a woman’s place was in the kitchen? We don’t know, but before accepting the statement that these were “family men and loving fathers”, much more data is needed.
“What I’m saying is that the human mind is so complex that any of us have templates to do anything. I mean, we could be Mother Teresa, we could be Idi Amin. We could be Nelson Mandela, we could be Saddam Hussein. But for most of us, we go in and out. It’s not even a choice.”
“It’s not even a choice.” Think about that. It isn’t even a choice between doing Good or Evil, between being an Idi Amin or a Mother Teresa.
It just happens. You’re in the wrong place at the wrong time and, presto!
How far has the ponerological infection progressed when we are told that we have no choice between good and evil, that when it comes down to a choice, you have no choice? Evil will choose you. […]
Evil needn’t be on the scale of Abu Ghraib torture, he adds. Everyday evil includes “telling a racist or sexist joke, spreading gossip in school that can ruin another kid. Spousal or child abuse, doing something at work that violates your values. The newest evil now is cyber-bullying.”
The division between good and evil is “permeable and nebulous,” he writes. “It is possible for angels to become devils and, perhaps more difficult to conceive, for devils to become angels.”
Excuse me, but there is a world of difference between spreading gossip about someone, telling a racist or sexist joke, or fighting with your spouse and the kinds of torture and abuse seen at Abu Ghraib! For most people, such acts are the furthest they go. These are the small acts that we do for which we feel guilty, and that sense of guilt is then used to implicate us in horrendous acts that far outstrip a lie or gossip or a shouting match with your mate.
Yes, these acts can have consequences that are physically and psychologically violent. I am in no way dismissing them. But there is more to them than that. Certainly,they can be attributed to pressure or a conjunction of events (the environment), and a sincere person feels truly remorseful when they snap out of it.
But there are individuals who never feel remorse, who are incapable of feeling remorse. Nothing in the world can help them to see the error of their act, the violence they have perpetrated on another, and to see the need to repair the damage. The reaction is more along the lines of “What of it?” or “Get over it”.
The truly horrific acts of evil, or the majority of them, are those perpetrated by such human looking predators. These predators can take positions of power in organizations and in society and can instill an environment where the morally weak are easily influenced into mimicking such acts. Other people who are not pathological can be influenced by this environment and can come to accept that such acts are normal or part of life. A mundane example is the way violence and taunts are now accepted as being part and parcel of sport. There is nothing about violence and taunts that is intrinsic to sport, and yet few bat an eye now when it shows its head. Many even hope it will show its head. A good example of this appeared in the news yesterday: Psychopath Training! Women laughed as they forced toddlers to take part in ‘dog fight’
A mother and her three daughters who forced two toddlers to take part in a “dog fight” and filmed it walked free from court yesterday.
The women, including the children’s mother, goaded the tearful brother and sister to punch each other and even use a magazine and hairbrush as weapons. When the boy, who was in a nappy, stopped fighting they called him a “wimp” and “bloody faggot”. […]
The court was told how the mother of the children, Zara Care, 21, and her sisters, Serenza Olver, 29, and Danielle Olver, 19, had met at the home of their mother, Carole Olver, 48.
They formed a circle in the living room around the children, a three-year-old girl and a boy of two, and urged them to fight while Zara Care capturing the whole episode on video.
In the film up to six adults, including a man, are seen chatting and smoking. As the two children run around the room, one of the women can be heard to say to them, “Do you want to play?’ before pushing the boy towards the girl.
The children start circling and slapping each other – goaded by four women, who can be seen and heard laughing.
The boy, who is wearing just a nappy and a T-shirt, is then floored by a blow from his sister and lies on the floor crying.
After clambering on to an armchair to escape, he buries his head under a cushion but a woman in the room tells him: “Get up – don’t be a wimp all your life.”
He staggers to his feet and punches his sister in the mouth, and, as she falls to the ground, is encouraged to kick her.
A female voice says: “And again, whilst she’s down, boot her.”
He then tries to leave the room but an older child blocks his path and the girl again runs over and pummels his back with her fists.
The boy is then told by a female voice: “Get up and punch her, you bloody faggot.”
He tries to refuse, but then grabs a large black hairbrush and begins to beat his sister, while a woman is heard to say: “He needs weapons, she just has a fist.”
The girl is caught in the mouth by the brush and begins to scream and lifts her arm in the air, appealing for help from an unseen adult – but is turned away.
At this point, an older child in the room can be heard to say: “Is it our turn yet?” The film ends with the two toddlers screaming and crying, and an adult saying: “That’s enough.”
During the video the women hurl a stream of orders, such as “jump on him”, “kick her” and “hit his face”.
The word “punch” is heard more than 20 times. The video came to light after the children’s father, a serving soldier, returned from Iraq and decided to show his parents footage from the video camera the women used.
He had expected it to feature the children playing but he was horrified to come upon the eight-minute film of them fighting.
David Gittins, prosecuting, said that the father compared what he saw to a “dog fight” and was reduced to tears. He subsequently went to social services, who called in police.
The children’s grandmother, a mother of eight, showed no remorse when she was interviewed, insisting it would “harden” them up, it was stated.
The judge criticised her for still seeming defiant. The three other defendants wept as the offence was described.
Defending the women, who admitted child cruelty offences, Rupert Taylor said they were not wicked.
The three daughters had never been in trouble with the police before. But they were ill-educated, had few advantages in life, and did not realise what they were doing was abhorrent.
And lest you think that psychopaths only live in the U.S. or UK, check this out: Jaw Dropping! Jihadist Video Shows Boy Beheading Man
KILI FAQIRAN, Pakistan – The boy with the knife looks barely 12. In a high-pitched voice, he denounces the bound, blindfolded man before him as an American spy. Then he hacks off the captive’s head to cries of “God is great!” and hoists it in triumph by the hair. […]
The footage shows Nabi making what is described as a confession, being blindfolded with a checkered scarf.
“He is an American spy. Those who do this kind of thing will get this kind of fate,” says his baby-faced executioner, who is not identified.
A continuous 2 1/2-minute shot then shows the victim lying on his side on a patch of rubble-strewn ground. A man holds Nabi by his beard while the boy, wearing a camouflage military jacket and oversized white sneakers, cuts into the throat. Other men and boys call out “Allahu akbar!” _ “God is great!” as blood spurts from the wound.
The film, overlain with jihadi songs, then shows the boy hacking and slashing at the man’s neck until the head is severed. […]
The method of Nabi’s death was not unusual for Pakistan’s lawless tribal regions. Suspected informers are regularly found beheaded and dumped along the side of the road in the lawless, mountainous regions along the Afghan-Pakistani border where al-Qaida and Taliban militants find sanctuary.
But such al-Qaida-style killings are rarely featured in the Taliban’s increasingly frequent propaganda videos. The use of a child to conduct the beheading stands out even among those filmed by militants in Iraq.
“This is outright barbarism,” Iqbal Haider, secretary-general of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said after viewing the video. “Whosoever has committed this, whether they are Taliban or anybody else or any Afghan or al-Qaida or anybody, they are enemy No. 1 of the Muslims.”
And the good Doctor Zimbardo says we all have it in us, and the pundits say we ought not to look for any deeper reason than the fact that the capacity for evil is also a part of human nature. It is something we choose, each of us, of our own free will – to do good or evil. Cho Seung-Hui chose evil – and the only bulwark against evil is always to choose good ourselves.
And if you think that Cho was raised in a family such as the one described above, think again.
[…] We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless and lost.
This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn’t know this person.
We have always been a close, peaceful and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.
He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare.
Certainly, the capacity to do evil is present in human society, but that is because human society is composed of many types of individuals, including pathological deviants that, because of their natures, have an extraordinarily powerful effect on society as a whole, and the result is that human beings who are born normal are subjected to pathological material for all of their lives to the point where they do not know the difference between good and evil.
But there are individuals who never feel remorse, who are incapable of feeling remorse. Nothing in the world can help them to see the error of their act, the violence they have perpetrated on another, and to see the need to repair the damage. The reactiont is more along the lines of “What of it?” or “Get over it”.
The truly horrific acts of evil, or the majority of them, are those perpetrated by such human looking predators. These predators can take positions of power in organizations and in society and can instill an environment where the morally weak are easily influenced into mimicking such acts. Other people who are not pathological can be influenced by this environment and can come to accept that such acts are normal or part of life. A mundane example is the way violence and taunts are now accepted as being part and parcel of sport. There is nothing about violence and taunts that is instrinsic to sport, and yet few bat an eye now when it shows its head. Many even hope it will show its head.
That process that leads to the pathological being accepted as normal is the process of ponerization. It is real, and most everyone can be and is affected to one extent or another. An understanding of ponerology, of how society becomes infected with evil, is much different from the simplistic assertion that “we could all become an Idi Amin”.[…]
By denying the fundamental difference between the psychopath, the person without conscience, and people of conscience, Zimbardo continues to propagate the great lie, the fundamental fact of the nature of our world that, if generally known and taken into account by society at large, could change our world for the better in ways we can’t even imagine. That lie states that we are all the same.
The truth, that not all who look human have a conscience, is a bitter pill to swallow. We have been raised under the twin peaks of religion and science. The religious shadow upon us tells us that God made us all in his image. The shadow cast by official science tells us that questions of conscience have no place in science.
In recent years, however, a few brave researchers into psychopathy are providing us with data that proposes to establish a study of evil that is scientific. Such is the proposition of Andrew Lobaczewski who presents the work of courageous Eastern European psychologists, now persecuted and forgotten, who actively studied psychopathy and political power. Others suggest there is a genetic link with conscience, that psychopaths differ genetically in a fundamental way from other people. They are born without the necessary hardware to choose a moral life. Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist, has even taken brain scans of psychopaths that were refused publication in a scientific journal because the editors were convinced that they were not human but from some sort of ape.
If Zimbardo does not know this data, then he cannot offer a complete picture of the subject. […]
It doesn’t take an Einstein to see that things are bad on the planet. I can’t think of an adjective to qualify “bad” that sums up the actual state of things. Wars, starvation, inequality, injustice, disease, poverty, ecological disaster, and on and on. The developed countries consume the lion’s share of the world’s resources while the rest of the world starves. The United States consumes the lion’s share of the consumed resources. The vast majority of people in those countries accept the situation and think it is fine. If they have qualms, they aren’t so upset that they are actually doing anything about it.
People find excuses.
We are told that this is how things have always been. We hear stories of the Roman Empire, Alexander’s Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and our history books are filled with wars for this and wars for that as justifications for the current push for the establishment of an American Empire. The problems that beset us are somehow linked to human nature, we are told. We are rational animals, with stress on our animalistic side, not on reason. It is that animal inside that cannot always be tamed. Given the right circumstances….
The explanation offered by Zimbardo lies squarely in this conceptualization of humanity and society.
We suggest that the conceptualization is wrong, fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally wrong because it does not take into account the fact that there are among us on our planet human-looking individuals devoid of conscience and incapable of anything resembling what others would consider as emotion. Their emotions are only related to those associated with the hunt, with predation. They have no ability to register and feel the suffering of other human beings as anything more than a tasty food source. In fact, they thrive on the suffering of other people because it makes them feel important, special, smarter, and better than everyone else. We squirm and suffer while they pump themselves up because they have put another over on us. They know how we can be manipulated through playing on our emotions, and they are extremely successful at it. They are so successful that we don’t even know that they exist! We blame ourselves. We even measure ourselves against their standards.
Psychologist Martha Stout agrees. In her excellent book The Sociopath Next Door, she writes:
“And so why does the world seem so terribly unsafe? How do we explain the six o’clock news, or even our own personal experiences? Could it conceivably be that a mere 4% of the population is responsible for nearly all of the human disasters that occur in the world, and in our individual lives? This is an arresting question, one that offers to overhaul many of our assumptions about human society. So I will repeat that the phenomenon of conscience is overwhelmingly powerful, persistent, and prosocial. Unless under the spell of psychotic delusions, extreme rage, inescapable deprivation, drugs, or a destructive authority figure, a person who is conscience-bound does not – in some sense cannot – kill or rape in cold blood, torture another person, steal someone’s life savings, trick someone into a loveless relationship as sport, or wilfully abandon his own children.
“When we see people doing such things, either on the news or in our own lives, who are they? On the rare occasion, they are formally insane, or under the pressure of some radical emotion. Sometimes they are members of a group that is desperately deprived, or they are substance abusers, or the follower of a malevolent leader. But most often they are none of these. Rather, most often, they are people who have no conscience. They are sociopaths.” [Martha Stout, pp. 104-05.]
We ascribe barbarous acts to “human nature” when, in fact, it is not “human” at all. Normal humans are shocked and repelled. The idea that “we are all potential Idi Amins” is tantamount to the Stockholm Syndrome. We have identified with the kidnapper and so we elaborate theories to justify our behaviour. According to Stout, the idea that we all have a shadow side…
“…maintains in its most extreme form that anything doable or feelable by one human being is potentially doable and feelable by all… Ironically, good and kindhearted people are often the most willing to subscribe to this theory in the radical form that proposes they could, in some bizarre situation, be mass murderers. It feels more democratic and less condemnatory (and somehow less alarming) to believe that everyone is a little shady than to accept a few human beings live in a permanent nighttime. To admit that some people literally have no conscience is not technically saying that some human beings are evil, but it is disturbingly close. And good people want very much not to believe in the personification of evil.” [Martha Stout. 106]
People of conscience, those who can feel remorse, you can feel distraught at having hurt another human being, buy into the big lie because of their ability to feel!
Lobaczewski points out over and over again in his book that psychopaths have a special psychological knowledge of normal people and use this knowledge against us constantly. Because they are never blinded by emotions, and yet they see how crippled in our thinking and our reactions we can become, they understand that our emotions, our noblest emotions, are the ultimate weapon against us.
These are the facts on the ground and any theory that doesn’t take it into account only plays further into the hands of these individuals.
If the existence of psychopaths and their ability to play us is denied, then their role in government, in business, in the media, in the military, in the police and law, in education, in any place where power is to be had, cannot be understood. That is the reality, those are the forces that are shaping the environment in which we can be ponerized. So on that level, yes, the environment is a factor. Fortunately, researchers such as Łobaczewski, Robert Hare and Paul Babiak are bringing to light the nefarious influence these pathological types play in society. We are beginning to have an understanding of the dynamic between psychopath and non-psychopath, between predator and prey, in individual lives and in society at large. [Environment of Evil]
In a recent paper, it is suggested that psychopathy may exist in ordinary society in even greater numbers than anyone has thus far considered:
“Psychopathy, as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941), is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity, and lack of guilt – characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (Bursten, 1973; Stewart, 1991). Our own examination of the prevalence of psychopathy within a university population suggested that perhaps 5% or more of this sample might be deemed psychopathic, although the vast majority of those will be male (more than 1/10 males versus approximately 1?100 females).
“As such, psychopathy may be characterized … as involving a tendency towards both dominance and coldness. Wiggins (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings… indicates that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation -seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive, and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This characterization is clearly consistent with the essence of psychopathy as commonly described.
“The present investigation sought to answer some basic questions regarding the construct of psychopathy in non forensic settings… In so doing we have returned to Cleckley’s (1941) original emphasis on psychopathy as a personality style not only among criminals, but also among successful individuals within the community.
“What is clear from our findings is that (a) psychopathy measures have converged on a prototype of psychopathy that involves a combination of dominant and cold interpersonal characteristics; (b) psychopathy does occur in the community and at what might be a higher than expected rate; and (c) psychopathy appears to have little overlap with personality disorders aside from Antisocial Personality Disorder. …
“Clearly, where much more work is needed is in understanding what factors differentiate the abiding (although perhaps not moral-abiding) psychopath from the law-breaking psychopath; such research surely needs to make greater use of non forensic samples than has been customary in the past.” [Salekin, Trobst, Krioukova: (2001) “Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample: A Nomological Net Approach; Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 425-441]
Andrew Lobaczewski discusses the fact that there are different types of psychopaths and this is where we come back to Cho and see how all of this comes together. Cho’s family member says that he was diagnosed as Autistic.
Autism is a syndrome that seems to have become more and more prevalent in U.S. society in the last 50 years. There is a lot of evidence to link Autism to child immunization though it is obvious that Autism is not a modern problem. Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler coined the term in 1911. Autism and autistic stem from the Greek word “autos,” meaning self. The term autism originally was meant to refer to a basic disturbance of schizophrenia, i.e. an extreme withdrawal of oneself from the fabric of social life, but not excluding oneself.
We see here a connection between Autism and Schizoidal psychopathy. Then, there is Asperger’s a form of autism in which words and academic achievement come easily, but social interactions are virtually impossible.
A change in diagnostic criteria in 1987 opened the door for about a third more children to be classified or reclassified as autistic. Then, in 1994, Asperger’s syndrome-a type of high-functioning autism found in people with average to above-average intelligence-was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, setting the stage for the still-rising wave of autism diagnoses. In 1987, 2,778 autistic people received assistance from the state of California. In 2002, 20,377 received assistance, and about 70 percent of them were 14 or younger. The Autism Society of America estimates that one in every 250 kids born is autistic, and about four of five of them are male. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that a 2003 study from the Boston University school of medicine found that as autism diagnoses have risen 25 percent per year in the United States, reports of other behavioral disorders have fallen by 20 percent. In other words, a generation ago a child who showed academic ability but couldn’t control his emotions or follow rules might have been classified as having an “oppositional-defiant” disorder. A boy with an all-consuming interest in one subject-a hallmark of Asperger’s-might’ve been given the “obsessive-compulsive” tag. (Or maybe just “hobbyist.”) Today, both conditions might be lumped under the heading “autistic.” [Autism-Asperger’s Syndrome Blog]
In short, it it highly likely that a lot of genetic psychopaths are being diagnosed as “autistic” or as having “Asperger’s.” It could also be that Asperger’s or Autism are just variations of psychopathy. What is striking is the pattern of deficits is fairly consistent though the intensity varies across the spectrum.
Here, I want to make it clear that there is really not enough data to determine a diagnosis for Cho, nor am I qualified to do so. I am a researcher, a writer, a historian who looks for patterns and repeating cycles. Among the things I have observed in recent years is a general tendency for the psychological profession to seek in myriads of ways to obfuscate the issue of psychopathy. I am not the only one noticing this either. One therapist was compelled to write:
Perverse abusiveness fascinates, seduces, and terrifies. We sometimes envy abusive individuals because we imagine them to be endowed with a superior strength that will always make them winners. They do, in fact, know how to naturally manipulate, and this appears to give them the upper hand, whether in business or in politics. Fear makes us instinctively gravitate toward them rather than away from them: survival of the fittest.
The most admired individuals are those who enjoy themselves the most and suffer the least. In any case, we don’t take their victims, who seem weak and dense, seriously, and under the guise of respecting another’s freedom, we become blind to destructive situations.
In fact, this “tolerance” prevents us from interfering in the actions and opinions of others, even when these actions and opinions are out of line or morally reprehensible.
We also weirdly indulge the lies and “spin” of those in power. The end justifies the means.
To what degree is this acceptable? Don’t we, out of indifference, risk becoming accomplices in this process by losing our principles and sense of limits? Real tolerance means examining and weighing values.
This type of aggression, however, lays traps in the psychic domain of another person and is allowed to develop because of tolerance within our current socio-cultural context. Our era refuses to establish absolute standards of behavior. We automatically set limits on abusive behaviors when we LABEL them as such; but in our society, labeling is likened to intent to censure. We have abandoned the moral constraints that once constituted a code of civility which allowed us to say “That just isn’t done!” We only become indignant when facts are made public, worked over and magnified by the media. […]
Even psychiatrists hesitate to use the term “abuse”‘; when they do, it’s to express either their powerlessness to intervene or their fascination with the abuser’s methods. […]
[Psychopathy] arises from dispassionate rationality combined with an incapacity to respect others as human beings. Some [psychopaths] commit crimes for which they are judged, but most use charm and their adaptive powers to clear themselves a path in society, leaving behind a trail of wounded souls and devastated lives. … We have all been fooled by abusive human beings who passed themselves off as victims. They fulfilled our expectations in order the better to seduce us. …
We subsequently feel betrayed and humiliated when, in their search for power, they show their true colors. This explains the reluctance of some psychiatrists to expose them. Psychiatrists say to each other, “Watch out, he’s a [psychopath]”, the implication being “This could be dangerous,” and also, “There’s nothing that can be done.” We then give up on helping the victim.
Designating [psychopathy] is certainly a serious matter… whether the subject is serial killing or perverse abusiveness, the matter remains one of predatory behavior: an act consisting in the appropriation of another person’s life.
The word “perverse” shocks and unsettles. It corresponds to a value judgment, and psychoanalysts refuse to pronounce value judgments. Is that sufficient reason to accept what goes on? A more serious omission lies in not labeling abuse, because the victim then remains defenseless…
Victims are often not heard when they seek help. Instead, analysts advise them to assess their conscious or unconscious responsibility for the attack upon them. … Emotional abusers directly endanger their victims; indirectly, they lead those around them to lose sight of their moral guideposts and to believe that freewheeling behaviors at the expense of others are the norm. [Marie-France Hirigoyen, Stalking the Soul]
From Lobaczewski, we know that pathological acceptance of what we can call the Mosaic Distinction – the Schizoidal Declaration – manifests in individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people who have personality disorders or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why people like Cho can do what they do without being literally “mind-programmed.” Because of deviant ways of understanding reality, such individuals can take in material, brutalize the concepts, and reformulate them so that they believe that violence is not only appropriate, but is being demanded of them.
But Cho didn’t arrive at that point without help. The social conditions of U.S. society – not to mention the ways in which the U.S. influences global society – were a powerful contributing factor. Cho is, in essence, a symptom of what we have become. Lobaczewski describes the process and I think that the reader can easily draw the comparisons between the clinical description of an “Evil Empire” and how it was born, and what has happened in the U.S., particularly via the so-called “Neo-Conservatives” under the influence of Zionism. Keep in mind that the Democrats are controlled by the Zionists as well, but just who is going to emerge as the “top psychopaths” in this system still remains to be seen.
Schizoidia has thus played an essential role as one of the factors in the genesis of the evil threatening our contemporary world. Practicing psychotherapy upon the world will therefore demand that the results of such evil be eliminated as skillfully as possible.
The first researchers attracted by the idea of objectively understanding this phenomenon initially failed to perceive the role of characteropathic personalities in the genesis of pathocracy. However, when we attempt to reconstruct the early phase of said genesis, we must acknowledge that characteropaths played a significant role in this process. We already know from the preceding chapter how their defective experiential and thought patterns take hold in human minds, insidiously destroying their way of reasoning and their ability to utilize their healthy common sense. This role has also proved essential because their activities as fanatical leaders or spellbinders in various ideologies open the door to psychopathic individuals and the view of the world they want to impose.
In the ponerogenic process of the pathocratic phenomenon, characteropathic individuals adopt ideologies created by doctrinaire, often schizoidal people, recast them into an active propaganda form, and disseminate it with pathological egotism and paranoid intolerance for any philosophies which may differ from their own. They also inspire further transformation of this ideology into its pathological counterpart. Something which had a doctrinaire character and circulated in numerically limited groups is now activated at societal level, thanks to their spellbinding possibilities.
It also appears that this process tends to intensify with time; initial activities are undertaken by persons with milder characteropathic features, who are easily able to hide their aberrations from others. Paranoid individuals thereupon become principally active. Toward the end of the process, an individual with frontal characteropathy and the highest degree of pathological egotism can easily take over leadership.
As long as the characteropathic individuals play a dominant role within a social movement affected by the ponerogenic process, the ideology, whether doctrinaire from the outset or later vulgarized and further-more perverted by these latter people, continues to keep and maintain its content link with the prototype. The ideology continuously affects the movement’s activities and remains an essential justifying motivation for many. In this phase, such a union therefore does not move in the direction of mass scale crime. To a certain extent, one could justifiably define such a movement or union by the name derived from its original ideology.
In the meantime, however, the carriers of other (mainly hereditary) pathological factors become engaged in this already sick social movement. They accomplish the work of final transformation of the contents of such a union in such a way that it becomes a pathological caricature of its original contents and ideology. This is affected under the ever-growing influence of psychopathic personalities, thanks to the inspiration of essential psychopathy.
Such leadership eventually engenders a wholesale showdown: the adherents of the original ideology are shunted aside or terminated. This group includes many characteropaths, especially of the lesser and paranoidal varieties. Ideological motivations and the double talk they create thereupon serve to hide the actual new contents of the phenomenon. From this time on, using the ideological denomination of the movement in order to understand its essence becomes a keystone of mistakes.
Psychopathic individuals generally stay away from social organizations characterized by reason and ethical discipline. After all, these were created by that other world of normal people so foreign to them. They therefore hold various social ideologies in contempt, at the same time discerning all their actual failings. However, once the process of poneric transformation of some human union into its yet undefined cartoon counterpart has begun and advanced sufficiently, they perceive this fact with almost infallible sensitivity: a circle has been created wherein they can hide their failings and psychological differentness, find their own “modus vivendi”, and maybe even realize their youthful Utopian dream. They thereupon begin infiltrating the rank and file of such a movement; pretending to be sincere adherents poses them no difficulty, since it is second nature for them to play a role and hide behind the mask of normal people.
Psychopaths’ interest in such movements does not result exclusively from their egoism and lack of moral scruples. These people have in fact been hurt by nature and society. An ideology liberating a social class or a nation from injustice may thus seem to them to be friendly; unfortunately it also gives rise to unrealistic hopes that they themselves will be liberated as well. The pathological motivations which appeared in the union when it was affected by the ponerogenic process strike them as familiar and hope-inspiring. They therefore insinuate themselves into a movement preaching revolution and war with that unfair world so foreign to them.
They initially perform subordinate functions in such a movement and execute the leaders’ orders, especially whenever something needs to be done which inspires revulsion in others. Their evident zealotry and cynicism gives rise to criticism on the part of the union’s more reasonable members, but it also earns the respect of some its revolutionaries. They thus find protection among those people who earlier played a role in the movement’s ponerization, and repay the favor with complements or by making things easier for them. Thus they climb up the organizational ladder, gain influence, and almost involuntarily bend the contents of the entire group to their own way of experiencing reality and to the goals derived from their deviant nature. A mysterious disease is already raging inside the union. The adherents of the original ideology feel ever more constricted by powers they do not understand; they start fighting with demons and making mistakes. […]
Within this 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. Characteropathic individuals who played an essential role in ponerizing the movement and preparing for revolution, are also eliminated. Adherents of the revolutionary ideology are unscrupulously “pushed into a counter-revolutionary position”. They are now condemned for “moral” reasons in the name of new criteria whose paramoralistic essence they are not in a position to comprehend. Violent negative selection of the original group now ensues. The inspirational role of essential psychopathy is now also consolidated; it remains characteristic for the entire future of this macro-social pathological phenomenon.
The pathological block of the revolutionary movement remains a minority in spite of these transformations, a fact which cannot be changed by propaganda pronouncements about the moral majority adhering to the more glorious version of the ideology. The rejected majority and the very forces which naively created such power start mobilizing against the block. Ruthless confrontation with these forces becomes the only way to safeguard the long-term survival of the pathological authority. We must thus consider the bloody triumph of a pathological minority over the movement’s majority to be a transitional phase during which the new contents of the phenomenon coagulate. The entire life of a society thus affected becomes subordinated to deviant thought-criteria and permeated by their specific experiential mode, especially the one described in the section on essential psychopathy. At this point, using the name of the original ideology to designate this phenomenon is meaningless and becomes an error rendering its comprehension more difficult.
I shall accept the denomination of pathocracy for a system of government thus created, wherein a small pathological minority takes control over a society of normal people. The name thus selected above all underscores the basic quality of the macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon, which differentiates it from the many possible social systems dominated by normal people’s structure, custom, and law.
That is an exact description of how the Mosaic Distinction was born, grew, and expanded to take over the Western world with the help of its daughters: Christianity and Islam.
And so it is, Cho Seung-Hui, probably born with a particular genetic pathology, was brought to the U.S., a culture where violence, lying and cheating are not only common currency of life, they are effectively glorified because those are the values of its governing body, and under those influences and neglect became a metaphor for what the U.S. itself has become: psychopathically autistic, inured in the Mosaic Distinction where all others must be rejected, repudiated, destroyed.
Any reasonable scan of the news will reveal that lies and cheating are not “covered up” as thoroughly as American apologists would like to think.
Even the less well-informed Americans have some idea that there was certainly something fishy about the investigation into the assassination of JFK. In recent years, the man in charge of the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford, also a former president, admitted to “cheating” on the report.
Then, there was Watergate followed by the Iran-Contra affair, not to mention “Monica-gate.” And here we are just hitting some highlights familiar to all Americans.
What consequences did the cheaters of society suffer?
None to speak of. In fact, in nearly every case, they were rewarded handsomely with those things of value to the psychopath: money and material goods. If anyone thinks they were shamed by public exposure, think again!
But what is of CRUCIAL interest here is the fact that the American people have simply NOT responded to the revelations of lies in government with any outrage that could be considered more than token. At the present time, there isn’t even “token outrage.”
Don’t you find that odd?
But we have already noted the reason: the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopathy and in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society “adaptive” to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone. As a consequence, a very large number of Americans are effective sociopaths. (Here we use “sociopath” as a designation of those individuals who are not genetic psychopaths.)
And so, we have George Bush and the Third Reich calculating how much they can get away with by looking at the history of the reactions of the American People to cheating.
There aren’t any because the system is adaptive to psychopathy. In other words, Americans support Bush and his agenda because most of them are LIKE him.
But that is not because they are ALL born that way. It is because psychopathy is almost required to survive in Competitive, Capitalistic America.
As a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of “cheating strategies” in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general.
Psychopathic behavior among non-genetic psychopaths could be viewed as a functional method of obtaining desirable resources, increasing an individual’s status in a local group, and even a means of providing stimulation that socially and financially successful people find in acceptable physical and intellectual challenges. In other words, the psychopath is a bored and frustrated sensation-seeker who “does not have the intellectual capacitiy to amuse and occupy himself” internally. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top.
In America, a great many households are affected by the fact that work, divorce, or both, have removed one or both parents from interaction with their children for much of the day. This is a consequence of Capitalistic economics.
When the parents are absent, or even when one is present but not in possession of sufficient knowledge or information, children are left to the mercies of their peers, a culture shaped by the media. Armed with joysticks and TV remotes, children are guided from South Park and Jerry Springer to Mortal Kombat on Nintendo. Normal kids become desensitized to violence. More-susceptible kids – children with a genetic inheritance of psychopathy – are pushed toward a dangerous mental precipice. Meanwhile, the government is regularly passing laws, on the demand of parents and the psychological community, designed to avoid imposing consequences on junior’s violent behavior.
As for media violence, few researchers continue to try to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an effect on the kids who witness it. Added to the mix now are video games structured around models of hunting and killing. Engaged by graphics, children learn to associate spurts of “blood” with the primal gratification of scoring a “win.”
The U.S. is a deliberately contrived society of televised conformity, literate and creative inadequacy, and social unrest and decadence. It is apparent that the media is in charge of propagating these conditions, and the media is controlled by who?
The psychic stresses of our world are right in the home. There they can easily act on any kid who believes that “the world has wronged me” – a sentiment spoken from the reality of existence – a reality created by economic pressures instituted via Game Theory.
Is there a solution?
The obvious solution would be a world in which, at the very least, the psychopath – in government or in society – would be forced to be responsible for unethical behavior. But game-theory modeling demonstrates that selfishness is always the most profitable strategy possible for replicating units.
Could it ever be an evolutionarily stable strategy for people to be innately unselfish?
On the whole, a capacity to cheat, to compete and to lie has proven to be a stupendously successful adaptation. Thus the idea that selection pressure could ever cause saintliness to spread in a society looks implausible in practice. It doesn’t seem feasible to outcompete genes which promote competitiveness. “Nice guys” get eaten or outbred. Happy people who are unaware get eaten or outbred. Happiness and niceness today is vanishingly rare, and the misery and suffering of those who are able to truly feel, who are empathic toward other human beings, who have a conscience, is all too common. And the psychopathic manipulations are designed to make psychopaths of us all.
Nevertheless, a predisposition to, conscience, ethics, can prevail if and when it is also able to implement the deepest level of altruism: making the object of its empathy the higher ideal of enhancing free will in the abstract sense, for the sake of others, including our descendants.
In short, our “self-interest” ought to be vested in collectively ensuring that all others are happy and well-disposed too; and in ensuring that children we bring into the world have the option of being constitutionally happy and benevolent toward one another.
This means that if psychopathy threatens the well-being of the group future, then it can be only be dealt with by refusing to allow the self to be dominated by it on an individual, personal basis. Preserving free will for the self in the practical sense, ultimately preserves free will for others. Protection of our own rights AS the rights of others, underwrites the free will position and potential for happiness of all. If mutant psychopaths pose a potential danger then true empathy, true ethics, true conscience, dictates using prophylactic therapy against psychopaths.
And so it is that identifying the psychopath, ceasing our interaction with them, cutting them off from our society, making ourselves unavailable to them as “food” or objects to be conned and used, is the single most effective strategy that we can play.
Whether he was mind-programmed by mad doctors, or simply a victim – like all the rest of us – of the psychopathic landscape of the “Mosaic Distinction,” Cho Seung-hui emerged from U.S. society as a stark reminder of the historically repeating fate of Imperial Hubris.
Indeed, beware the Ides of April.
Originally Published 2007_04_21