Comments on No Conscience = No Shame

[RML]

Like living in the desert and having to understand the behavior of the rattler to avoid being bitten, we are reduced to watching these psychopathic hoodlums slithering in our midst.

As we all know, they need approval. Pick any old psychopath off the street, rummage through their things, and you would find that someone somewhere gave a smidgen of tacit approval to their abhorrent behavior. The Rodney Dangerfield of world-class psychopaths, old Adolph, sought and secured approval for every hideous thing he did. He and his minions hid nothing; if you looked, it was there, in legislative mandates, no less.

Today, a clinical case is being made that we have in our midst a corporate/conglomerate psychopath, who's nonsensical blabbering head happens to be the president of the US of A. Calling the Straussian neocons clinical psychopaths may be a stretch for some, but, the wonderful thing about abnormal psychology is that you determine condition by behavior, not by implied intent (by their fruits you shall know them.). To pick but one example from many -- is it a well and healthy nation, a supposed adherent to Judeo/Christian principles, that would be arguing about acceptable levels of "torture"? Not debating the issue of torture itself, but making arguments about the “best

 

[vinny]

Like living in the desert and having to understand the behavior of the rattler to avoid being bitten, we are reduced to watching these psychopathic hoodlums slithering in our midst.

As we all know, they need approval. Pick any old psychopath off the street, rummage through their things, and you would find that someone somewhere gave a smidgen of tacit approval to their abhorrent behavior. The Rodney Dangerfield of world-class psychopaths, old Adolph, sought and secured approval for every hideous thing he did. He and his minions hid nothing; if you looked, it was there, in legislative mandates, no less.

nah. psychopaths require no approval except their own. as they say "we create our own reality, now". What anyone else thinks of them is irrelevant. Otherwise GWB would have been completely deactivated by now - instead he steamrollers onwards...
legislation is simply used as a means for him to defend himself.

Today, a clinical case is being made that we have in our midst a corporate/conglomerate psychopath, who's nonsensical blabbering head happens to be the president of the US of A. Calling the Straussian neocons clinical psychopaths may be a stretch for some, but, the wonderful thing about abnormal psychology is that you determine condition by behavior, not by implied intent (by their fruits you shall know them.). To pick but one example from many -- is it a well and healthy nation, a supposed adherent to Judeo/Christian principles, that would be arguing about acceptable levels of "torture"? Not debating the issue of torture itself, but making arguments about the “best� utilitarian use of cruelty in the context of the end justifying the means?

I think it important not to confuse these things - psychopathy is defined by it's intent. It is an intent of 'self-interest', without conscience.

Psychopaths have a built-in cloaking mechanism (sorry Klingons)that is the same aura associated with spousal abuse. That is, the people within the orb of the abuser/psychopath cannot believe (i.e., they deny) that their "choice" is inherently malefic, and will continue harming them until the psychopath is restrained and removed. This victim behavior is classified as "enabling". With psychopaths, one is either enabling them or restraining them. Ignoring the wife-beating/child-molesting behavior next-door simply provides an atmosphere of enabling.

cloaking mechanism? oh yes, exactly. there are many levels of subtlety to this, and the only way to 'uncloak' them is to learn the knowledge about how they work. 'In Sheep's Clothing' is a great start to this, as it systematically uncloaks numerous 'covert-aggressive' tactics that are the staple of psychopathic manoeuvres.

If we were really honest with ourselves, we would take the German-in-the-30s questionnaire as it applies to our situation today. Before speaking up about pre-WWII Germans, we usually rush to the top of the moral high ground, shouting, "Can't happen here!!" When Time Magazine made Hitler their Man-of-the-Year, the Germans who were not completely preoccupied with eking out a living, believed the propaganda -- as did Americans at the time -- that "happy days are here again!"

Perhaps a first step in the dis-enabling process would be to honestly answer the question we all fiddle with when judging the average German in the 30s: "Would we have done anything . . . would we have taken a stand against state Fascism? Would we have stood up to the Nazis?"

'Defying Hitler' by Sebastian Haffner is a great illustration of how the people of Germany had their 'arms twisted' into submission, and how it is not so simple to 'stand up to the Nazis'. So yes, we absolutely need to ask these questions, because the Nazis are back, NOW.
So it is not a question of 'guilt' (as in "would I have acted the same?") it is more a matter of wising-up fast, and learning the necessary knowledge to even see what is going on, in time to have even the slightest chance of defending oneself against it. Otherwise a lot of the psychopathic manoeuvres are simply invisible.

and 'Political Ponerology' by Andrew Lobaczewski (along with regularly reading the SOTT pages, and also the various other books mentioned around here) is pretty much the best (only?) source on the planet, to wise up regarding this knowledge.

 

[Cyre2067]

RML have you had a chance to check out ponerology?