Laura said:
suumcuique said:
I intend to write to the author himself to ask some clarifications, provided that I can find his email address.
Perhaps you will like to check out these two articles:
The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others
In Memoriam: Andrzej M. Łobaczewski
I own the copyright to the English translation and, as Lobaczewski wrote, the torch has been passed to me.
I googled his name, just to make sure that he was still alive, but could not find any biographic data. Since you are his intellectual legatee, please ponder over those considerations of mine : "he's got some points, some excellent points :
"for example, a strong belief that all humans are born equal and created in God's image can lead to an "egalitarian" acceptance of pathological individuals and their distorted world view. Similar dynamics occur with strong beliefs in freedom of speech, freedom to pursue happiness, the "goodness" of humankind, etc., a typically modern dynamics that took shape in the XIXth century and that the historical European right-wing in the XIXth, followed by National Socialism, Fascism, and all other contemporary European far-right forces, fought, in the name of a qualitative, hierarchical, and differentiated traditional society. This didn't prevent the author from putting a photo of A. Hitler on the cover of his book (true, commercially speaking, A. Hitler's photo is more effective), and from giving a link to an article called 'The Danger of American Fascism' (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/137960-The+Danger+of+American+Fascism), where Fascism is described as "a worldwide disease", and whose only excuse is to have been written in 1944, 65 years before the rise of O'Bamania." So, it clearly appears that the author, who holds egalitarianism as a form of psychopathy, considers both those who, as leaders, support egalitarianism and those who, still as leaders, fight egalitarianism as psychopaths. There is a lack of consistency in this.
To my statement that "claiming that people who follow psychopathic leaders are 'normal' is a contradiction in itself.", someone replied : "Not if we use the simple psychopath/non-psychopath distinction above. 'Normal' does not have to mean 'impervious to psychopathic manipulation'. Nor does it have to mean 'free of pathological behaviour' - there are various reasons for pathological behaviour arising in 'normal' people (...)". I'm sure there are various reasons for pathological behaviour arising in 'normal' (he can't refrain from rightfully putting the term in quotation marks) people, but, precisely, If a pathological behaviour arises in them, they can no longer be called 'normal'. For someone not to be impervious to psychopathic manipulation, there must be something in his very substance that makes him receptive to that psychopathic manipulation. Birds of feather flock together. Since, nowadays, almost everyone is receptive - conducive - to it (even on this thread, quite a few believe in one of the biggest hoaxes of history), it follows that the overwhelming majority is made up of psychopaths.
True, "it needs to be said that "mad people" don't need the support of large populations, only a powerful minority that can both "drive" the population and control it. Look at the polls in the United States. Bush has been hovering around 30% popularity for years - and that is the population as a whole. But because he is backed by a very powerful minority, the people who own the media, the arms industry and their military supporters, the oil companies, among others, popular discontent doesn't matter. And as long as Bush's politics don't overtly affect the ordinary American negatively, they don't care enough to do anything about it." But why is it that people have or had to focus compulsively on the person of G.W. Bush? This guy was only a red-herring, and, as we say, the tree that hides the forest, not to say a scapegoat. Intellectually speaking, it would have been far more courageous to criticise the whole neo-cons apparatus that was behind him, and to always stress the ethnic origins of those neo-cons. Furthermore, had Gore been elected in his stead in 2000, on the whole, it would have meant exactly the same thing : both characters are just as dangerous, and Gore, as one of the figureheads of the newest avatar of the Communist ideology that ecology is, is possibly even more dangerous, in so far as far more subtle. In any case, whether democrats or republicans, it's been a while since American presidents have all been chosen to implement the so-called New World Order by the clique that can be found behind Republicanism ; and this is also true of most of the political schemers, whether of the left or of the so-called right brand, who have managed European countries for 65 years. On that basis, a voter who takes polls seriously see double. There is worse : the strong belief in the so-called 'freedom of speech', which the author rightfully sees to a large extent as a psychopathy, is recognised as a right in all Western countries and by all Westerners : even the most extreme American and European far-rightists acknowledge it, and support it frenetically, just as they all support 'democratic values' ! No, they don't support it for propagandistic purposes, they do believe in them.
What is going on is not ", as Aldous Huxley wrote, and as many people believe, (...) : bread and circuses". In ancient Rome, bread and circuses were free - it was then called evergetism, and many Roman Senators went bankrupt by entertaining the people, that is, the populace ; in the modern world, as far as I know, you have to pay to get entertained. The closest thing to evergetism in modern times is charity, which, created by early Christians to oppose and ruin traditional Roman evergetism, has become a huge business and, beyond this, one of the best way to control people, to turn them into actual slaves. Anglicans perfected it in the early XIXth, as the so-called 'industrial revolution' was going on : while the husband, as a factory owner, would use and abuse as coldly and cynically as possible the workers, the devoted and so compassionate wife would set up charity for them and their family.
It's all very well to state that "We have been convinced that we are all just animals and that each of us is capable of becoming a Hitler or a Bush (...), given the right circumstances", but the fact still remains that the former was able to rebuild a ruined society within 4 years and to give jobs, and, as result, a decent life, some self-respect, a sense of belonging, to 6 millions unemployed Germans, while the latter, and his current avatars both in America and in Europe, are only able to destroy communities, families, individuals, bodies, minds, spirits, by creating deliberately more and more unemployment. Social security was invented, not by a leftist, but by the authoritarian Bismarck. The actual fight against cancer was initiated by National Socialism and so was the actual fight against alcoholism. The fact that caring for one's own people is considered as a psychopathic attitude nowadays does not change anything to the fact that, for millennia, it was seen as a standard, as a norm.
Finally -since I don't want to post too long a message - it is quite naive to state that essential psychopaths "learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood". Come on, they don't need to "recognize each other in a crowd" : they all belong to the same circles, they all go to the same schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., as far as American Universities are concerned)
