Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Rise of the Second-String Psychopaths
The great writer Kurt Vonnegut titled his final book A Man without a Country. He was the man; the country was the United States of America. Vonnegut felt that his country had disappeared right under his – and the Constitution’s – feet, through what he called “the sleaziest, low-comedy Keystone Cops-style coup d’état imaginable.” He was talking about the Bush administration. Were Vonnegut still alive in the post-Bush era, he would not have felt that his country had returned.
How had our country disappeared? Vonnegut proposed that among the contributing factors was that it had been invaded – as if by the Martians – by people with a particularly frightening mental illness. People with this illness were termed psychopaths. (The term nowadays is anti-social personality disorder.) These are terms for people who are smart, personable, and engaging, but who have no consciences. They are not guided by a sense of right or wrong. They seem to be unaffected by the feelings of others, including feelings of distress caused by their actions. Straying from a decent way of treating people, or violating ethical codes causes no anxiety, the anxiety which is what causes the rest of us to moderate our more greedy impulses. If most children feel anxiety when they are pilfering the forbidden cookie jar, psychopaths feel just fine. They can devour the cookies, shatter the jar as evidence and stuff it in the trash can. When accused, they can argue with apparent sincerity that the cookie jar has been missing for at least a week. There suffer no remorse, no guilt, no shame. They are free to do anything, no matter how harmful.
Psychopaths can be very tricky to recognize. As psychiatrist Dr. Hervey Cleckly wrote in his classic The Mask of Sanity in 1941, psychopaths are not technically insane. They don’t have a psychosis, like schizophrenia. They are experts in appearing normal. They can act the role of a caring, concerned executive, even though they actually do not seem to experience such feelings. If they hurt somebody, they don’t modify their behavior.
The United States corporate and government spheres have become, Vonnegut suggested, a perfect habitat for psychopaths. What has allowed so many psychopaths to rise so high in corporations, and then government, he wrote,
“is that they are so decisive. They are going to do something every fuckin’ day and they are not afraid. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don’t give a fuck what happens next. Simply can’t. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody’s telephone! Cut taxes on the rich!"
In a country in which much of human culture has been rendered into machines for the manufacture of money, psychopaths are the ideal leaders. They are very focused. They are outcome oriented. They are frequently charming, and usually very bright and able. They can lay off thousands of people, or deny people health care, or have them waterboarded, and it does not disturb their sleep. They can be impressively confident. Psychopaths can be dynamic leaders of enterprises, but are handicapped by their lack of feelings for relationships. They may be accomplished captains of industry, or senators, or surgeons, but their families are frequently abused and miserable. Most psychotherapists have seen the wives or husband or children of such accomplished people.
Since psychopaths are usually very smart, they can be quite competent at impersonating regular human beings in positions of power. Since they don’t care how their actions affect people, they can rise to great height in enterprises dealing with power and money. They can manufacture bombs or run hospitals. Whatever the undertaking, it is all the same to them. It’s just business.
The economic system that remains after the destruction of American local cultures has created an excellent employment picture for psychopaths. But the opportunities open to them are now so vast that there is apparently now an actual labor shortage. At least that is the only explanation I can find for the rise of a cadre of psychopathic leaders who resemble the usual type in all ways but one: they’re simply not that smart. One has only to look at right-wing not-so-Christian fundamentalists to see the peculiar emergence of a second-string of psychopaths.
The US has been endowed with abundant resources, and there have always been a more than sufficient supply of psychopaths of the first intellectual grade to supply corporate suites and their subsidiary, the Congress. Why is there now a downgrade to the dumb ones, like the lowering of standards for military recruits to deal with a shortage of cannon fodder?
It is no secret that the Koch brothers and others of the super-rich seem to have undertaken a final push to consolidate control through the conversion of a marginally democratic to an essentially fascist state; extreme right-wing, authoritarian, and demagogic. This kind of government is ideal for control of a populace by the moneyed elite. To carry this out requires the employment of many ‘kept’ politicians to excite and misdirect scared and angry – and ignorant – voters. Lest the citizenry realize who stole their money and storm their castles with torches, the rapacious elite need politicians who will carry out the work of re-directing anger at teachers, or labor unions, or the poor. I can only conclude that the people who now own the country couldn’t find any first-rate psychopaths to carry out their work. Or maybe the smart ones were all occupied. So they had to go to second-stringers, people who could actually believe what they were told to say.
We are a country who has become second-best, even in the quality of our psychopaths.
159 Comments so far
Show AllDr. Schwartz focuses his description of psychopaths mostly upon those who manipulate and use the economic system for their own advantage. While he was certainly correct to do so it should also be pointed out that there are psychopaths in other areas and in particular by those who make up and direct American foreign policy. But I would say that people like Obama and the generals who carry out his orders could not only qualify as being psychopaths, as demonstrated by the crocodile tears that they shed whenever innocent civilians are killed under their command, but they could also be viewed as being first stringers who put the second stringers that Dr. Schwartz mentions to shame.
Schwartzy baby you da man !!!
Erroll, War and Foreign Policy are all about profits (economics).
USA we destroy the Whole Earth for Profit.
I was going to argue that, with all that money, the Kochs should be able buy or rent the highest order psychopaths and sociopaths to be had to do their bidding, and to create whatever supply of sociopaths that they need. In so arguing, I was going to find the flaw in Dr Schwartz' conjecture.
Your comment, however, points out the flaw in my argument. They (the Kochs) do not have to employ the high-priced top-quality psychopaths for every position. They can get the job done with the less expensive second-rate psychopaths in many of the less critical positions, such as the presidency and congress.
Thank you for straightening me out.
Erroll is right and his comments are usually/always sagacious/appreciated.
Truth on 9/11 redresses all. The problem is that our media (and secret government) were/are complicit in 9/11. We have no honest media (mainstream) and no honest government. Government should never be trusted (as late journalist Robert Novak always warned)---but triply especially now. The massive frauds and swindles of derivatives and the bailouts are a derivative of, and orchestrated around, 9/11 with vaults of criminal evidence against Wall Street under buildings 7 and 6 mysteriously opened and emptied, and the whistleblowers for AIG and Marsh McLendon’s wrongdoing killed in rare assembled meeting above the 9/11 plane strike, and the evidence of insider trading pointed the unpublicized “wrong” way. The country is on massive criminal charade by not redressing 9/11, and media is major part of problem. It runs cover for those whose interests are inimical to America’s, which has been true for decades, and never renews interest for new evidence, including for the assassination of JFK and 9/11, and does not permit the naming of the complicit elite.
I applaud the author’s article, but it is not a Republican versus Democrat issue, but it does involve criminal predators versus innocent prey (with government/law enforcement in hands of the criminals), and stupid or under-informed Americans and irresponsible Christians and ministers---who do not know the truth and are too scared and indoctrinated/intimidated to ask. The worlds’ largest frauds and swindles occur in great cycles (maybe every 100 years), and the excessive power arrogated is ultimately corrected. The evidence in 9/11 points to neocons and Israel, and those in the employment of our government need to be removed. Without a media and without leaders, we must begin one person at at time on 9/11 truth/justice (which ends wars/fraudulent WOT/irresponsible crimes/expense), and move on fraud of banksters and the liquidation of the largest “too big to fail” banks that have captured our government and robbed our Treasury, including hopefully investigation and likely liquidation of the federal reserve bank (the brainchild of the international bankers—who were greatest danger to our republic per our earliest presidents). The ultimate realization is that our entire national dialogue and alleged choices for everything are set by the same elite that shroud all incriminating evidence of their crimes. 9/11 is the key.
I'm with you. Somewhere out there, there must be someone who was involved with the perpetration of 9/11 who can come forward and prove that is was 'an inside job' and was planned solely to enable the Powers that Be to control the masses with Fear.
One would hope but...
Just look at the USS Liberty affair . You had Government operatives giving deathbed confessions that it the Commission was a crock and the attack by Israel was deliberate.
You have the veterans of that vessel all claiming it a deliberate act yet the Official version of events is the only one recognized as the truth by the state.
The myths that are KNOWN as lies are still believed by the masses because it is easier for them to believe such. So it not as simple as one insider stepping forward with the proof and the evidence. The proof and evidence will simply be ignored because the people can not handle the alternative.
Exactly, GwNorth. The evidence is available for those willing to look at it. People are simply in denial, because the truth is too terrifying.
The evidence is over-whelming presently. What is lacking is a refusal by our mainstream media to re-print or re-publish that truth. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that no truths will register with the masses unless it is repeated often and prominently in the mainstream media. That is true even if the “smoking gun” evidence is featured as front page headlines on most prominent paper of one or two leading cities----as it will lose currency over time even with those who read it, if mainstream does not affirm it repeatedly. The evidence points to our neocons and Israel (not any Muslims) for engineering and orchestrating 9/11. Just as was the case with JFK, our media and intelligence agencies were active participants---so they will never print it.
We lack an honest responsible mainstream media, and we also lack loyalty from our intelligence agencies (as those in power have had the political clout to position their types at strategic posts). We also lack a citizenry who is alert to lack of an honest media or to the fact that the government is not functioning properly. We have a citizenry who has been wrongly taught to trust their media and their government. We lack churches and ministers who are intelligent enough or brave enough to question their government –even with overwhelming facts of false flag crimes here and wars started on false pretenses, or to question great massive frauds and swindles by organized crime that rob our Treasury for generations with the audacity to refuse to account for trillions of dollars, while asking for immunity from prosecution for frauds and theft (which should be ignored as fraudulently procured).
Good points. Despite the overwhelming volume of evidence that has come out since the Warren Commission, conclusively proving JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, and despite the excellent new book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by James Douglass, this topic is not revisited by the mainstream media.
The reason is clear. The same gang is still in control, and people in the mainstream media are still afraid.
And that is why it matters.
Thank you---good points also. I need to read Douglas’s book. I found that some of the best books are difficult to find/discover.
Fairly recent books (Kill Zone by Craig Roberts—1994, A+, Final Judgment by Michael Collins Piper ---1993 (great facts, poorly edited), and Opium Lords by Salvador Astucia---2003, A++) point to international bankers, Israel and Israel, respectively, for JFK assassination. The best clues from earlier books like The Yankee and Cowboy War by Carl Oglesby (1976, A+ for its vintage) indirectly do so also: a) how could someone infiltrate government, media, medicine, military in positions high and low to be a part of Presidential assassination, and b) how could Jack Ruby (ne Rubenstein) go on and on about concern for his “race” being tortured or expelled from the country when the truth came out [remember Ruby shot Oswald promptly and was conclusively identified as letting out one of the riflemen at stop sign by high quality witness, Julia Ann Mercer]. Logical Answers: Zionists for their love of Israel---“sayanim,” and Jews.
JFK and 9/11 were not alone but both are defining moments for our nation/our situation. In expounding on Israel’s false flag attack on USS Liberty in 1967. Peter Hounam in his book Operation Cyanide (2003) and total circumstances infer plan by Israel and LBJ to nuke Egypt under false pretenses (which was unknown by some/others in WH on the “secret committee”, as Cyrus Vance was outraged and resigned, and others in govt deeply troubled). Ready planes on deck armed only with nuclear weapons in advance of incident---unheard of, and LBJ reported that he did not care if all sailors died as he was not going to embarrass an ally.
In 1996 our GAO identified Israel as having “most aggressive espionage operations” and was second during thirty (30) year Cold war to Soviets. It is the leading suspect for London’s 7/7/05 bombings and attack on USS Cole, and many other false flag incidents (the most active in terrorism worldwide, with our agencies second). Loved Webster Griffin Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, free online.
wheelright, yes, James Douglass's book on JFK is THE book to read about that pivotal event in US history. It is meticulously documented and incorporates new evidence that did not come to light until the collapse of the USSR, such as the correspondence between the Kennedy family and Soviet leaders. And, crucially, Douglass does not merely blame the CIA or the corporate media. As he writes:
"The CIA was the coordinating instrument that killed the president, but the question of responsibility is more systemic, more personal, and more chilling....The promoters of the systemic evil involved in killing President Kennedy counted on our repression and denial of its reality. They knew that no one would want to deal with the elephant in the living room. The Dallas and Bethesda doctors who saw the truth staring up at them from the president's dead body, and who then backed away from it, were not unique. They are symbolic of us all." [JFK and the Unspeakable, 307, 315]
A super tense stand off existed between Ben Gurion and JFK over JFK’s resistance to Israel’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons, which allegedly threatened the “survival” of Israel---which was a very unpublicized fact---for decades. It was also not well appreciated that JFK’s initial approval of printing of currency outside of the Federal Reserve system threatened the international bankers. The truth is that any book or even an article which is incisively critical of the elite has a very hard time getting published or recognized in the USA-----and are almost never profitable or well distributed. For that reason alone, special care should be made to review those that do. And not only that, but often books or articles cannot draw obvious conclusions out of fear of offending the elite---which failures mean that key points do not register with many. Two examples: the fine journalist Glen Greenwald of Salon.com writes many fine articles and one well documented the policy and history of our neocons philosophy of “telling lies to the masses” and reserving the truth for themselves (which is what we have now), but Mr. Greenwald stopped short of calling that policy “evil” which it is, and doubtless that was due in large measure to their power. Another example, Mr. Oglesby in his fine 1976 book, The Yankee and Cowboy War, could have made much stronger conclusions, but did not do so, and logically that is the price for key endorsements and any hope for publishing success.
While I have not read Mr. Douglass’s fine book, my impression from reviews and comments that it emphasizes the Soviet/Cuban connections and that is that it was an economic success which I suspect is due to the fact that it did not threaten the elite. One only has to look to 9/11, to see the lengths to which those in power go to rebuke incriminating evidence. And, w/o discussing it all, I believe that the evidence revealed in these other books is very compelling. It fact, I believe that the clues discussed by Oglesby and facts later discovered by Craig Roberts (Kill Zone) re Walter Reed and Bethesda, plus others, are not explained any other way. So I should read Douglass, but I believe that the evidence in these others (which Douglass apparently does not discuss or emphasize) cannot be ignored. [As all know, the Soviet connection was touted by LBJ who was a participant.]
At least JFK made major parts of his mystery easier by disclosing shortly before his assassination that any coup would involve the CIA which was behaving like a separate nation, not obedient to the President. So all or most books have a head start with that one, and many, such as Opium Lords, are very insightful on the nefarious side of our FBI (which of course is now discernable from memos). And I believe we would agree that it is time to re-open JFK---which even last Congressional committee wanted to do, but could not command obedience from CIA or FBI (because they were involved). Thanks for your insights and views.
elder, interesting point you make about JFK resisting Israel's desire for nuclear weapons. I believe the CIA facilitated the transfer of the material necessary for Israel to build the Bomb during the Johnson administration.
Not sure what you mean by Douglass's emphasizing "the Soviet connection." He does suggest that JFK was interested not only in detente with the Soviets but moving dangerously close to pursuing complete nuclear disarmament and an end to the Cold War--something that of course threatened the Military Industrial Complex. He delineates JFK's back-channel communications with Krushchev, and that the two men were moving in the direction of detente rather than the confrontation that JFK's advisors seemed to want.
I do think this book threatens the elite, but not so much that they would thwart its publication. They changed their strategy in the late 60s/early 70s, realizing that many people weren't buying the lone-gunman theory. They began actually promoting the publication of books touting all sorts of possible conspirators behind JFK's assassination, namely Cuba, the Soviets, the Mob, and "rogue elements" of the CIA. This served to confuse people. Douglass's book makes it clear that only the CIA--and not merely "rogue elements"--could have killed him. The evidence trail is just too overwhelming. There was falsification of hospital X-rays of JFK's skull, for example, that only govt. insiders could manage. The military totally controlled the autopsy, and many doctors were intimidated into recanting before the Warren Commission what they had seen with their own eyes in the hospital--that there was an entrance wound in JFK's neck, making it impossible for Oswald to have been his killer.
As with 9/11, there were probably multiple motives for those who pulled it off, and I don't believe it serves populist, democratic agenda for people to squabble over, for example, whether "it was Israel" or whether "It was the CIA." From a practical standpoint, there is no difference.
"As all know, the Soviet connection was touted by LBJ who was a participant"
Don't know what you mean here by what exactly LBJ was suggesting, but I assume you mean he was suggesting the Soviets were behind the killing. Douglass claims that the CIA's plot was designed to make it look like Oswald was working for the Russians, and therefore JFK's killing would provide a pretext to attack Cuba. He says that LBJ actually refused to push that connection, because there was so much incriminating evidence suggestive of CIA involvement. I should probably quote the exact passage, but there were problems with the official story--too many "Oswalds" seen in too many places at the same time, and I think LBJ decided it was wiser not to pursue it. He gave the Company their war in Vietnam and a continuance of the Cold War, but declined the crazies their desire for a nuclear first-strike.
The relevant passage from James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable:
"Hoover's view suggested CIA complicity in the assassination. Even asuming for the moment that Johnson himself was innocent of any foreknowledge or involvement in the plot, nevertheless for the new president to confront the CIA over Kennedy's murder, in a war within the U.S. government, would have been at least as frightening for him as an international crisis. One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy's death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA's false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d'etat that would reverse Kennedy's efforts to end the Cold War. Lyndon Johnson, for his part, took little time to choose the only option he felt would leave him with a country to govern. He chose to cover up everything and surrender to Cold War prerogatives. However, he was not about to attack Cuba and the USSR." [James Douglas, JFK & The Unspeakable, 81]
*Comment deleted by site administrators for using all capital letters*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
The fix was in (in the sense of a resolve to fix the total story of Oswald (the patsy) as lone gunman; case closed) as apparent from J. Edgar Hoover’s and Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach’s memos from near actual event and before JFK was buried. And LBJ was expressing that he did not want to start a nuclear war with Russia as grounds for the fixed story. LBJ had dirt on all of the Warren Commission members, who were appointed within a week; so much so that whatever dirt he had on Chief Justice Earl Warren made him (Warren) cry on the phone. Of course, Allan Dulles had been fired by JFK (as JFK wanted to bust CIA into a 1000 pieces and saw the MIC through the Generals as complete whackos desirous of war at all times) and international banker McCloy was part of LBJ rich group (with foreknowledge but not the actual participants or leaders) that reportedly attended the Clint Murchison meeting the night before the assassination which has been belatedly affirmed by multiple Murchison servants (in addition to LBJ’s mistress). Plus most Americans do not know that international bankers love wars. In an odd recent discovery (near year 2000 per my memory), the unidentified fingerprint on boxes at Oswald’s alleged lair turned out to be that of LBJ’s personal hit man, Malcolm Wallace. And in 1967, we have the CIA Memo to Media Assets instructing the media how to ridicule those who questioned the lone gunman.
Book Final Judgment reveals that Joseph Mettier of Quitman, Georgia forewarned FBI of the JFK assassination by planned rifles atop buildings two weeks in advance. Right after the assassination, the FBI returned for careful grilling and Mr. Mettier revealed his understanding that it was a Jewish conspiracy led by a big Jew. Many others affiliated with Jack Ruby---including a lady in a mental institution (arrested for drug possession as I recall), plus others in Northwest (Washington or Oregon) were watching the JFK motorcade live on television in advance of the event in rooms with many people and both accurately announced in advance that this is the point where JFK will be shot. Of course, Ruby had connections to billionaire Bronfman family of Canada; and Louis Bloomfield (Israeli/Canadian attorney for Mr. Bronfman) was one linked with Permadex/CIA by New Orleans atty Jim Garrison and per book Opium Lords also led one of five divisions at FBI (and elevated Israel’s interests to those of America’s ----and many would say higher). I am aware that our CIA liason, James Angleton, at the time of JFK assassination, was honored after his death with two memorial plaques in rock gardens in Israel (the only intelligence agent so honored in a foreign country!).
But I admit that the evidence points to both Israel and CIA for JFK and 9/11 (with FBI also involved in JFK); and realization of that would end wars, WOT, Homeland security, CIA, shutter the MIC, restore freedoms in America, hopefully result in free/honest press, get people with dual loyalties out of government service, among many things. Israel is suspected in many events, including the downing of certain commercial airliners. It makes a huge difference whether the operative actor was Israel or not. Per most, Israel and neocons have destroyed this country. Even JFK swore that no American should ever have to go through the groveling, extreme extorted promises that he was forced to do in order to run for the Presidency----and no doubt the Israelis felt that strongly.
Based on your interest in the doctors, I recommend Craig Robert’s Kill Zone. But so much is known now, but the culprits are in power and destroying the country.
elder,
A point of clarification: when I said it 'makes no difference' whether it was Israel or the CIA, I meant only from a practical standpoint, because if Israel pulled it off, they could not have done it without active connivance of CIA and Pentagon. Either way, it spells "inside job." And until we get a thorough and honest investigation, we'll never know for sure. I have seen too much infighting in the movement for truth on this and other issues, e.g., some calling Alex Jones an agent because he won't finger Israel as the culprit, etc. Such divisiveness serves no one but the perpetrators of this heinous crime.
I agree with you that the evidence suggests Mossad involvement in 9/11. Don't know about JFK as I haven't done as much research on it. But with 9/11 we have Mossad fingerprints all over it, including Mossad agents tailing the alleged hijackers for many months prior to 9/11, Mossad agents filming the towers' demolition (and cheering), and even possibly control of airport security and WTC complex security. Certainly there are grounds for suspicion: what other country has gotten away with the mass murder of US citizens, as we saw with USS Liberty?
Actually much more is known about JFK today, notwithstanding LBJ’s attempt to seal records for 75 years and the CIA’s resistance in court through this day of disclosure of information in its files.
JFK had reduced/abolished the oil depletion allowance which reduced the value of oil companies to a small fraction of their prior value. LBJ and his supporters wanted it reinstated. Jewish Canadian billionaire Bronfmann family had never been in oil business. It bought a huge oil company---after JFK’s moves had decimated its value and not long before big event, and promptly sold it after LB J reinstated allowance, which as I recall was like ten times the amount of the recent purchase.
On or around July of 2004, Mordeachi Vannu was released from an Israeli prison and he went straight to press conference to affirm that Israel had assassinated JFK precisely because of Israel’s nuclear ambitions. That act is note-worthy even if his tenure at Dimona did not match the event. What is amazing is that we now know the identity and fate of the three professional hitmen (from Corsica), and that it was a big operation; and a long trail of cold blooded murders that followed. (read Opium Lords).
JFK event and/or cover up involved LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, GHWB, Gerald Ford, all on Warren Commission, our media, our military, our secret service, our FBI, big Banker, knowledge of Nixon and big Texans. Haldeman said in his book that it became apparent that Nixon used phrases “Cuban thing” or “bay of Pigs” as code word to mean JFK assassination in negotiations with Helms of CIA. When you listen to Nixon’s tapes, now available online, you can understand what Nixon is talking about when he tells Haldman to take this threat to CIA Helms (who blew up): “… it's going to make the FB, ah [sic, FBI], CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look
bad, and it's likely to blow the whole, uh,
Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be
very unfortunate for CIA and for the country
at this time, and for American foreign
policy, and he just better tough it and lay
it on them. Isn't that what you...
HALDEMAN: Yeah, that's, that's the basis we'll do it
on and just leave it at that.
PRESIDENT: I don't want them to get any ideas we're
doing it because our concern is political.
JUNE 23, 1973, FROM 1:04 P.M. TO 1:13 P.M.
HALDEMAN: Right.
PRESIDENT: And at the same time, I wouldn't tell them
it is not political
HALDEMAN: Right.
(underlining added): This would clearly indicate that he knows that evidence points to CIA and undoubtedly Israel—as how else could foreign policy be politically involved. And the last part of this makes clear that this is political. [Plus LBJ’s mistress, Madeline Brown, puts Nixon at late night meeting for “green light” by tacit approvers at Murchison’s---along with others who would on, or in support of Warren commission; plus more recent books tag CIA for Watergate bungle/Nixon downfall and Nixon’s motive to remove incriminating evidence of the Dallas decoy teams (howard hunt et al).]
It is very ironic that Life Magazine had been working for many months on a cover story about LBJ’s crookedness (Billie Sol Estes, Bobby Baker scandals among doubtless others---not sure if they knew about LBJ’s reported 8 to 17 “hits”) that was slated to come out the week following JFK’s assassination. And as I recall, JFK had offered the VP slot for his re-election campaign to another. In retrospect, LBJ likely got wind of that. So with one assassination, LBJ goes from eve of being exposed as major crook and ruined politically forever (and likely would risk criminal prosecution)----to the entire story being “deep sixed” with media pre-programed to announce on assassination day that it is customary in situations like this for all of JFK’s cabinet to resign (as if any such similar situation had occurred in many decades---an obvious advance plant in my judgment).
Good points, elder. However, I would argue that the mass media are not trusted greatly by many Americans. The problem is not that people have too much trust in mainstream media, it is that they are not cynical enough about such media, i.e., they don't realize just how rotten are the crimes being covered up. And they don't realize that not only because of the media's duplicity, but because of their own denial.
Good points and well stated, elder.
Be careful about that statement. Let's consider that Obama is not on the front lines. So, that lack of personal interaction is a factor. Having known my good share of psychopaths, it is unlikely that he is one.
Authority can limit an individual's conscience, as Milgram and Zimbardo clearly demonstrated with their experiments (See Stanley Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments)
In my personal opinion, I believe that there's an intricate mix of motivations at the core of this. Let us also be careful as to who's pulling whose strings.
Obama's a psychopath.
It's not possible to do what he does and not be a psychopath.
He's a voluntary one rather than an obligative - i.e., he does it because he can, not because he can't understand the concept of behaving well toward others. He carefully controls his message and his bad behavior in the service of his own desires -- classic psychopathic behavior.
He harms those who have no recourse, and does so without remorse. That's absolutely classic.
He's a psychopath, and should be in a psychiatric prison rather than the WH.
Be careful about that statement. Let's consider that Obama is not on the front lines. So, that lack of personal interaction is a factor. Having known my good share of psychopaths, it is unlikely that he is one.
Authority can limit an individual's conscience, as Milgram and Zimbardo clearly demonstrated with their experiments (See Stanley Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments)
In my personal opinion, I believe that there's an intricate mix of motivations at the core of this. Let us also be careful as to who's pulling whose strings.
" I can only conclude that the people who now own the country couldn’t find any first-rate psychopaths to carry out their work."
Why over-hire for the job to be done. I suggest they are filling the openings appropriately with the second string. Saving the best for other things to come.
Excellent article!
If one would discover such second stringers, one need only look at the right wing trolls here and on other web sites. They would be pitiful if they were not so destructive.
The funny thing about Kurt's last book was the lament over the country lost.
This was the author who gave as example of a granfalloon: "any nation, any time, anywhere." (Cat's Cradle)
The second stringers are just fumbley enough to piss off the deluded. They have been working wonders the last couple of months. There may be hope yet.
I thought the correct word for these people is sociopaths, not psychopaths. Is there a difference between the two?
What's the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? There isn't any. Both terms describe the same character disorder.
[I thought it was sociopath also.]
A sociopath has no problem killing you: examples, people who shoot potential witnesses, organized crime hit men, gang leaders, etc.
Psychopaths want to kill you: examples, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc.
The dividing lines between all psychiatric conditions are vague. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is a way of giving people a specific diagnosis for insurance and recordkeeping purposes, Most people who work with the mentally ill will tell you that they are approximations and usually multiple diagnoses are needed to accurately describe people's disorders, e,g,, schizoaffective disorder with paranoid features.
Success within the capitalist economic system requires the exploitation of people and the natural world. Capitalism self-selects for people who can distance themselves from their own humanity. In other words to be an effective capitalist, you must also be a sociopath (or psychopath as per Schwartz). This distancing from our humanity, or alienation, affects everyone forced to live under capitalism. So, we get memes like "nice guys finish last." People can be kind and generous members of communities, but when they get to work, they have to meet the "bottom line" just like everyone else.
While I agree with Mr. Schwartz that we should focus on people like the Koch brothers, focusing on psychopaths instead of an economic system that demands pathology, that rewards the most destructive of human traits, we give the system - capitalism - a pass.
This article may be more of a misdirection than a help.
excellent point.
Thank you Tom, while mildly interesting, not one post seemed on target until I hit yours. Ahhhhhh, the deeply calming effect of the sanity in understanding when misunderstanding always leads to psychosis.
While I agree with Mr. Schwartz that we should focus on people like the Koch brothers, focusing on psychopaths instead of an economic system that demands pathology, that rewards the most destructive of human traits, we give the system - capitalism - a pass.
--------------------------------------
I believe you, unusually, have it backwards, Tom.
Private-profit capitalism, like other forms of feudalism, is a *product* of psychopathy, specifically of the "leader" style in which the psychopath takes control of a group of non-psychopaths and uses them like beasts of burden to support him in luxury.
It's much better and less self-mystifying to focus on the cause --the psychopath-- than on the product --Capitalism. One can take action to eliminate the product, but unless an eye is kept on the cause, there'll pretty quickly be a new product with the same purpose.
Which is why Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, and Religion are all so similar at bottom: they're superficially-different products created for the same psychopathic purpose.
Many good points all, but I admire your logic and argument, Mairead, and I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion.
I think what we are witnessing now (and has been in process since 2000/2001, which is why the 9-11 tie-ins are so apropos) is that the psychopaths that have co-opted our economic and political systems have simply decided that a complete move from a faux-Democracy which serves Capitalism, to more of an outright Fascism that further enslaves all and pretty well quashes dissent, is now not only possible but preferable. It is these PEOPLE behind all this that we need to eliminate, these ethically, morally and psychologically bankrupt monsters. Because as Mairead says, simply targeting, outlawing, even eliminating Capitalism, Fascism, Theism will still leave these sociopaths behind, and they will just create another "-ism," another philosophy (Ayn Randism is the depeche mode du jour, isn't it) with which they will prop up their anti-social behavior. They must go, whether they take their "-ism" with them or not.
The terms are a bit loose, and shift, but I think a psychopath may only affect himself while a sociopath affects up many other people and society, by what I remember the terms used to mean. Also, psychopath tended to mean someone with a loose grasp of reality while a sociopath is more akin to being deliberately evil, similar to the difference between amoral and immoral. But maybe they are used differently recently or now.
Edit: found an article at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means&print=true
This was my understanding as well, derived from a Criminology 201 class in the '80's.
No doubt as use of either of the terms spread, the usage loosened up as you speculate. Now to go read the article you cite, thanks.
The article seems to support the interchangeability of the terms these days but what I found fascinating were the comments.
sarasson, I thought the same. My understanding is that the correct word for what the author is talking about is "sociopath," because psychopaths are generally too dysfunctional to successfully manage the exigencies of everyday life.
They are backed by the floundering misrepresentation of christianity as the exclusive model from the age of Constantine. There is only ONE and all else is "other" to be assimilated (genocide and other -cides) to be had, used or destroyed. Following the law of reciprocity, this being done internally to the soul practicing it.
They HAVE a free/ market /democracy to be used, not exercised according to the precepts defining it. That's for 'others', and certainly not those who have worked so hard for that ever-so-elevated station in this brief life.
Suggesting that Sarah Palin is only a second rate psychopath is being way too kind. I suspect that if she were President, we would all appreciate George W. Bush a lot more.
Lookin for that silver linin thing - with Palin as Preznit, every public school student would automatically get an "A" in US history.
LOL, psychopathic seconds!
Yes, we have had an infestation of these bozos on Wall Street and in Washington D.C.. Given the social contract breaking unethical proclivities of these people I do believe that retroactive legislation and the seizing and redistribution of ill gotten gains are quite justifiable to the great mass of the citizenry. Normally such actions as making new laws to be enforced on previous actions and violations of "property rights" would be considered dirty pool, but the circumstances and abuses are such that these actions are justifiable as a sort of pushing of a reset button.
Certainly everyone wants to talk "regulation" with the stated intention of keeping bad things from happening again and the unstated intention of locking the wealth in right where it is and keeping others from doing unto one as one has done unto others. Shutting the barn door after the horse has left only keeps the horse from going back to the barn, and presumably the farmer, though. Moving forward only regulation does the same.
It is a great irony that people who call themselves "conservative" hearken back to the early days of one of the greatest triumphs of liberalism. It is another great irony that people who make a fortune by wreaking havoc on social contracts under the justification that "it's nothing personal, it's just business" are the very ones who scream the loudest for protection under social contracts governing fair play. Time to become Indian givers, folks!
PUCK: I agree with the points you posted. It will always be argued that it would be tough to separate any legitimate wealth from all that stolen by engineered mechanisms, the very ones used to purchase government agents and regulatory bodies. Still, a separation of the wheat from the chaff here could be tricky. I say for those who are finally forced to forfeit their false fortunes, a minimum wage job is in order! How else to better educate them about the results of all those fiscal policies they demanded be run on the masses, so that they could know gain beyond the measure (and dreams) of kings?
Vindication doesn't come from seeing a few fall, but from watching many rise.
Love it :-) "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe"
And rise they and we will, once we cease and desist with the mis-allocation of resources and wasting of time and talent.
Much of the damage is a matter of public record, there are meeting minutes, questionable legislation, cosy relationships, computer hard drives, documentation and smoking guns aplenty. Just assemble an army of forensic accountants and IT people, interview the peons and go at it :-)
" I do believe that retroactive legislation...(is) quite justifiable..."
You'll need to change the Constitution.
Despite the precedent set by the get-out-of-jail-free legislation to let the eavesdroppers off the hook, ex post facto laws are still forbidden.
You're talking nationalisation, friend.
Socialism.
It's the right way.
Another term for them would be reptilians.