“The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” – David Rockerfeller
The best way to describe the enemy is as the ‘elite’ as this appears to me to be the most scientifically and historically accurate term. I have no bother with terminology, so call this enemy whatever you like – establishment, bourgeoisie, the upper class, oligarchy, monarchy, power brokers, globalists, masters of the universe or anything else you wish –, just don’t let that word become a label and don’t let that label make you its slave. That is a trick of power, and as we know from V, the most modern of prophets: “Words will always retain their power.”
So who then, are the ‘elite’ and how may we understand them? Well, like all humans they are a complex bunch. They are some of the most complex individuals imaginable, and putting them together they become exponentially more complex. Nor is it possible, other than by common sense (you know it when you see it), to define who exactly is in this group and who is not since there are various types of pawns, lackeys and useful idiots in the grey areas between the elite and the commoners. But complex is not the same as complicated or difficult. Professor Brian Cox explained in an excellent BBC documentary Human Universe, all the essential physical laws of the universe can be written on one page of a cricket scorecard whilst the laws of cricket take a small book. Neither two solar systems in the universe, nor two games of cricket in the world are ever the same. But there are patterns – stars and planets, high scoring batsmen and low scoring bowlers. You can be said to understand the workings of the universe if you understand its’ laws and to understand cricket if you understand its’ laws. As Alex Jones will regularly emphasise, the supposedly most feeble minded of the public can understand the minutia of a horrendously complex game like American football, so there is no reason why they cannot understand at least some basics of human nature and the history of civilizations. There are some obvious universal factors to the condition of elites, such as, by definition they will always be elitist in attitude, and they live in a state of constant fear of the commoners. What they fear, as Darth Sideous put it, is losing their power and they will never willingly relinquish it.
You don’t have to have seen every single solar system or every game of cricket to understand their workings but it helps to gain experience – practice makes perfect. And the same applies to understanding the elite. We all need to become more knowledgeable about their basic functions and motivations – their nature – and we can be guided in our understanding by looking at history and the patterns of outcomes that are produced by elite tendencies. Ignoti nulla curatio morbi! – Do not attempt to cure what you do not understand.
As Noam Chomsky puts it in Hopes and Prospects, a quote by Francis Jennings, researcher into indigenous American genocide, sums up the elite: “In history, the man in the ruffled shirt and gold-laced waistcoat somehow levitates above the blood he has ordered to be spilled by dirty-handed underlings.” We must seek to understand where this levitational ability comes from and how figures such as Henry Kissinger arise to fill this description perfectly. Is it only the psychopath that becomes the elite man in the ruffled shirt?; Is it just a regular man whose mind has been warped with false emotions caused by his acquisition of wealth and power?; Is the behaviour purely down to the system; Is it a hereditary behaviour caused by genetics or environment; Or is there a combination of these factors?
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.” – David Cameron
Though they account for at least 1% of the human population (0.5% of women, 2% of men), the psychopath is very difficult to spot – which is the reason they exist in the first place – and can fool even the most experienced, but Robert Hare’s psychopathy checklist is the best way to identify psychopathic individuals without having a brain-scanning machine:
Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”
- Glibness/superficial charm
- Grandiose sense of self-worth
- Pathological lying
- Lack of remorse or guilt
- Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
- Callousness; lack of empathy
- Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle”.
- Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
- Parasitic lifestyle
- Poor behavioural control
- Lack of realistic long-term goals
- Juvenile delinquency
- Early behaviour problems
- Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor
- Promiscuous sexual behaviour
- Many short-term (marital) relationships
- Criminal versatility
Understanding that there are such things as psychopaths and that they are relatively common, understanding what psychopaths are, and at least just recognising that the brain wiring of some seemingly normal humans produces behaviours that the rest of us can barely get our heads around must surely be the largest step towards seeing the world for what it is. In the preface to the latest edition of Andrew Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology, (ponerology being the study of evil) Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door describes psychopathy very well:
“Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.
Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.
You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.
How will you live your life?
What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?
The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people – whether they have a conscience or not – favour the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites…
Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.
If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people’s hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back and watch in satisfaction…
Crazy and frightening – and real, in about 4% of the population…
The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated at 3.43%, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1% of the population – a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality – and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered “alarmingly high,” is about 40 per 100,000 – one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.
The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4% drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on Earth.
Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do they think only in terms of violent psychopathy – murderers, serial killers, mass murderers – people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.
We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent psychopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defence.
Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one’s boss about a co-worker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.
Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.
Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.
The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.
What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labours of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron – or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer – is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.
Like all parasites, psychopaths are in the minority, but are most certainly not rare. Lobaczewski himself gives an average figure for the most active deviants of approximately 6% of a given population (1% essential psychopaths and up to 5% other psychopathies and characteropathies). These figures are disputed and vary but all research concludes at least 1% of the population are genuine psychopaths and perhaps up to as high as 4%.
It is not just that the global political, corporate and financial spectrum will have to be revolutionised once a majority realise the fundamental social factor of psychopathy, but the individual lives of millions will be transformed with the knowledge that so many of their everyday problems, which seem so complicated and convoluted, have very simple roots and solutions. It is at first a hollow but ultimately a cathartic and liberating feeling once one comes to the realisation that for thousands of years, philosophers have been pretty much wasting their time when pondering on the issue of – first quoted in a Robert Burns poem – ‘man’s inhumanity to man.’ For most of the world’s evils, the root problem has never been about man’s inhumanity to man, but about the inhumanity of man’s parasitic subspecies – homo insapien’s inhumanity to homo sapien.
A lot of people will not want to accept the existence of psychopaths because they like to believe that we are made rather than born; that Rousseau’s noble savage theory was correct. To many good-hearted people, the blank slate is a doctrine which can be very comforting and reassuring. But comfort and reassurance are not necessarily the most effective ways to reduce suffering. The truth is the best way to reduce suffering and the better informed we are, the greater our morality will be – for those of us with empathy at least.
The theory, promulgated originally by Italian anthropologist Cesare Lombroso in his book ‘Il Reo Nato’ (The Born Criminal), that criminals are born and not made not only appeals to religious believers of original sin, but to popular experience. In the last century, ‘the blank slate’ culture as explained by Steven Pinker’s book of the same name has led society to ignore Lombroso’s theory to a large degree and focus on environmental factors. But back in 1928, the German scientist Johannes Lange published overwhelming evidence that genetic factors were at least as important as environmental factors. In one study, he managed to locate 30 criminals from Bavarian prisons who had a twin. Of these, 13 were identical twins and 17 non-identical (fraternal). Ten of the 13 identical twins had committed crimes, many similar to the crimes of the prisoners, whereas only 2 out of the 17 fraternal twins had committed crimes. In fact, the identical twins’ crimes were even similar in the cases where the twins had been raised separately and did not know of each others’ behaviour. 
The understanding of psychopathy is essential not only to prevent tyranny, oligarchy, hierarchy and war, but also for everyone’s peace of mind. Every therapist and counsellor should know this if they truly want to help their patients because usually street evils like domestic violence, rape and knife and gun crime are the actions of psychopaths. It helps a great deal for victims of such abuse to know about psychopathy so they can begin to rationalise what has happened and overcome the feelings of upset and fear (because the truth will set you free – all good therapy is about getting to the truth). It was for this reason that Lobaczewski and his fellow psychologists, therapists and psychiatrists began to study narcissism, and then psychopathy – chiefly to help their patients.
So far psychopathy is known to certainly not be a hereditary condition it the sense of being passed down through every child but it is passed through families. Genuine psychopaths seem to be genetically programmed to be so, although it is well known that blows to the head can change the wiring in ones brain in one way or another and epigenetic factors, as well as those significant socio-environmental factors such as extreme indoctrination, otherization and depersonalization must be quite influential in producing psychopaths. Both Hitler and Stalin were beaten as children by their fathers and hit on the head whilst there is the famous case of Phineas Gage, the railroad foreman who survived for 12 years after his tamping iron had shot through his head, severely damaging his left frontal lobe and supposedly drastically changing his personality.
Whilst autistics understand morality and their own emotions like anybody else, they have great difficulty in recognising emotion in others and therefore can appear lacking in emotional empathy when in fact they lack Theory of Mind. Studies show autistics score normally when it comes to moral distinction and can even be “hyporesponsive to threatening stimuli.” Psychopaths are, in a sense, the opposite in that they excel at Theory of Mind tasks so can appear to show emotional empathy through good acting, yet they cannot fundamentally understand morality or normal emotions. The generally agreed terminology amongst psychologists asserts that autistics have deficits in cognitive empathy but not in emotional empathy whilst psychopaths have deficits in emotional empathy but not in cognitive empathy.  
A study of psychopathy in 7 year olds concluded that: “The remarkably high heritability for callous unemotional traits, and for children showing signs of antisocial behaviour as well as callous unemotional traits, suggests that molecular genetic research on antisocial behaviour should focus on the callous unemotional core of psychopathy. Our findings also raise questions for public policy on interventions for antisocial behaviour.”
The motivations for psychopaths would seem hard to determine. If somebody lacks empathy, that doesn’t automatically give them the motivation to kill, steal or manipulate. What must not be forgotten is that in every other way, psychopath’s brains are wired the same as the rest of us. Our brains respond to rewards and without empathy, we become slaves to our hormones and endorphine rushes. Research from Vanderbilt University found that the brains of psychopaths are basically wired to keep seeking rewards at any cost. They are said to have a hyper-reactive dopamine reward system. It is not just that they lack empathy – they also have unusually high levels of impulsivity and are attracted to rewards and risk taking. Volunteers in the study were given a dose of amphetamine or speed and their brains were scanned to detect dopamine release in response to the stimulant. Psychopathy is often associated with substance abuse and people with high psychopathic traits had almost four times the amount of dopamine released in response to the amphetamine. During experiments with monetary rewards, the nucleus accumbens – the dopamine reward area of the brain – was much more active in the psychopaths. It was suggested that psychopaths are so focused on the opportunity to get a reward that they are unable to alter their attention until they get what they want.
There have been many studies looking into the overlap of psychopaths with traders and bankers though banks have been reluctant to take part in these studies. One University of St Gallen study even found that 28 professional traders who took part in computer simulations and intelligence tests were more egotistical and more willing to take risks than a group of psychopaths who took the same test. And a study by Dr. Paul Babiak found that one in 25 corporate bosses could be classed as genuine psychopaths. But if anything, that indication is likely to represent a drastic underestimation of the true power psychopaths have in today’s economic system. Their impact does not equate to just 1 in 25. They effect the culture of those around them and the entire financial system now totally adheres to the whims of the psychopaths.
Author of Corporate Psychopaths Clive R Boddy, says that those who caused the Global Financial Crisis are psychopaths, pure and simple: “They are simply the 1 per cent of people who have no conscience or empathy…. Psychopaths, rising to key senior positions within modern financial corporations, where they are able to influence the moral climate of the whole organisation and yield considerable power, have largely caused the [banking] crisis.”
Brian Basham, an experienced PR specialist, entrepreneur and journalist, wrote of a confession made by an investment banker friend of his: “At one major investment bank for which I worked, we used psychometric testing to recruit social psychopaths because their characteristics exactly suited them to senior corporate finance roles.” Basham concludes: “In an unregulated world, the least-principled people rise to the top.” And there are none who are less principled than corporate psychopaths.” And Since dominance is more reliant on social abilities than gender in apes, it shouldn’t be a surprise if we were to see, as some in the psychopathy research world have suggested, an increase in the success of psychopathic women in society as our civilization grows and becomes more focused on communications-type professions, which women are generally better at.
Corporations are now defined as people in legal terms. But if corporations are people then they can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths, as was pointed out by Joel Balkan’s book and film The Corporation, when the psychopathy checklist is applied: –
- Callous disregard for the feelings of others. Check.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships. Check.
- Reckless disregard for the safety of others. Check.
- Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conniving others for profit. Check.
- Incapacity to experience guilt. Check.
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Check.
Survival of the best adapted applies to the psychopath only in a social-evolutionary context. Human evolution has been driven by altruism as much as anything else. The psychopath lacks altruism and makes a bad parent and their genes should therefore represent an evolutionary dead end. Their genes (not confined to a single origin but likely quite a common anomaly given the complexity of the human brain) have survived though, through manipulation and the generosity and unawareness of others and so the psychopaths are considered by some as a parasitic subspecies – an intra-species predator in fact. If we were all psychopaths, we wouldn’t last a generation as a species. Have psychopaths spread in number since the dawn of civilization? Perhaps, and there is some evolutionary logic and evidence to suggest this, but what is most important to understand is that psychopaths are first and foremost the best climbers of a social hierarchy and therefore the best way to construct a better society would be to not have a hierarchy – that means no civilization. Even better, the Earth’s biosphere likes this idea.
Though the idea that any other sub-social creatures have psychopathic individuals (or at least individuals with an equivalent parasitic mode of life) within their populations has not been explored fully as yet, intraspecific kleptoparasitism is a known evolutionary trend. Kleptoparasitism is basically scavenging and is practiced by many creatures – including humans – but some creatures scavenge from members of their own species – and perhaps those also include humans
An article from the website Manipulative-People says: “Some have suggested that psychopaths might rightfully be considered a different species because they’re so different with respect to the critical attributes that most of us think define us as ‘human.’ But there’s certainly no solid scientific foundation for that notion. Nonetheless, during my many years dealing with psychopaths, I was most struck by the fact that many considered themselves not only very different from the rest of us, but also clearly superior to us because they did not carry with them the vulnerability that typically accompanies having feelings and a conscience. And it’s their pathological sense of superiority, a truly malignant narcissism, that gives rise to their sense of entitlement to prey on those they regard as inferior creatures.”
As Lobaczewski says, and according to the laws of the evolution of complexity, “the higher a species’ psychological organisation, the greater the psychological differences among individual units.” “Man is the most highly organised species, hence these variations are the greatest. Lobaczewski asserts that “only if we accept psychological differences as a law of nature and appreciate their creative value, can we overcome misunderstandings and problems arising from them. This would enable us to gain an objective comprehension of man and human societies.”
Pinker also draws the parallel between psychopaths in human society and cheaters, or parasites, in nature. As he puts it, “people differ genetically in their selfish tendencies” Many biologists believe psychopathy is a cheating strategy which evolved by a process they call ‘frequency dependent selection.’ Rather than being a simple genetic abnormality, psychopaths appear to have a number of traits (those described on the PCL-R), which statistically would be unlikely to all arise together as commonly as 1% of the time. Psychopaths are not a biological mistake, but have probably been selected for in low frequency by recessive or rarely occurring genes throughout the process of human evolution. 
Perhaps, on Darwinian terms, the socio-cultural evolution of the psychopath is an inevitable product of social co-operative organisation, becoming more likely and common the larger a social group is. And if a social group grows at a rate at which evolution cannot keep up, as our civilization has, a psychopathic mutation can quickly infect the population and soon wipe out all those who don’t have a reacting equivalent mutation allowing them to successfully defend themselves against psychopaths. There is in fact a suggestion, from Dr George Mobus, who runs a website called Question Everything, which focuses on systems science, that this theoretical counter mutation (and we are talking very about very miniscule mutations here – only slight alterations in the wiring of the brain) he calls sapience, already exists. People with this cluster of psychological differences are more perceptive, holistic of mind and can see the bigger picture – real wisdom. They have the ‘mother-wit’ demonstrated by the likes of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Henry George and many professional comedians. Perhaps it has existed all along, and so perhaps has psychopathy. Or perhaps this counter mutation occurred first. More likely though as I see it, that these mutations, being so slight and difficult to trace, happen all the time, all over the world.
Though we know there is some genetic lineage involved in psychopathy, the human brain is so complex that every person has some mutations in their brain from birth (apart from identical twins), and as they grow even more mutations (epigenetic and environmentally caused) occur causing everybody to think differently (including identical twins). Basically, there is so much wiring that we are guaranteed to see a mistaken or loose connection and we are guaranteed to see a different mistake or loose connection every time.
Jon Ronson’s popular book The Psychopath Test is thoroughly entertaining, and I believe it is more important to get information of psychopaths across to a wide audience than not discuss it. However, it must be said that, as the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy rightly point out, “Ronson’s book trivializes a serious personality disorder and its measurement, which is not helpful to those who have the disorder or to their unfortunate victims”
The general tone of Ronson’s conclusions are often in keeping with Stephen Pinkers’ analysis of liberal Western culture, a culture which likes to deny human nature and think up environmental explanations for everything. Ronson does dismiss the idea that ‘psychopaths can change’, but only after very extensive analysis. The proposition that psychopaths ‘may be good for some things’ comes up but, it too, is dismissed upon looking at the evidence. The agenda of environmental explanations for everything remains though, not through any fault of Ronson’s, but because of its convenience to the culture we have all been brought up in and the fundamental assumptions we make which are never questioned in the mainstream and barely ever on the fringe.
The reason it is surely more important to spread sometimes inaccurate information of psychopathy to a wide audience rather than polishing the facts in small circles is because I feel that most people have the ability to use their common sense to realise that if a person has no empathy and poor behavioural control as well as being in need of stimulation, that person is unquestionably dangerous and incapable of anything useful. Like Pinocchio, It must be better to know something fake than know nothing at all. If a person experiences some freedom then at least they have hope whilst if they know only pure slavery, they will forever be hopeless.
As information on the subject of psychopathy spreads through the general population, the stance the media will no doubt embrace – that psychopaths are good for some things, can make logical decisions and can change – will certainly have an impact. But its impact will be a temporary one – constant and persistent tranquiliser shots which, like everything in the media, serve less to change people’s opinions but more to distract them from the issue. The media has never suggested seriously to its audience that politicians are corrupt puppets – yet the majority of the population know that to be the case by obvious logic. The same common sense should apply when it comes to judging for one’s self the potential impact of a genuine psychopath in society.
Lobaczewski wrote before getting into the subject of psychopathy and ponerology: “My work has shown me that the vast majority of people want to do good, to experience good things, think good thoughts, and make decisions with good results. And they try with all their might to do so. With the majority of people having this internal desire, why the hell isn’t it happening.” You don’t need to do any formal research to come upon this conundrum. Anyone alive can figure this out and certainly anyone who has travelled the world to some extent realises that the vast majority of people anywhere in the world are good in both words and actions. So the suffering that humanity is continually subject to is a mystery without considering the psychopath – that rock thrown into the pool.
Do we then, begin to incorporate psychopathy tests into our existing power institutions to avoid the advancement of the pathocracy? Or do we construct a society, from the bottom up, which rewards different values? Surely, both are necessary. Ironically, psychopathy tests have been most widely used, and perhaps misused in the US criminal justice system, much to the later dismay to the creator of the PCL-R psychopath test, Dr. Robert Hare, who recognises that focusing on people in positions of power may have gleaned more interesting results. So while this science is used to determine who should be allowed into society, it is not used to determine who should be in charge of society – surely a far more significant application – there is no psychopathy test for the seat of US president. 
“If your experience is that your water comes from a tap and your food comes from the grocery store, you will defend the system that gives you that until the death just as if your experience is of your water coming from a river and your food coming from the forest or plains, you will defend those to the death also.” – Derrick Jensen
So if psychopaths are the rock thrown into the pool which Jon Ronson talks of, why do the other 99% ripple so vigorously? We don’t have to be water molecules displaced by our neighbour; we each have our own minds and are capable of individual thought and logic to stop the ripples from spreading; we have the choice to act differently and rationally. We have not evolved to act like herds but as complex pack hunters where individual thought is prized because members of the group have defined roles. But we undoubtedly do act like a herd of water molecules, regardless of so called intelligence.
The key to us being manipulated into acting like waves is our social nature. Dogs have much the same nature, as do all sub-social creatures. Individual dogs in packs also have defined roles, but each individual has to be capable of moving from one role – pup, to another – soldier, to another – alpha male or female. If individuals lacked this flexibility, no one same species could form a multi-skilled group. Human society has more layers and civilization more layers still, due mainly to our ability to co-operate with many people and other species such as dogs, and our use of technology. These innovations have enabled more roles to exist within a society and therefore for more hierarchy to develop. And our genetically necessary flexibility to shift between roles is what allows all of us to be moulded into having the same mindset once the social group is larger than it ought to be. We are now a sub-social/pre-social species living in a eusocial environment and the behaviour of any animal taken out of its natural environment becomes pathological in one way or another. This unfortunately allows the psychopath to arise in humanity and for a pathocratic society to develop as it has today, where the leaders are frauds and the people are sheep. But it, surely, also means that we are flexible enough to re-organise ourselves in a non-psychopathic manner – whatever that would look like.
There is an unspoken understanding amongst the general population that, against their nature, they must imitate the psychopath in order to, as David Cameron would put it, ‘get on in life,’ and best protect their genes. A view which is taught to us all from an early age is Lord Acton’s quotation that ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Of course, absolute anything is a bad thing. But it seems to me that this assumption can only be based on the experiences and analysis of those in a position of power, who are very much in the minority. Certainly, a position of power releases endorphins, and can produce a ‘God complex,’ but how often does that actually happen and does it affect the long term philosophy of that person? History suggests that it has done, but perhaps not as often as we assume. That is where the psychopath comes in because not only does power corrupt, but the corrupt seek power. How do those ripples work though? – how does power corrupt? – how do psychopathic behaviours spread?
An astonishing documentary – Child of Rage – about a girl who was severely abused up to the age of 18 months showed how a child can lose their conscience after learning not to trust anybody from a very early age. At the age of six the girl is interviewed by a clinical psychologist and reveals a total lack of empathy, hell bent on killing her brother and adoptive parents. But she recovers through the help of experienced carers, gaining a conscience and growing into a normal, empathic human being. So psychopathy can be induced, at least in very young children if they are tortured by a psychopathological abuser.
Hitler had always lacked empathy and been seen as strange and angry by acquaintances. Stalin was expelled from his seminary as a young man and organised robberies, one of which resulted in several deaths. Mao Zedong took up Marxist beliefs through the course of his education since he had rebelled against a Confucian and Buddhist upbringing from an early age and he was impressed by the military fervour of figures such as Napoleon, believing as Lenin and Ho Chi Min did, that human rights and lives were expendable for the pursuit of a better society. The personalities of these types of individual’s, whether they were in power or not, didn’t fundamentally change much regardless of their beliefs or education. Hitler was most certainly born an evil psychopath (i.e. born with a variant of the warrior gene that rendered him sterile to empathic feelings) or made that way through vicious beatings by his father, and this potential was brought to the surface through zeitgeist (the conditions create the man).
However, the law of averages tells you that many of Hitler’s colleagues in crime were born with empathic feelings, yet these were people almost as responsible for mass murder as Hitler. It was through indoctrination and the psychological separation of ‘them’ and ‘us’ that enabled those ‘normal’ people to commit such atrocities with exactly the same ferocity and essentially become psychopaths themselves – secondary psychopaths. Quite often these are just people in a temporary state of induced psychopathy. Yes, in this case the indoctrination was the Nazi’s doctrine but history shows that it can just as easily be produced though a religion which may have been created for good principles, but whose message has been warped or exaggerated through time and depending on environment.
Lobaczewski describes normalization of pathological phenomena by normal people as ‘moralising interpretation’. A paramoralism describes pathological interpretations of events by normal people who have been affected by the paralogical influence of a highly psychopathic person. These phenomena are able to evade common sense and the normal human instinct for moral rules. A ponerogenic association is a “group of people characterized by ponerogenic processes of above-average social intensity, wherein carriers of various pathological factors function as inspirers, spell-binders, and leaders, and where a proper pathological social structure generates.” Examples would include gangs, criminal mobs, mafias, cliques, coteries and cults.
Lobaczewski could here be describing any political party: “When the ponerogenic process touches such a human organization, which originally emerged and acted in the name of political or social goals, and whose causes were conditioned in history and the social situation, the original group’s primary values will nourish and protect such a union, in spite of the fact that those primary values succumb to characteristic degeneration, the practical function becomes completely different from the primary one, because the names and symbols are retained. This is where the weaknesses of individual and social ‘common sense’ [I believe he is referring to tribal instincts rather than the ‘common sense’ of my own understanding] are revealed.”
And individuals are manipulated not on the basis of academic intelligence but what Lobaczewski describes as ‘basic intelligence’ or common sense in my view. “It is a characteristic phenomenon that a high IQ generally helps a person to be more immune to ‘spellbinding’ activities only to a moderate degree. Actual differences in the formation of human attitudes to the influence of such activities should be attributed to other properties of human nature. The most decisive factor in assuming a critical attitude is good basic intelligence [common sense/mother wit], which conditions our perception of psychological reality. We can also observe how a spellbinder’s activities ‘husk out’ amenable individuals with an astonishing regularity.” In fact, I would suggest that the more educated among us – those generally with high IQ’s – are more indoctrinated than the average person in society since they have been exposed to more advanced propaganda in higher education. 
Some activities people engage in everyday in the globalised economy could well be classed as psychopathic, without psychopaths themselves being involved, but simply out of necessity in a damaging culture. Driving automobiles, for example, engenders behavior that is often extremely pathological. Moral logic dictates that during road interactions, pedestrians should be prioritized, followed by cyclists, motorcyclists, cars, vans and so on. Obviously, if a car and bicycle collide and it is the fault of the cyclist, the driver is fine and the cyclist is killed – harsh punishment, but if you take your life in your hands? If however, if they collide and the driver is at fault, the cyclist is still punished with death and the driver is still fine. There is an unfair balance here so road users should adjust their behavior accordingly just as adults treat children differently – because they are more vulnerable. But most road users are lulled unthinkingly into the assumption that all other adult road users are to be treated the same because they are when out of the vehicles. Of course a lorry driver, car driver and pedestrian should all have the same human rights, but the vehicles themselves are different and the mind of the driver cannot adapt to this unnatural reality, at least not in the heat of the moment. And so situations develop where a pedestrian feels they must raise their hand in appreciation of a driver who lets them walk across the road. What are the thanks for? – ‘Thank you so much for not running me down in a two-tonne metal box whilst I am peacefully walking across my common land!’ Any instance of a species taken out of its natural environment will result in pathological behavior of some sort and it is often self destructive.
Many people would associate the practice of cannibalism as a psychopathic one, and such behaviour is observed amongst a few tribes in certain areas of the globe although it has been disproportionately reported in order to demonize indigenous people. Cannibalism is very rare in the world today – probably rarer in indigenous societies than civilized ones –, however it has been observed amongst the Korowai and Kombai of New Guinea (though there are suggestions that it is overplayed to give tourists a good story, and the threat of cannibalism used as gesturing to keep strangers away.). The Kombai and Korowai men have carried out cannibalism to avenge the killing of one of their tribe members. The Korowai identify those killers who are cannibalised as ‘evil men’, or male witches known as Khakhua: “We don’t eat humans, we only eat khakhua.” This suggests that the dehumanisation of the evil men is what allows these people to practice cannibalism rather than psychopathy. Perhaps it is those evil men who are the psychopaths, who are more easily identifiable in tribal groups. That said, cannibalism has taken place in pre-state societies through the course of human evolution and must be classed as part of the darker side of not just homo insapiens, but homo sapiens as well. 
The infamous Stanford prison experiment, run by psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo and soon to be made a film out of, produced frightening results. Volunteer candidates who had any psychological problems were ruled out, and the volunteers were just a bunch of intelligent, healthy, middle-class male university students. Some of the volunteers were guards and some prisoners. The prisoners were in fact accosted in public by police without prior warning and taken to the experiment centre. They were obviously given a long list of restrictions and prisoners were initially strip-searched, deloused and put in a ball and chain with a dress as uniform and an ID number assigned to them, which was the only thing the guards could address them by. The guards were given sunglasses, batons and no particular training but instructed to do what was needed to maintain law and order. A series of daily events were organised, such as wake-up calls and line-ups, in which the guards had the opportunity to excise their authority on the prisoners.
It took until just the second day for the prisoners to start a rebellion and though the conductors of the experiment were surprised, they allowed the experiment to continue and for the guards to deal with it themselves. The guards used fire extinguishers on the prisoners, then broke into the cells, stripped the prisoners naked, took the beds out, forced the ringleaders of the prisoner rebellion into solitary confinement, and generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners. To prevent themselves from being outnumbered in future, the guards engaged in psychological divide and conquer tactics. They designated one cell as a ‘privilege cell’ into which the three prisoners least involved in the rebellion were granted access. They were given back their beds and uniforms and allowed to brush their teeth, wash and eat special food which the other prisoners were not. They also started to swap prisoners in the good cell with prisoners in the bad cell, making some prisoners believe that others were informers. It drastically reduced the solidarity of the prisoners and increased the solidarity of the guards since they felt the rebellion to be a genuine threat. More drastic restrictions were introduced by the guards and even the conductors of the experiment and parents started to treat it as if a real situation, with the experimenters becoming involved in strategizing to foil a prisoner escape plot and Zimbardo even calling the Police department to see if they could move the prisoners into new jail cells and the humiliation and degradation of the prisoners got worse until the experiment had to be abandoned. 
The comparisons between the Stanford prison experiments and Abu Ghraib and Auschwitz are obvious and this experiment clearly shows that a sick environment can produce just as much evil in good people as is naturally occurring in people with psychopathic tendencies.
Once the elite have established themselves through psychopathic means – think Gordon Gecko or William the Conqueror – they seek not only to spread psychopathic behaviours to their brainwashed or bribed underlings who protect them from the commoners, and at times spread it to the commoners to fight wars and protect them from elites from other lands wishing to conquer. They also look for ways to ensure that their position continues for their descendants – the creation of a dynasty. Strangely enough, hereditary monarchies appear to be more sustainable pathocratic systems than those which promote only the most insane psychopaths.
The situation developing in this most recent ‘austerity doctrine’ period, is rather different than the first half of the neoliberal ‘second gilded age’ which was personified by ruthless self-made Gordon Gecko characters. Because, as Thomas Piketty has covered in his Capital in the 21st Century, monetary gains from investing in capital are yielding about 4 or 5% per annum (because of the monopolisation of the commons) while the economies of the West barely grow at all. This means entrepreneurial ventures, even ruthless and exploitative ones, are not able to compete, in terms of amassing monetary wealth, with those who already have large amounts of capital to invest in land or resources which should be commonly owned. As Paul Krugman puts it, we are no longer talking about Gordon Gecko, but about Gordon Gecko’s son or daughter. And so a new entrenched, hereditary elite oligarchy is forming, just as has been the case for most of agricultural history.
Take the example of the disgusting, despotic regime in Equatorial Guinea. Theodor Obiang, its chief psychopath, has been president for 34 years thanks to the overthrow and execution (and rumoured cannibalisation) of his own uncle and has looted the tiny country’s surprisingly vast resources of oil and timber. Another American propped dictator of course – Obama visited in 2009, and it is the U.S. oil companies who are in league with Obiang – he has now decided to build himself a whole new capital city complete with golf courses, five star hotels, conference centres and a university for students (presumably very rich ones) from all over Africa. His son Teodorin is one of the most notorious playboys in the world, living in a $32 million mansion in Malibu when he drops in on the US, using luxury private jets and yachts like cars and luxury cars like suits, as well as buying $2 million worth of Michael Jackson memorabilia. Needless to say that the majority of people of Equatorial Guinea, around 700,000 of them, are living in abject poverty and are lucky to see it past 50 despite the country having a higher average GDP than Britain. Teodorin was handed control of 25,000 hectares of the Equatorial Guinean rainforest by his father to do what he pleased with. It is impossible to tell without tests whether Teodorin inherited the psychopathic gene from his father or whether he is a secondary psychopath, or whether he was born with a normal level of empathy but his mind has been damaged in some way or another due to his abnormal environment and upbringing.
Egotism, thoughts of superiority and the desire to be remembered, as well as some genetic imperative, are the most obvious answers as to why elites are so concerned to have their elite position remain for many generations beyond themselves. It is a sad extra kick in the teeth then, that even the extension of a psychopath’s main weakness – blinkered arrogance – causes suffering for those who only come into contact with the (often not naturally psychopathic) descendents of that psychopath. To ensure their descendents – most of whom will buy into their philosophy through indoctrination and abuse, resulting in them becoming secondary psychopaths – remain ensconced in as powerful a position as possible, the psychopathic elite dynasties must retain and if possible increase their wealth, since political power is equivalent to economic power.
So looking at the rich in Britain for example, we can see this history play out in. The psychopathic mentality is of course what made the elite classes in the first place. Perhaps the story goes something like this: the first of the thieving rich psychopaths faced death and, motivated by power and prejudice, wanted to ensure that the wealth was not dispersed too much amongst his heirs. So he set up a family tradition to hand the fortune only to the eldest son and to arrange marriages to cousins to keep the wealth in the family. This was what was to become the British aristocracy and monarchy.
Then some bankers got in on the act of making a fortune. The Rothschild’s had worked out that lending money to governments was far more profitable than lending to individuals or companies since the governments could guarantee to make the payment through taxation if they so needed. The first of the British Rothschild clan, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, became enormously wealthy and, realising the mistake the aristocracy had made in attempting to retain their wealth – sometimes handing a fortune over to an incompetent or worse, a benign and generous heir, Nathan tweaked the tradition a little. The Rothschilds were much better able to maintain their level of power by passing the fortune on to the ‘most competent’ (or perhaps greedy) child.
But unless the Rothschild’s have hundreds of heirs to chose from, there is a good chance that the wealth will be handed to a non-psychopath at some point, and wealth will inevitably fritter away, albeit more slowly and with peaks and troughs. There has been a lot of speculation and comment on the exact motives of this tradition, as there should be with the Rothschild and aristocratic traditions, but what it proves is that there is most definitely often a long-term, beyond death, egomaniacal concern amongst those in high positions in society which goes beyond genetic imperative. The Japanese elite practice of adult adoption of non-relatives is also used as an effective way of getting around the perceived problems of wealth frittering away through the family dynasty, but it probably promotes pure psychopathy to an even greater extent, and is totally illogical from a genetic point of view.
The best way of ensuring that wealth and power do not fritter away or trickle down, over time, to the commoners is to create a system where only psychopaths are handed down fortunes. This can only realistically be done by ignoring genetic inheritance and identifying psychopaths by a selection process. That process could best be achieved by: 1) Using genetic tests and Robert Hare’s psychopath checklist and combining it with brain scans and other tests. But without actually knowing what a psychopath is and that they are genetically identifiable, you would have to 2) Create an economic system which functions as a pathocracy like we have today, where you can reach for the top of the hierarchy only if you act psychopathically. 3) If it was possible to get away with inheriting/steeling fortunes via war, you would do it that way instead seen as it would be quicker than having to work your way up the pathocratic system. My contention is that as history has unfolded – as wealth and power have become increasingly centralised because of the monopolisation of economic rents – our civilization has been moving between points 3 and 1 and currently I believe we are moving through from 2 into 1. Now a level has been reached where so much power is so concentrated, that the oligarchs may now be able to promote a science-based psychopath recruitment policy within their circles of power. In fact, the elite are already beginning that process and it may not be long before they start genetically engineering their own children so that they are of a pure psychopathic mindset also.
Perhaps the best answer to my query about the rich and their family lineages and traditions like those of the Rothschilds is to be found once more in the literature of Lobaczewski. His explanation of these intergenerational phenomena revolves around the subject of social hysteria and the ‘hysteroidal cycle’. “During ‘happy times’ of peace dependent upon social injustice, children of the privileged classes learn to repress from their field of consciousness the uncomfortable ideas suggesting that they and their parents are benefitting from injustice against others. Such young people learn to disqualify and disparage the moral and mental values of anyone whose work they are using to over-advantage. Young minds thus ingest habits of subconscious selection and substitution of data, which leads to hysterical adults who, by means of the ways adduced above, thereupon transmit their hysteria to the next generation, which then develops these characteristics to an even greater degree.” Here, the Royal family are a good example. The hysterical patterns are then spread downwards from the privileged classes into the mainstream and often taken advantage of by pathological individuals. And so, what are called royalists in Britain adopt the hysterical thought processes and promulgate it, whether wittingly or unwittingly, via such mediums as the Daily Mail newspaper, for example.
Occasionally, there are non-psychopathic elites who start to open their eyes to the real world and get out of the psychopathic mode of thinking they have been brought up in or sucked into. In Britain in 1936, Edward VIII became king and it became obvious to the power elite that he could be a threat. This was due to his political interference when he appeared to criticize the government of the day after touring depressed Welsh mining villages and simply saying that “something must be done” for the unemployed who were suffering there. His personal love-life was focused on by mainstream press more than most monarchs and there were all sorts of political wrangling to put pressure on Edward. Within a year he had abdicated and though Edward wasn’t any sort of radical, just the slightest whiff of a conscience by a person with power made him a marked man.
“Who says organization, says oligarchy.” – Robert Michels
We must be wary that, as German sociologist Robert Michels said, “Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy.” Looking at examples of revolution through history, it seems that the reign of anarchist societies have been short-lived only due to the powerful oligarchies opposing them. At the same time, positive changes in powerful institutions have often only been temporary and the systems of control have a habit of reappearing quickly. But checks and balances have often served to prevent the most extreme totalitarianism and psychopathy tests should be introduced as a key check on power, if done in a very democratic way – ideally by common juries.
A researcher on genocide and government mass murder, R.J Rummel of the University of Hawaii, developed the concept of democide – death by government. He estimates that 262 million innocent people have been murdered by government over the course of written history. “Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5 feet, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the 20th century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.” The conclusion Rummel comes to: “The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.” 
As an article from LewRockwell.com states, “Politics is exhausting. The effort to hold on to the comfortable belief that our leaders are not horrid people lasts for a while, but then that belief comes into direct conflict with the fact of the leaders doing something horrid. This is followed by propaganda which is followed by justification which is then followed by the belief that the horrid event was necessary and that the leaders are not really horrid people. This is the weary intellectual treadmill of modern politics.”
Psychopathy is not a subject that has only been studied by a handful of Western psychiatry and psychology researchers in small doses since the 40’s. It had simultaneously began being researched on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski, republished in 1998 at the fourth time of asking (two publications were dealt with by the Communist secret police in Poland and the third blocked by Zbigniew Brzezinski in America in the mid 1980’s), is probably the most informative authority on the subject of psychopathy and its effects on society at large. Ponerology is the study of the nature of evil and the book focuses on ‘the common factors that lead to the propogation of man’s inhumanity to man.’ Pathocracy then, Lobaczewski says, is the extreme tyrannical state of a government where practically all the controlling positions in society are occupied by psychopaths. The result is a totalitarian system characterized by a government turned against its own people. Sound familiar? That’s because every government could be described in this way. We might not refer to our governments as totalitarian and technically they aren’t. But as everyone should be well aware, governments will do what they can get away with. Governments have always, in the long run, tended to represent interests hostile to those of the commoners – the vast majority of the population. William Durrant says in The Story of Civilization, “It may be true that ‘you can’t fool all the people all the time,’ but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country.”
Though many have tried to emulate and further Lobaczewski’s work, and though his work was forbidden and marginalised on both sides of the Iron curtain, this work has made a great stride towards getting to the route of the world’s problems, which will remain until the majority of the population find out these truths. In the West, the study of psychopathy was first seriously struck upon by Hervey Cleckley in his book ‘The Mask of Sanity’ and later researched further by Dr Robert Hare, a Canadian criminal psychologist. Despite the popularization of the subject of psychopathy, there is still relatively little research on the subject, nor much said about the wider consequences of psychopathy, as Lobaczewski attempts to delve into.
Lobaczewski asserts that during ‘happy times’ (in really existing capitalist democracy, the boom part of the cycle) the tendency towards conversive thinking – the contagious psychological phenomena provoked by psychopaths and characteropaths – intensifies and once it reaches the point where people who can maintain their common sense and wish to maintain their ‘psychological hygiene’ are in the minority, the bust times are not far away. He describes a pathocracy as a societal disease phenomenon – as the phase of control emerging from the period of maximal intensification of societal hysteria. It is a phase of history where “the unhappy times become exceptionally cruel and enduring and their causes impossible to understand within the categories of natural human concepts.”
Be good to your friends, your contacts – networking. This seems to be the way to ‘get on in life’ as David Cameron would say – keeping the power close to home. But from an economic viewpoint, it’s not such a great plan. The job market is filled by people in positions they aren’t quite qualified for – ultimately bad for employers. People have taken jobs that they have been offered by contacts even though those aren’t the jobs most suited to them or that they enjoy. What they would enjoy and be best at is the job across the street, which has been taken by someone who got offered it by a contact. And so, round and round we go in a never ending spiral of decreasing efficiency, meaning decreased profits for employers and decreased happiness for employees. This is the prevailing motion of the UK (and probably western) job market. This is networking. And for all these negatives to stem from ‘love thy neighbour’, albeit with that sinister edge the word ‘networking’ so subtly supplies. There is nothing wrong in principle here, but when the number of people needing a job is higher than the number of jobs, these kinds of inefficiencies perpetuate themselves and play into some sort of negative economic feedback loop.
Cameron Murray and Paul Frijters, at the University of Queensland in Australia, led a rare controlled study to find out how modern day political corruption really functions, and the results would not be particularly surprising to most people other than those who reject the concept of conspiracy outright. The study focused purely on the political connections of property developers and these corruption networks end up costing the Australian taxpayers many billions every year. It was found that there are “revolving doors where property developers and the key political/bureaucratic positions are the same people, exchanging positions over time” Whilst you can buy your way into such networks, the researchers said political favours were less a result of visible acts like donations but rather a result of membership of “tight-knit groups that include key decision-makers and wherein everyone knows each other”. Lend Lease were one large company who even claim in their prospectus they “expect new favourable rezoning decisions in areas that are unlikely to be technically optimal”. This was “basically showing that these companies are confident they can get new favours from the current politicians that will come at the expense of the general population”.
The return on investment for a corporation which lobbies a government is enormous. According to the Centre for Public Integrity in the U.S., every dollar oil companies spend on political campaign contributions sees them win $59 in corporate subsidies, whilst every $1 pharmaceutical corporations spent on lobbying the Bush government over the rules of medical insurance saw them gain $775 in increased revenue. £93 billion a year is a very conservative estimate as to how much corporations in Britain receive in tax breaks and corporate subsidies according to research by the guardian newspaper. This is while austerity policies are being continued in Britain, justified by a national debt of over a Trillion pounds – which of course would take only a decade of corporate welfare to accumulate.
But often, corporations don’t need to lobby the government because they practically are the government. The ‘revolving door system’, along with other complex corruption networks, is all pervading in the globalised system to the point where it is not relevant to distinguish between corporations and states – there is total regulatory capture. It is better to consider these organisations and the people who inhabit the higher positions within them as one and the same – the state-corporate complex run by and for elites.
Balancing the books has never been the aim of elites. Power and control is what they are concerned with. The elites must get the balance right however since history shows that it is the most free societies that produce the most wealth. Striking this balance between wealth production and wealth control has never been easy for those at the top of the hierarchy. If you look at the history of the United States or perhaps my city of Birmingham, England, you may be able to interpret a pattern of peak and trough in terms of wealth production.
It starts with an unusual amount of freedom in some aspect amongst the commoners and so inordinate possibilities for creativity. In the case of the U.S. it was the economic freedom given by the general principles of classical liberalism, as represented by the founders, and the fact that people could keep on ‘going West’ to tap new resources. In the case of Birmingham, the lack of a strict trade guild combined with those same enlightenment ideas represented by the likes of the Lunar Society of Birmingham (Matthew Boulton, James Watt, Erasmus Darwin, Joseph Priestly, Josiah Wedgewood and others) opened up a city of entrepreneurs making everything under the sun – the city of a thousand trades. The creativity leads to enormous amounts of wealth being produced. It takes a while for elites to catch up with the progress of the commoners but they will soon do so by some covert or violent means and will erode that freedom on which the prosperity was founded. They find ways to parasitize the community’s large reserves of wealth and, like a frog in a saucepan of boiling water, the commoner’s standard of living begins to gradually drop. The great amount of wealth created by the commoners is now turned against them and so the economy experiences feast and then famine, or rather feast and then fascism, just like the brightest stars burn up the fastest. The psychopathic element is what usually makes elites overreach with this sort of power grab. We are seeing the hollowing out of the U.S.’s and its vassal’s economies and to keep people under control, the pathocratic system turns to ever more totalitarian methods of coercion – putting the lid on the saucepan, to continue the analogy. But totalitarian systems, horrible as they are, don’t last long.
So inevitable is the pattern of gradual degradation of societies’ laws under perpetual psychopathic government control, that you can be sure it is merely a matter of time before constitutions are erased or ignored. The elites are always poised to throw out any statutory guarantees of freedom and will act whenever there is no-one looking.
All human beings on the planet, who are part of civilization, live under and have always lived under this oppressive system – the government system that is. The truth is that oligarchy is an inevitable product of civilization. Civilization is, as the environmentalist Derek Jensen has said, a way of life characterized by cities. And a city is a collection of people living in numbers large enough to require the importation of resources. It can be argued over as to why this requirement means civilization is fundamentally unsustainable and in my eyes there are numerous, interacting reasons, but we can see from history that this is the case – civilizations always collapse in the end. But whilst civilization may have been an inevitable human development, this may have had as much to do with a parasitic subspecies as anything else.
We live in a pathocracy (some use the term cacocracy – rule by the worst) as appose to a meritocracy. That is a system where (minus inheritance, genius and monopoly) those whose behaviours are the most pathological, as long as those actions are within the law to begin with (and who makes the laws?), are the people most likely to achieve positions of importance and success. We should all know, simply through personal experience, that psychopaths make the world go round – albeit backwards. In fact, virtually every system in every country – and certainly any system that has lasted for a decent period of time – for the last 10,000 years has been a pathological oligarchy of some sort. Today’s state-corporate system is perhaps the most extreme form of oligarchy.
It seems highly unlikely that civilization through agricultural development was the creation of psychopaths since psychopathic individuals rarely become inventors or innovators, because they have little interest in creative subjects – their only interest is themselves. More likely would be that agriculture was a series of inventions tested by experimental, wealth-creating people in particular environments. What seems certain is that psychopaths have taken huge advantage of the hierarchy created by the agricultural system and consequently created much inequality and suffering and this, I believe, is more significant than the basic environmental arguments against agriculture.
It is not the power, notoriety or money that produces liars in politics, it is simply the fact that the type of person who is best be suited to success in politics is a person who finds it easy to compromise their own beliefs and judgement in order to remain popular – a liar. Since the commoners have long been divided into petty, unnecessary factions by political manipulation, politicians find it impossible to please everyone all of the time. The only way you could be popular to everyone would be to understand and reveal to the commoners the truth about how the world functions, as I am attempting in these pages. It must be pointed out that there is no such thing as left and right and that the commoners do have shared interests which can be achieved only through identifying the common enemy (the elite), understanding their shared interests, and working with nature and not against it to bring about a more fulfilling, democratic, decentralized economy. But any politician trying to point out those realities will get zero media coverage, zero acknowledgment for their ideas, sustained attacks on their character and possibly on their life, as the power elites will not allow this sort of truth to be widely understood amongst the commoners.
The majority of politicians then – and all successful ones – must, by definition, be either untruthful, immoral or ill-informed. If they didn’t fulfil any of these categories, they wouldn’t have been able to negotiate and compromise themselves in order to get up, or even on to the political ladder. Modern politicians seem more likely to become corrupt than the average person due to the compromising nature they used to get into their position of power, and so they are more likely to represent the interests of elites who have the spare capital to bribe them than represent the interests of the commoners.
It isn’t just the politicians – the pattern is the same throughout the hierarchies of civilization. The investigative journalist Seymour Hersh gave his opinion on newspaper propaganda and the workings of the media industry in an interview in the guardian and hit the nail on the head regarding the favourability of certain behavioral traits in modern society “I’ll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can’t control. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don’t get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say ‘I don’t care what you say’.”
Bureaucracies and hierarchies do not just promote the worst, but are also incredibly economically inefficient in all sorts of ways. The Peter Principle is the observed concept that, without even considering political agendas, in hierarchical employee structures the selection of a candidate for a higher position is based on the candidate’s performance in their current role, and not based on abilities relevant to the new role. So employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, yet do not get demoted from this position which they are not so good at and productivity decreases. So the phrase goes: “managers rise to the level of their incompetence.”
In hierarchies, and in the globalized economy in general, a process of compartmentalization is used by those at the very top to make sure those on the lower rungs feed information up but not across the pyramidical structure. It means only those sitting at the top understand the full workings of the organization or body-politic, and the further you go down the ladder, the more silo-ized you are. All the elites need to do is select and control the people one rung below them, and the organization is run entirely to their will. This is how all dictatorships work. Daniel Estulin, writer of The Bilderberg Club, calls it ‘systemic methodology.’ “You slice up the apple pie [the global economy] into smaller pieces and put in charge of each of these pieces your man or woman of trust, and by controlling this individual you control each entire organization. For example, take the World Bank run by Paul Wolfowitz. You don’t need to control what the dish washer or the toilet cleaner [at the World Bank] thinks or does or believes in, you just need to control what he [Wolfowitz] does and it will permeate through the entire organization, and that is how you can control the entire population of the globe from a very small power base.”
The great writer Aldous Huxley also concludes that constitutions and preventative laws cannot prevent the momentum of the forces of oligarchical consolidation (though he calls those forces overpopulation and over-organization). In 1959, he correctly predicts that “Under the relentless thrust of accelerating overpopulation and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms – elections, parliaments, supreme Courts and all the rest – will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial – but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.”
In Michael Albert’s book Parecon – Life After Capitalism his focus on job complexes suggests that cognitive dissonance is what enables normal people to endure hierarchies: “Hierarchical work leaves different imprints on personalities” and this obviously leads to more or less empowerment. “The reason hierarchical divisions of labour obstruct material equity is that the only way for those who are higher to see that those who are lower in the hierarchy deserve more pay would be to feel that those lower are sacrificing greatly due to their worse conditions and lesser empowerment. But if I am on top and actively agree that those below are suffering, then to retain self-respect I will have to wonder if I am unfair for being on top. The way for me to instead feel good about being above others is to tell myself that I belong above them and that they belong below. I arrive at the conclusion that those who are disempowered are suited only to obey. They are comfortable and properly utilized when they are being obedient. They would be fish out of water and make a mess of economic outcomes if they were forced to bear more responsibility. We who are on top are comfortable and properly utilized in our higher station despite our having to shoulder tremendous responsibilities.” It is true that “people’s confidence or self-doubts and their intelligence or ignorance are partly derived from the kind of economic activities they undertake daily” and this is amplified through the generations in our corporate society. Normal people generally accept it not through propaganda but through rationalisation. People of all classes, in other words, find it so hard to mentally cope with the truth, that they intentionally allow themselves to be convinced by the propaganda that says class divisions are natural. Nice guys do finish last in our society. As Albert puts it: “If you cannot abide hurting others or at least ignoring the hurt endured by others, in a competitive context, you are at a severe disadvantage when it comes to your own self-advancement.”
Similarly, in centrally planned economies, there is class division derived from unbalanced job complexes. Central planners co-ordinate economic activity and so are far more empowered and have access to far more information than workers, who are totally alienated. In centrally planned economies across the world, there is even less opportunity to move between classes, which creates a greater apathy amongst the masses than in ‘capitalist’ countries, which are far more adaptable and subtle in their exploitation.
Some have more influence on decision making than others just on account of the fact that they have more access to knowledge. In a system with unbalanced job complexes, true democracy is impossible since democracy is dependent on every person of decision making age being well informed and empowered. There are potentially other ways to balance job complexes than set out by in Parecon, but it essential for a future fair society to balance job complexes by some means.
Albert points out a passage from economist Sam Bowles: “As anthropologists have long stressed, how we regulate our exchanges and coordinate our disparate economic activities influences what kind of people we become.” This is certainly a factor, but there is not enough acceptance of pathological factors unrelated to prevailing economic ideology. Let us remember that the vast majority of people want to do good, to experience good things, think good thoughts, and make decisions with good results. That is true of people in a capitalist society, people in a communist society, people in a socialist society, people in an anarchist society, and people in an authoritarian society. Yes, normal people have de-humanized others, people have discriminated against minority out-groups, people have supported wars and had prejudices and even killed innocent people in the name of some false ideology. But these mindsets have been caused by pathological diseases, not always but often, instigated and manipulated by psychopaths and the fundamental family values and instinctive altruism of normal people have remained despite these pathological phenomena. Normal people in capitalist or communist societies have remained just as altruistic and socially co-operative as those in any utopian society would be, other than when dealing with the system and compromising their behaviour accordingly in order to survive. The major factor in shaping people’s behaviour, apart from drugs or other physical inducement, remains psychology which has been determined by both genetics and environment. Agriculture creates hierarchies, psychopathy entrenches them.
“When wealth is centralised the people are dispersed; when wealth is distributed the people are brought together.” – Confucius
What sorts of things then, must those at the top, whether pure or secondary psychopaths, landed gentry, brainwashed, bribed or threatened individuals, do to stay there and cement their positions? Because of the productive capacities of the commoners, wealth is continually produced at the base of the hierarchy in civilizations, in particular as populations grow and become increasingly productive. What the elite must do, is find ever more ways of siphoning off the wealth belonging to the commoners, meaning they can never stand still as the commoners continue to invent and produce wealth more efficiently – the elite must also be inventive by finding methods to centralize wealth just in order to maintain their power (taxes, resource cartels, communications monopolies and so on). And centralizing wealth and power means centralizing the political and economic spheres – known today as globalisation, but this has been going on for millennia. One promise all governments make is to decentralize, and no sooner have they got into power, they all go about the process of centralization instead. Tribes become nations, nations become states, states become continental unions, and if we let them go on, unions will become global – the one world government. Whenever there is an option to further centralize or prevent decentralization of money and power, you can be sure the elite will be for it. Whether it is a European Union, a North American Union, a referendum on union versus independence, worldwide trade deals, corporate mergers and expansion, central banks, currency unions or anything else that produces larger bureaucracies, corporations and governments, elites rely on the largest possible units of organisation to cement and expand their power. On average, the smaller the unit of independent government, the better life will be for the commoners and so the elite seek the opposite.
To give a taste of the elites views on geopolitical control in the form of the current North Atlantic Empire, here are two quotes from the elite political strategist and U.S. government advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard: “Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder [democracy] could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally.” “The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” And the Crisis of Democracy, a paper written by the elite-run Trilateral commission in 1975 states: “Some of the problems of governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy.”
Wikileaks has revealed a lot about the North-Atlantic Empire and its motives. But, just like Lance Armstrong and cycling fans, anyone who wanted to know already knew – or at least could assume. This was the reaction of the US Ambassador to Indonesia after the death, in 2008, of Indonesia’s mass murdering, embezzling, despotic President: “President Suharto led Indonesia for over 30 years, a period during which Indonesia achieved remarkable economic and social development. Though there may be some controversy over his legacy, President Suharto was a historic figure who left a lasting imprint on Indonesia and the region of Southeast Asia.” When Suharto died, wages in neighbouring Malaysia were around 6 times that of Indonesia despite the two countries having about the same economic platform at the start of Suharto’s reign. This translates as ‘Suharto was good for our corporations and therefore enabled the expansion of our hegemony.’
Since the population is largely unaware or unable to process the idea that a few self appointed psychopaths are in control of their lives, the reaction comes as a blind lashing out in many different directions, like opening many valves at once to release water from a container. If just one valve was opened and pointed in the right direction, the pressure would be great enough to dislodge the problem, but since before Caesar, divide and conquer is a long-known elitist technique for maintaining power. Crime is about the most poorly directed reaction. Differences between groups of the population are exaggerated and played with by the media and in education. There comes the manipulated development of factions and tensions between races, religions, residencies, sexual orientation, political views (even though practically all are invalid upon the realisation of the world’s workings), white collars, blue collars and sports fans. These tensions aren’t necessarily the goal of the globalists, but they are the natural result of the divide and conquer strategy and of course these divisions sometimes lead to a psychopaths wet dream of purging and killing off one group after another as once divided into tribalistic out-groups, people fail to defend each other, as laid out by the German pastor Martin Niemoller:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Putting ones-self in the shoes of a global elitist looking to suppress democracy at every turn, one would expect that imposing harsher conditions on people would make them more likely to fight back. It should do, according to the law of every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. And sure enough, if the general population ever do find out what is being done to them by the globalists, there will be a huge reaction – a revolution in fact. And that is why secrecy and distraction is an absolute necessity for the globalists.
The smoke and mirrors are the best defence the globalists have and because of that, people are fighting back at the wrong things. It turns out that, unless you impose conditions on the population which are basically life threatening (where people are backed so far into a corner, they see their attacker plain as day) people will fail to react to oppression in the necessary manner. Since the 1970’s at least, the globalists have understood that, as discussed in The Crisis of Democracy, people are actually more likely to go about creating positive change when their expectation levels are raised. It at first seems counter-intuitive. If people see hope and realise that more is possible, and so continually ask for more, as they realise it is indeed their birth-right, they tend to get more. It is not actually that huge a task to make the largest governments and corporations in the world back down and reverse in their tracks – it has very often been achieved by quite small (though crucially well directed) protest movements.
This is why the 1960’s and early 70’s were such an exciting time for the development of democracy and why the globalists hit on the neoliberal realisation that it is necessary to, in Noam Chomsky’s words, ‘keep the poor frightened.’ Imposing austerity and keeping the poorest parts of the world undeveloped is all about keeping the commoners frightened and without hope. If they should get so much as a glimmer of hope – another country escaping the clutches of the austerity doctrine – they may point and force their own country to follow suit. This is referred to as ‘the godfather principle’, ‘the threat of a good example’, the ‘mafia doctrine’ or the ‘domino effect.’ Essentially, the hegemonic power cannot allow one individual or nation to become independent and become a success or they might all follow the example. As was said in the Disney Pixar movie Antz: “You let one ant stand up to us, and they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life! It’s not about food. It’s about keeping those ants in line.”
Walter Lippman, the famed American public intellectual (elite propagandist), in a 1964 article in Newsweek, points out a common example of the kind of situation to which the elite feel they must act against to maintain their control: “The greatest threat presented by Castro’s Cuba is an example to other Latin American states which are beset by poverty, corruption, feudalism, and plutocratic exploitation… his influence on Latin America might be overwhelming and irresistible if, with Soviet help, he could establish in Cuba a Communist utopia.”
The ‘mafia doctrine’/‘godfather principle’/‘domino theory’/‘threat of a good example’, is a control method that the elites and their empires apply to cut out what they see as a contagion before it spreads. That contagion is of course democracy, and the documentary film The Power Principle explains this phenomenon well. The principle is usually infamously applied to foreign policy as with Washington’s treatment of Nicaragua, Grenada and so on but, as with the mafia reference, it can just as well be applied to citizens at home. As Noam Chomsky explains, “the godfather does not tolerate disobedience – it’s too dangerous. If some small storekeeper doesn’t pay protection money, the godfather may not care about the money but he does care about the refusal. So it is necessary to send his goons not to collect the money but principally to make an example.” This is the only way to prevent others from following suit. Empires have long used this tactic as a key tool in their military strategy – essentially just making an example of anyone who steps out of line. Chomsky cites the example of Grenada, the ‘nutmeg capital’ of the world. As an insignificant little island with a population of around 100,000, it was important for the North-Atlantic empire to invade and execute the revolutionary president Maurice Bishop as an example to the rest of the world that nobody steps out of line.
In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crash of 2008, the globalists were quick to suppress any information of what started to happen in Iceland over the course of the next year. Iceland is by no means a breakaway revolutionary democracy now, but just as Europe and the U.S. were gearing up to hand taxpayers money over to the banks to ‘save the economy’, it was vital to the globalists that the rest of the world were not to see the Icelandic people forcing their government to let the criminal banks fail. This time they managed to keep the information suppressed through their almost total control of the mainstream media, but had they been slow off the mark in the realm of global communications, or were Iceland a larger country with a louder voice on the world stage, the austerity agenda which continues today may never have been allowed by the people.
Similarly, the elites had to amass all their political and economic muscle in order to stop Greece from adhering to the calls of the Greek people for an end to austerity and probably an exit from the Eurozone single currency. As former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis put it, those European Central Bankers sent to negotiate with Greece’s radical Syriza party were not actually interested in negotiating at all. They were not discussing economics, but enforcing their laws as financial terrorists, saying to Varoufakis: “You’re right in what you’re saying, but we’re going to crunch you anyway.” Had Greece gone, the dominos would have been set in motion – Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the rest – and the elite would have lost a huge amount of their power very quickly. It was absolutely crucial for them to do whatever it took – bribery, threats, who knows what – to force the Greek government into submission, not because of Greece alone, but because of the domino effect.
Monetary control is now the new form of imperialism. Rather than sending troops to slaughter those who wish to depart from the godfather’s rule, the elites now send in their financial lawyer goons from the IMF, World Bank, central banks and currency unions who threaten revolting countries with financial ruin – financial terrorism as appose to military terrorism. Since it is a measure of exchanging wealth it is not surprising that elites, who rely on stealing and monopolizing the wealth of the commoners for their existence, see money as the most important tool of control and maneuver. A cartel of elite owned and controlled central banks control monetary policy the world over today – the ultimate in regulatory capture. Money is clearly something which should be in common ownership and common control since it only has value when all the commoners agree to denote a value to it, but this never has been the case and the difficulty has always been that reliably gaining democratic control of such an important tool is almost impossible in the oligarchic structure of large units of organization.
If you wish to better understand some of the manipulations that go on in regards to money, the Positive Money website is a useful resource and the history of Greenbacks in the U.S. and the Bradbury pound in the U.K. is very interesting, as is the current trend towards local and digital currencies. The documentary films 97% owned and Bill Still’s The Secrets of Oz and are essential viewing and books such as The Creature From Jekyll Island by G.Edward Griffin and David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years are fascinating too. I am not going to go into the subject of money manipulation as that would require a whole library and I wouldn’t know where to start. And that is really the point. If nobody understands how money works, can it possibly be benefitting the common person? The important thing to know is that money is something which is only needed in an already unsustainable economic system – a civilization. And the unaccountability and opaqueness of those who control monetary policy in the central banking institutions confirms the corrupt nature of our monetary system. Not only is centralized monetary policy corrupt, it is also inefficient and unsustainable in the same way the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union was. A few elite academics meeting in a central bank can never fully understand the idiosyncratic trade needs of millions of people interacting over a whole nation, regardless of their intentions. The only direction we should be heading in with regard to monetary policy is towards debt-free money and localized and democratic control of printing, currencies and regulations.
I covered in the last chapter why mass production doesn’t work when it comes to food production. Like it or not, you must work with nature’s ecosystems to produce food and nature doesn’t do mass production. The only reason industrial agriculture exists is because of the huge surpluses – which translates into monetary profit/capital. Agribusiness does not consider the true cost of externalities (like pollution or community disruption) because they bribe or threaten authority officials in key positions with a small part of their surplus in order to essentially turn the blind eye. The average person could never get these favourable deals since they haven’t access to the sort of capital to use for bribery and lobbying. Neither do agribusinesses much consider the sustainability of their production (what I would call the hollowed-out middle – the production process itself). The land used by agribusiness is exactly that – used and abused – not worked with. Once an agribusiness has drained the soil of one former rainforest plot for cattle-ranching for a couple of years, they move onto another. Do they have to pay for the true cost of the pollution? No. Do they even have to pay for the true cost of the land itself? No, instead they again use their capital to bribe, lobby or coerce to be able to buy up land at a fraction of its true value. And they are also in league with the agendas of the North-Atlantic Empire’s military arm, which provides protection in return for a ‘we’re feeding people’ facade to conquer more land and thereby people.
But when it comes to inert objects and materials – be it iron ore or plastic polymers – mass production through the use of labour saving methods and machinery can be slightly different. Again, huge surpluses are produced and some of it is used for political manoeuvre. Again, externalities are not considered – like with food, mass production of material goods also produces more waste per item of produce. But the production process in the middle is another matter. We are not now dealing with life, with the biosphere; with an ecosystem with its own rules and regulations that must be adhered to if it is to be sustainable. We are dealing with an inert process – no new and unpaid for land needs to be conquered. The labourers and machinery which make up the production process will remain, or be easily replaced when necessary, and are regularly improved upon to increase efficiency. With inert material production, the middle is not necessarily hollowed out, though with some of the most psychopathic corporations it often is through pure greed and short-termism. However, the production process should not last forever because of the very fact that the material goods are inert and should have a lengthy lifespan. At some point, supply should catch up with demand and when it does a whole new production process must be created with capital investment in new machinery and labourers to create a new product – and usually another company will get there first. The material production process then, is not fundamentally sustainable either – but it is limited by consumer demand rather than by nature’s laws. But whilst nature’s laws cannot be changed, consumer demand very much can be.
Consumerism, like everything in neo-classical economics, is not simply an automatic product of capitalism as many anti-capitalists would like to believe, but something which has been manufactured (sometimes coincidentally, often conspiratorially) by elites. Consumer Engineering: A new technique for prosperity, a book written by advertising executives, stated that: “Goods fall into two classes: those that we use, such as motor cars or safety razors, and those that we use up, such as toothpaste or soda biscuits. Consumer engineering must see to it that we use up the kind of goods we now merely use.” So consumerism and the tendency for manufactured goods to have less and less longevity (built-in obsolescence) is indeed a development purposefully engineered by industrialists to increase their profits (not to increase economic efficiency), whilst simultaneously irresponsibly consuming the Earth’s natural resources and with no payment for pollution (an externality). The mass production techniques favoured by corporations are often thought of as efficient, even by those who protest against those corporations. But the reality is that on a level playing field where one side hasn’t monopolised resources and channels of communication, small scale production will outcompete economies of scale over the long haul because of their more efficient methods and better understanding of local markets. As Ibn Khaldun put it, “businesses owned by responsible and organized merchants shall eventually surpass those owned by wealthy rulers.”
Centralization and agriculture are inextricably linked and whatever else goes on in the economy, the most regular and important – in fact along with shelter, the only important – part of economic life is the production of food – 7 billion people need 3 meals a day – and the globalists worked out in the 20th century that a great method of further centralizing their power was to gain more control of food production. This enables both the control of people and the control of land. Agriculture centralizes surplus thereby centralizing power, but it depends how large your fields are as too how much surplus you produce. So when the globalists hit upon controlling the world’s food supply, they meant doing it through extreme industrial-scale monocultures – so the landgrabbing, people-poisoning agribusiness industry was born. James Siggs, from agribusiness firm Feronia, admitted at an investment conference in 2011 that “Exclusively industrial-scale farming displaces and alienates people, creates few jobs and causes social disruption.”
According to Fred Pearce, “buying wilderness is increasingly popular among the green-minded super rich.” These ‘neo-greens’ (though perhaps it would be best to throw the ‘green’ label in the trash for good since it has had its meaning warped by these leeches in little more than three decades) are so concerned about the fate of the planet that they assert there are too many humans on it whilst at the same time buying up hundreds of thousands of hectares of said planet in order to exclude humans from it.
Ted Turner, founder of CNN is one land grabbing nature enthusiast whose almost 2 million hectare portfolio in the US includes a home for 50,000 bison in Montana and Nebraska. He also offers $12,000 a-week Elk hunting safaris in New Mexico. Conservation groups are often donated land from wealthy benefactors – like the bankster Henry ‘Hank’ Paulson’s 260,000 hectares of Chilean forest donation to the Wildlife Conservation Society in 2004. Some conservation groups, like Conservation International are nothing more than glorified PR companies, servicing rich landowners and agribusiness, but even the legitimate, well intentioned ones are providing the world with an excuse not to care about the plight of fellow humans more than providing sanctuaries for nature.
It had never crossed my mind before that there was much about environmentalism that psychopaths could latch on to, but quite the contrary. Though psychopaths will latch on to any movement, warp its meaning and toxify it, environmentalism, particularly the wildlife friendly side, appears to have been turned about ship particularly swiftly. Though this ‘warping speed’ is largely influenced by the rate of background socio-cultural evolution, which continues to increase in speed (explaining the 300 plus year warping speed of Christianity compared to the mere 50 year warping speed of communism) it feels obvious now that environmentalism is very warpable indeed.
Modern global green environmentalism as a movement, has a lot of aspects which could attract a psychopath to it. It is largely atheistic, meaning morality is easily cast aside. It is very militant, meaning violence is often seen as justified. It can be rather hard-line and fundamentalist. It also likes to tell humans that they must make sacrifices in order to save the planet, therefore inducing a sense of hopelessness and stifling creativity and freedom of expression, as well as potentially providing enslavement, genocide and indebting opportunities for the psychopaths. Being on the side of nature as appose to on the side of humans (as if there are sides) can be particularly attractive to psychopaths, as Richard Dawkins realised after publishing The Selfish Gene. The book was seen by fascists and free market extremists as providing a justification for a cutthroat competitive world in which they saw themselves thriving. And at the most extreme fundamentalist end of the neo-green spectrum, there is the all too familiar subject of eugenics – this is the preserve of the Malthusian elite globalists.
National parks are not natural or pristine but artificial creations. The Serengeti saw conservationists, from prince Edward VIII before the war to David Attenborough today, laud over its ‘untouched wilderness.’ Bernhard Grzimek, director of Frankfurt Zoo between 1945 and 1974, and his son Michael, produced the book and Oscar winning film Serengeti Shall Not Die, which was used as a major propaganda device for the colonial British to evict the Maasai in the creation of an expanded Serengeti National Park in 1959. They claimed that “A national park must remain a piece of primordial wilderness to be effective. No men, not even native ones should live inside its borders.” The film of course pitched the apparent evilness of man against the apparent goodness of beast without ever acknowledging that humans are part of nature. The irony was that at the same time, the Leakey family were turning up fossils of ancient man in Olduvai gorge just down the road from the Serengeti. It turned out that hominids had been part of and been shaping East African environments for more than 4 million years.
Local pastoralists in East Africa have traditionally burned grasses to kill insects and generate fresh growth for their animals – both domestic and wild. A colonial cattle virus, rhinderpest, swept through Africa in the late 19th century causing mass starvation, and so just as had happened in the America’s, the colonialists conveniently found themselves presented with a ‘primordial wilderness’ – or alternatively overgrown pastoral land – to do with what they pleased. Theodore Roosevelt’s safari in 1909 opened Africa up to wealthy Western prize hunters, decimating animal populations whilst at the same time excluding local subsistence hunters. Gradually, guns gave way to cameras and cameras brought home the savagery of this prize hunting to Westerners. So over time, psychopathic thinking turned from killing animals to, at the very least excluding, humans.
Local British colonial administrators had warned the out of touch elite conservationists in London that excluding people would simply create more tension and eventually the wildlife itself would suffer from the rebound via illegal poaching. Tanzania’s first president after independence, Julius Nyerere, made the compromise that tourism’s economic potential would enable them to keep the Serengeti and so created more reserves. Though tourism is ultimately not of any real economic use, there is nothing morally wrong with humans deciding that areas should be cordoned off for nature, but it must be a mutual and directly democratic decision with no unnecessary human suffering caused, and with some powers of veto going to local people. The problem is, particularly in places like East Africa, climactic regimes change and with them nature must shift its ecological boundaries, leaving human ideas of land separation looking stupid. 
Lord Rothschild, in line with his family’s tradition, is playing the environmental movement against the agribusiness capitalists, covertly investing in both, and raking in two sets of profits. He continues to invest in big agribusiness like his Agrifirma corporation, whilst reaping the rewards from his Carbon Emissions Taxation Scheme along with Al Gore. Whilst the ETS is asking westerners to give money to protect the Brazilian rainforests, Agrimfirma buys up chunks of the adjacent Brazilian cerrado, – a hugely biologically diverse area of savannah grassland and dry woods – further displaces its former inhabitants, and then plants nutritionally deficient GMO crops for export in order to overcharge the poor of the world through their monopoly markets.
Agribusiness is perhaps the best example of the rich taking directly the wealth of the poor. As Karmjeet Sekhon, an Indian agribusinessman buying up swathes of Gambella province in Western Ethiopia, says: “The soil is excellent. It is virgin land. You can grow anything here; the climate is ideal. We have no land like this in India. There we are lucky to get 1 per cent of organic matter in the soil. Here it is more than 5 per cent. We don’t even need fertilizer.” Of course the ‘virgin’ land he speaks of is anything but. Is it really likely that in a world of 7 billion people, large areas of extremely fertile land near the cradle of humanity, with an ideal climate just off a major tributary of the longest river in the world is not being put to use by humans? In Anuak culture, the land is a supermarket and it is all owned. The only land that could be confused as virgin is land that has been left to lay fallow so as to allow a build up nutrients. The quality of soil in Gambella is the result of the Anuak people working with nature so as to create sustainable and productive land that fulfils their needs.
And the wealth tied up in the soil which the local people have generated is now being utilised by the rich agribusinesses. That, by anyone’s definition, other than that of a psychopath, is stealing. And to steal from people in broad daylight, you of course have to use force. Contracts drawn up between large Indian and Saudi agribusiness firms and the Ethiopian government state quite clearly that the Ethiopian government has taken responsibility for ensuring the “lesee shall enjoy peaceful and trouble-free possession of the premises [with] adequate security free of cost.” This has resulted in not only relocations and the inducement of poverty but massacres too – and this in a country which has suffered from and will likely suffer more from mass famine due to these practices.
In his legendary book The Fat of The Land, John Seymour puts it: “The big landowner – the large scale agri-businessman – doesn’t care about a high production of food per acre. What he is interested in is profit, and he can achieve this by specialization (always the enemy of good husbandry), mechanization, and the lavish use of chemicals. His chief expense will always be labour – and labour he must cut out at any cost. There is a man I know of who farms ten thousand acres with three men (and the use of some contractors). Of course his production per acre is very low and his consumption of imported fertilizer very high. He burns all his straw, puts no humus on the land (he boasts there isn’t a four-footed animal on it – but I have seen a hare) and he knows perfectly well his land will suffer in the end. He doesn’t care – it will see him out. He is already a millionaire several times over. He is the prime example of that darling of the agricultural economist – the successful agri-businessman.” “Cut that land (exhausted as it is) up into a thousand plots of ten acres each, give each plot to a family trained to use it, and within ten years the production coming from it would be enormous.”
We must be aware that the potential conversion to renewable sources of energy is not any kind of guarantee of equality on Earth. Some forms and designs of renewable energy technologies lend themselves to decentralized power generation and these appropriate technologies are the ones we must endeavour to use. If the predicted effects of climate change are avoided by the swift conversion to certain elite-preferred renewable energy sources within the oligarchic system, humanity will likely still be subject to plentiful suffering. Renewable energies can be just as, if not more, profitable than fossil fuels. This is rapidly becoming understood by the corporate world and ‘green businesses’ are lobbying harder and harder for the sorts of subsidies that governments give fossil fuel extractors. Whilst it seems for the moment that renewable energy industries are likely to provide more jobs per pound of profit than fossil fuel industries and therefore distribute wealth more evenly, there is no doubt enormous potential, being realised further every day, for renewable energies to be monopolised. Nuclear fusion is most certainly included in that if it can ever be realised, though perhaps even the most dumbed down of publics will realise that this technology is too important to allow it being monopolised. History shows us that an oligarchic system can never resist the exploitation of known and available resources. Anything supported by even a few sectors of big business should raise suspicions and the move of renewable energies into the mainstream is tolerated not because there are people campaigning for it, but because there are corporations campaigning for it.
The theory that we may be ok if big businesses somehow come together in an incense-filled room, to agree that destroying the atmosphere is bad for business, is quite fanciful to anyone who understands the fundamentals of power, surplus and the corporatist system. They might well come together to decide this and wholeheartedly agree. But they will all return to their offices the next day to realise they must make a profit tomorrow, not in 20 years time. If they don’t focus on profit, they are out and someone comes in who does. And they will realise that it is still economically viable for their company to continue drilling for oil. In the corporatist system, conversion to renewable energy will not be a conversion at all. It will be an addition – a new source of monopolised profit for larger corporations. If it is there to be plundered, you can be sure elites will plunder it.
Perhaps there is the potential, in a certain form of state-corporatism represented by the Bilderberg group and Trilateral Commission, to come to some sort of business agreement to limit fossil fuel extraction should opposing businesses grow strong enough. If the renewable energies lobby reached a critical mass, as is the suggested trend in the UK’s dailymail newspaper, you would see a shift in energy policy. No doubt Al Gore’s presidential campaign was backed by these new money factions. Bill Gates is one such Bilderberger who is pushing for renewables around the world though he and other ‘liberal’ elites, many of whom talk in mysterious and frightening ways about depopulation and geo-engineering, are still being largely drowned out by factions such as the Koch Brothers, Monsanto and the fossil fuel industries. But supposing the neoliberal elites drown out the neoconservative elites sometime soon and begin to ‘tackle climate change’ (these are not enemies by the way, more like two thieves breaking into your shop – one wanting to break into the cash till first and one wanting to break into the safe first). In that situation, renewable energies would merely replace fossil fuels in their ability to centralize wealth and subject people to suffering in exactly the same way as all surplus creating resources have done throughout history.
And if the Earth’s climate and our existence within it is to be saved by the renewable energy industry, our liberty will most certainly not be. In fact, democracy would continue to be degraded if the governments and corporatists can climb on a perceived moral high ground and tell the population that they owe them big time. This ‘climate change excused oppression’ is perhaps the threat perceived by the American libertarians, and it is a genuine threat. Over time, there would also be significant negative environmental impacts associated with putting up tens of thousands of solar and wind farms around the world. On these industrial scales, natural processes – global wind patterns, habitats, ecosystems, water cycles etc – are always going to be effected.
However much we consider climate change a threat, it is not a good idea to suggest pathocratic governments and corporations should play a part in the solutions. Conveniently, as I see it, climate change is not a primary threat – if it is a threat, then it is a secondary or tertiary one and if I had more belief in humanities organisational abilities, I might even consider it an opportunity. When I say it is a tertiary threat, I mean that that it can be solved only by solving the underlying fundamentals which lead to that situation in the first place – the economy. Georgism, decentralization, localization, permaculture and planting trees are all motherhood and apple pie stuff, and conveniently these solutions are multipurpose and grassroots, whether you want to tackle climate change, inequality, corruption, pollution, elite control or any and all of the problems our world faces. And Bill Gates is not acting to decentralize the economy is he?
“The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all of the taxes and does all of the work. And the Poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class!” – George Carlin
Propaganda has existed since language has existed and has always been used by elites to control the masses who greatly outnumber them but in the 20th century, as the cities of the world grew exponentially, the propaganda used to control those populations had to advance exponentially. This history is best covered by Adam Curtis’ film series The Century Of the Self and Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent. They summarize: “The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” The star of the story and perhaps the most influential individual of the 20th century, is Edward Bernays, the amoral nephew of Sigmund Freud and posthumously known as the ‘father of public relations’ (public relations being a term of his own making to replace the word propaganda, which had a bad reputation after the second world war). Bernays worked as a consultant to both the largest corporations and U.S. government and pioneered modern state propaganda, mainstream media and corporate marketing techniques.  Propaganda doesn’t appear to have any limits though its importance to elite interests means that the public relations industry has had to grow at an increasing rate. It grew 11% in 2014 and 12.5% in 2013, perhaps reflecting the greater need for public mind control in recent years of austerity-neo-liberalism. It is said that during the fall of a great empire, sportspeople, chefs and celebrities become excessively rich and famous. This is all due to the shallow diversion and distraction palliatives offered to the masses by the political elite to appease their growing irritation with the struggling economy – ‘bread and circuses’ is the usual phrase. The only way to reliably counter the disastrous effects of propaganda is to be informed of its existence and be aware that all the information you receive comes to you with an agenda.
If you believe Chomsky’s maxim that propaganda is to a Western parliamentary ‘democracy’ what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state, you are assuming that the difference here is that one is physical and one mental. Therefore, the way the media operates is the mental equivalent of the physical crimes of the Nazi’s. This is not remotely controversial when you consider that the media takes its advice directly from the ideology of Adolf Hitler. And indeed, Edward Bernays was the inspiration for the evil wisdom of Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of Propaganda, whose quotes are very instructive: “It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be moulded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”“The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.”“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” “That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.” And Hitler himself was no stranger: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” The mainstream media in the West today – the equivalent of the Ministry of Propoganda – have abided by the Nazi’s techniques and honed them much further. The former BBC political editor Nick Robinson describes his so-called profession of journalism thus: “It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking… That is all someone in my sort of job can do.” Questioning them was out of the question.  As Chomsky says, “The basic principle, rarely violated, is that what conflicts with the requirements of power and privilege does not exist.” 
Having honed their skills over the years as colonial masters the world over, the British establishment are still the most advanced in the world when it comes to propaganda and it has recently been rated as number one nation in the world for soft power in Monocle magazine. A declassified 2012 Ministry of Defence think tank document talks about the need to sell wars to the British public. The study recommends the armed forces should have “a clear and constant information campaign in order to influence the major areas of press and public opinion”. It stresses the need to “reduce the profile of the repatriation ceremonies” and “reduce public sensitivity to the penalties inherent in military operations.” The report adds: “The public have become better informed and our opponents more sophisticated in the exploitation of the sources of information with the net result that convincing the nation of the need to run military risks has become more difficult but no less essential.” The apparent separation of analysis by think tanks and universities and decision making by estranged government departments – much like the apparent separation between insider corporate contractors and government – is a common modern tactic by the state-corporate complex to persuade the public that responsibility for wrongdoing can be shared out amongst these ‘different’ entities – all of them representing the same interests.
As far as war is concerned, it is obvious to every homo sapien on the planet that the only justification is self defence. What exactly self defence means depends on the situation and circumstances. But I believe with war, unlike some other subjects, every single one of us has the innate common sense to weigh up those circumstances and logically conclude what self defence may consist of. The psychopaths therefore find it hard to predict public opinion on matters of war and continually make misjudgements.
Engineering an informed public to favour going into war is difficult because it is so fundamentally illogical, so all democratic means must be avoided whilst a propaganda offensive takes place and the public are dumbed down. The propaganda will hit many snags as whistle-blowing is inevitable during this period. The homo insapiens know they must tell some bare-faces lies and manipulate information to the highest degree possible since going to war is essential to their imperialist strategy. As Lobaczewski points out, once the homo sapiens wake up to the reality that wars are provoked, partaken in and favoured only by elites, and that the aims of war are to satisfy the interests of only the elites, all homo sapiens will refuse to partake at any level.
George Carlin talks of the evolution of war propaganda to try to dissuade from the effects of war on the home population. He points out that men came home to the United States with ‘shellshock’ from the First World War, ‘battle fatigue’ from the Second World War, ‘operational exhaustion’ from the Korean War, and most recently they come home with ‘post-traumatic stress disorder.’ The externalities of war have always been huge but changing the language makes people think that this is some sort of new, unforeseen and unexpected phenomenon.
Hermann Goering said it best: “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England; nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
The people of the empire are aware enough of crimes in foreign lands – they know the numbers of children who died in Iraq due to intervention; they know that corporations whose products they buy use some of the harshest forms of slave labour in East Asia – but unfortunately, it is far enough away that they are capable of ignoring it. Not because they want to, but because thinking too deeply about it is psychologically damaging for them-selves whilst they try to survive and protect their own interests in their own lives.
Psycholgist Bruce Levine identifies the numerous propaganda methods used to control young Americans so that they fail to fight for their rights or stand up against the elite control grid despite the fact that most young people in the West are well aware they have a future of feudalism to look forward to if they don’t fight back. Student loans and indebtedness create fear and submissiveness despite, like all debt, being imaginary and fraudulent. The false categorisation of young people as having various made-up psychological disorders enables the prescription of harmful and tranquilising anti-psychotic drugs as well as serving to divide and conquer. The objective of schooling is to school and indoctrinate, not to truly educate young people. School makes young people compliant and submissive to authority. As the author John Taylor Gatto said, after receiving the New York City Teacher of the Year Award on January 31, 1990, “The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions.” Widely marketed standardizing schemes such as ‘No child left behind’ are dressed in fluffy propaganda whilst serving to re-enforce hierarchies and top-down control. The shaming and out-grouping of people who, like Mark Twain, see school as irrelevant to their educational needs serves to inculcate a peer pressure which increases the amount of youngsters in state-corporate education, thereby dumbing down more people. The normalization of surveillance from a young age obviously instills fear and submission to authority whilst television and other mainstream media hypnotizes and indoctrinates people. Religion and consumer culture keeps people’s minds busy and distracted as do sports and celebrity culture. Other more physical control methods such as the poisoning food-industrial complex and the enslaving prison-industrial complex play a major part too, but propaganda is the key to elite control.
The scientific community generally identify themselves as left-leaning liberals – descendents of the philosophy of the likes of John Stuart Mill. And like those liberal public intellectuals of the past, they do not truly believe democracy to be workable in practice. The liberal, educated classes correctly believe the working classes to be uninformed but incorrectly believe themselves to be fully informed. They correctly believe themselves to be better off by being uninterested in trivial mass entertainment but incorrectly assume that there are no agendas and dogmas in scientific literature, broadsheet newspapers, public broadcasters or other intellectual information. It stands to reason that the longer you have been in government controlled education (and that includes any government controlled information streams such as the mainstream media) the more propagandised and brainwashed you will be. And if you feel you are superior to others in some way, that only solidifies the indoctrination. In fact, the lingering liberal assumption that democracy doesn’t work because ‘the masses don’t know what’s best for them’ is one of many propaganda doctrines controlling those educated classes and dividing them from the blue collar classes, when in fact they both belong to the same class – the commoners. In general, 80% of the commoners are distracted by sports, consumerism and tabloid showbiz while 20% (possibly more by now after the increased rate of higher education) are misinformed by more intellectual doctrines and propaganda.
Propaganda is the transformer through which money can pass in order to change mass opinion. There is a formula to it; put so much money in and you can change opinion by such a degree. The opinion can be measured on a scale of democracy. This formula won’t be a linear one. It must take into account a number of factors but it can be assumed that there is a levelling out of the curve once a certain amount of spending is exceeded. This is because when the spending is very high, the surplus must be very high, power must be very unevenly spread and so there is likely to be a very high level of suppression. Human instinct takes over once one is subjected to a certain level of suppression and opinion begins to shift back towards the side of democracy. At this point, there are many options for propaganda spenders to consider: they can stop spending all together or they can dramatically increase spending, focusing particularly on education, along with funding physical control of the population. I am not going to attempt to draw up a formula as I am not a mathematician and it would no doubt be pretty difficult to get figures on propaganda spending and to measure democracy, but it is safe to assume that where force is not used for suppression, there is a very clear correlation between increasing propaganda spending and decreasing democracy. This is not because propaganda and suppression are fundamentally related, but spending power and suppression most certainly are. In 1892, the United States Bankers magazine stated “We must keep the people busy with political antagonisms. ‘We’ll therefore speed up the question of reform (of tariffs) within the Democratic Party; and we’ll put the spotlight on the question of protection …(for) the Republican Party. “By dividing the electorate this way, we’ll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever.”
Lobaczewski talks of a sort of coded news language between psychopaths which passes by normal people. They hear “that’s the place for us, we now have a homeland where our dreams about ruling those ‘others’ can come true.” This is referred to in the context of the promotion of “American style” economic and cultural systems all around the world since the neoliberal globalisation agenda developed in the 70’s. Perhaps this coded news language was what David Cameron used in his speech at the Conservative party conference in 2013, where he said that ‘profit’ was not a dirty word. In the context of a functioning free market system profit is not necessarily a dirty word, but greed is, and greed not profit, is what he was really referring to. And since we don’t live in a functioning system of any sort, the code for the psychopathic backers of the British political parties was meant so that for ‘profit is not a dirty word’, they were to hear ‘carry on being as greedy and deviant as you have been’ whereas normal people still hear ‘profit is not a dirty word’ and don’t feel too disturbed by this kind of speech.
Propaganda is obviously the first tool used by a pathocracy to eliminate social tension, but Lobaczewski comes up with much the same conclusions regarding the Soviet bloc pathocracy’s methods as political activists in the West do today regarding their own empire. “Whenever a society contains serious social problems, there will also be some group of sensible people striving to improve the social situation by means of energetic reforms, so as to eliminate the cause of social tension. Others consider it their duty to bring about a moral rejuvenation of society. Elimination of social injustice and reconstruction of the country’s morals and civilisation [civilised nature] could deprive a pathocracy of any chance to take over. Such reformers and moralists must therefore be consistently neutralized by means of liberal or conservative positions and appropriately suggestive catchwords and paramoralisms; if necessary, the best among them has to be murdered.” There is also the means of simply blocking off those reformers from standing on any platform, which Lobaczewski missed, but assassinations and their frequency are something to be looked out for, since they suggest a shift in strategy amongst the pathocrats.
Though evidence either way is hard to come by, and numbers hard to gauge over time, the feeling is that the Empire is beginning to increasingly favour physical intimidation and assassination – though favouring it does not necessarily mean it can get away with it more often. The thought occurred to me when accusations of such intimidation and assassination began appearing in fairly mainstream media, such as Glenn Greenwalds BBC-aired revelations regarding seizures at the Guardian headquarters in London by MI5 or reports of Michael Hastings death. An increase in the frequency of these sorts of establishment cover up failures perhaps points to part of the phenomena eluded to by Lobaczewski, whereby at a certain phase in the timeline of a pathocracy, individuals with obvious extreme pathological traits and lacking in talent and intelligence, may come to the fore and make errors of judgement which become rather difficult to brush under the carpet.  
Lobaczewski talks about the threat that the study of psychology and psychiatry, and the spread of that information poses to a pathocratic state. And it competes only with the subject of permaculture as the most serious threat for the psychopaths in charge. Lobaczewski tries to piece together the possible results were a country under pathocratic rule somehow allowed to freely develop the sciences of psychiatry and psychology, with a focus on ponerological studies. Were this knowledge allowed to develop, he says, it would quickly flourish and be transmitted through the population. It would be a great protective shield against propaganda and political doctrines at home and abroad (because we are assuming the pathocratic state to be imperial and hugely influential in shaping world opinion). He says that this new consciousness would become popularized amongst all the countries under Imperial control, creating solidarity between them and furnishing people with new measures of self defence.
To what extent it is possible to suppress the subject of ponerology is difficult to say and will depend on the level of tyrannical development our current empire takes but we can at least be sure that the cat is out of the bag. Because ponerology is not something we can be instinctively aware of, one word or phrase or titbit of information is not quite enough for people to latch on to the subject. Curiosity however, is a human instinct, and the more tyrannical our governments become, the more people will look for that cat as they observe more evidence of its existence. Suppression of the subject of ponerology cannot be compared to the suppression of any other subject since psychopathy is the root of our problems as a species and mass awareness of this information has no historical precedent. Individuals are aware of this information though and, speaking for myself, the revelation of this subject hit me in a different way to any other subject. Incorporating knowledge of psychopathy into one’s common sense view of the world will cause one to make better everyday and political decisions. However, when a critical mass of individuals awakens to this knowledge they will, as Lobaczewski predicts, come together to defeat the hierarchy, simultaneously understanding that they are all the same and it is only the psychopaths who are different.
At a Whitehouse press conference on the issue of Edward Snowden’s status in Sheremetyevo airport, Whitehouse spokesperson Jen Psaki said the Russians had upset Washington by allowing Snowden a press conference at the Moscow airport, ironically calling it a ‘propaganda platform.’ The assorted media were quite visibly gobsmacked by the hypocrisy, not to mention Psaki’s own smirking expression for the rest of the conference. The lapdogs were clearly too frightened to point out the elephant in the room but they continued to refer to ‘this propaganda platform as you call it’ and the smirk on Psaki’s face became more and more prominent.
In The Mask of Sanity Hervey Cleckley describes the psychopath’s attitude to communication: “His awareness of hypocrisy’s opposite is so insubstantially theoretical that it becomes questionable if what we chiefly mean by hypocrisy should be attributed to him. Having no major value himself, can he be said to realize adequately the nature and quality of the outrages his conduct inflicts upon others? Can a person experience the deeper levels of sorrow without considerable knowledge of happiness? Can he achieve evil intention in the full sense without real awareness of evil’s opposite? I have no final answer to these questions.”
So with some insight from Cleckley of the psychopaths relationship, or lack thereof, with hypocrisy and irony, it seems very likely, if I read Psaki’s face correctly that she and probably many others in the propaganda business – she had previously worked for a global PR firm – are not true psychopaths. They possibly have lower levels of empathy than most, but are ultimately just compromised individuals internalising the wrongdoing around them and ‘just doing their jobs.’ To be a communicator for the system, it is probably a weakness to be totally psychopathic because at some point their lack of human emotion will catch them out and they will misread an audience, so instead the real essential psychopaths stay in the shadows pulling the strings whilst yes men and yes women do their propaganda for them.
When a social movement or iconic individual becomes popular after a genuine grass-roots uprising, the institutions of elite control act in unison to outspend, discredit, attack, smear, assassinate, character assassinate, or just plain ignore that democratically representative upwelling which is obviously a threat to elite domination of society. A notable example was the unified smear campaign directed towards the Texas congressman Ron Paul when he ran to represent the Republican party prior to both the 2008 and 2012 U.S. presidential elections. Paul’s libertarian principles were anathema to the established elite order of the North-Atlantic Empire. With his promise to end the system of central banking which controls the flow of money, opposition to U.S. foreign policy and generally non-corrupt character, a Ron Paul presidency would not be tolerated or allowed by those in power.
As his 2012 presidential campaign got underway and it became clear Paul had huge support amongst the public, the mainstream corporate media found that ignoring him was the best tactic. The comedian/broadcaster Jon Stewart noted this ridiculous bias on The Daily Show, asking “How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?” Whilst Ron Paul was speaking at rallies and marches to thousands all over the U.S. the other Republican candidates struggled to get a few dozen supporters to their speeches. Not only did Paul get the most ground support, particularly from young people, but he also received the most campaign donations from members of the military and the average campaign donation was far smaller than the huge lumps of corporate capital received by the establishment candidates.
The story will be much the same for both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn as they gear up to run for high office in the U.S. and U.K. as non-establishment candidates. Bernie Sanders’ campaign receives an average of just $33 per donation, but that won’t be able to compete with the big money going to elite candidates from Goldman Sachs and the rest. One of Chomsky’s favourite quotes is what Mark Hanna said in 1896, an American industrialist from Cleveland who was campaign manager for the successful Republican presidential candidate, William McKinley: “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is”. And it checks out – 91% of 497 election races to the U.S. congress in 2012 were won by the best financed candidate.
During Paul’s campaign, all corporate television in the U.S. would parrot the idea that Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann were the ‘top-tier’ candidates in the race for the Republican nomination whilst extensive polling data showed Ron Paul was consistently in second place. Analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that during the same period of time across 52 media outlets, Ron Paul had 27 articles written about him, whilst the reigning president Barack Obama had 221, Romney had 120, Newt Gingrich 112, Bachmann 108 and even Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, who both pulled out of the election race half-way through the period, were the focus of 94 and 85 stories respectively. The three mainstream cable television news shows, in the days immediately after a bell-weather Iowa straw poll in which Paul finished second to Bachmann, were shown to have mentioned Paul 29 times compared to 371 times for Perry, 274 times for Bachmann and 183 times for Romney. In addition, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Politico and the BBC were all guilty of falsely presenting polling data which either omitted Ron Paul’s name or data, put his data next to the name of another candidate or positioned him further down ratings lists than his data indicated. You can be sure that when the revolution comes, it will not be televised.
Aldous Huxley is right to point out that there could be means to legislate against the creep of propaganda: “There could and, I think, there should be legislation limiting the right of public officials, civil or military, to subject the captive audiences under their command or in their custody to sleep teaching. There could and, I think, there should be legislation prohibiting the use of subliminal projection in public places or on television screens. There could and, I think, there should be legislation to prevent political candidates not merely from spending more than a certain amount of money on their election campaigns, but also to prevent them from resorting to the kind of anti-rational propaganda that makes a nonsense of the whole democratic process.”
abnormaldiversityblog. (n.d.). http://abnormaldiversity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/why-arent-autistic-people-psychopaths.html. Retrieved from Abnormal diversity.
Albert, M. (2003). Parecon – Life after Capitalism. Verso.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. (2007). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Harper Business.
BBC (Director). (2014). Human Universe [Motion Picture].
BBC (Director). (2011). Unnatural histories [Motion Picture].
BBC2Newsnight. (2013, 10 3). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-moGtQFvsVU.
Boddy, C. R. (2011). The Corporate Psychopaths: Theory of the Global Financial Crisis. Journal of Business Ethics .
Brothwell, D. R. (1977). Bisocial man.
Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard. Basic Books.
Carlin, G. (1992). Jammin in New York. (G. Carlin, Performer) The Paramount – Madison Square Garden, New York.
Channel4 (Director). (2013). Psychopath Night [Motion Picture].
Chomsky, & Herman. (1988). Manufacturing Consent.
Chomsky, N. (2004). Hegemony or Survival. Penguin books.
Chomsky, N. (2010). Hopes and Prospects. Penguin books.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The Mask of Sanity.
CNBC (Director). (2012). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah5DH71azt8 [Motion Picture].
Dawkins, R. (1986). Nice guys finish first, BBC Horizon.
Dugatkin, Sobus, H. a., Mealey, & Rice. (1992; 1987; 1995; 1997).
Durrant, W. a. (1935 -1975). The Story of Civilization.
Even, L. (2003). United States Bankers magazine. Michael Journal .
Eysenck, H. (2006). The Biological Basis Of Criminal Behaviour .
Goebbels. (n.d.). http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/281832.Joseph_Goebbels.
Goering, H., & Gilbert. (1947). Nuremberg War Crimes Trials https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring.
Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens – A brief history of humankind. Harper.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised: Manual. Multi-Health Systems Inc.
Herzl. (1897). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Zionist_Congress.
Hitler, A. (1925). Mein Kampf.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100314150924.htm. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4 (Director). (2011). Child Of Rage [Motion Picture].
Huntington, S. P. (1975). The Crisis Of Democracy. Trilateral Commission.
Huxley, A. (1959). A Brave New World Revisited. Barnes and Noble.
James, & Blair. (1996). Morality in the Autistic Child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders .
Jeltsen, M. (2013). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/michael-hastings-email_n_3484118.html.
Jensen, D. (2006). Endgame. Seven Stories press.
Jones, A. (Director). (2007). Endgame: Blueprint for global enslavement [Motion Picture].
Khaldun, I. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun.
Lippman, W. (1964). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution.
Lobaczewski, A. M. (2007). Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes). Red Pill Press.
McTeigue, J., & Moore, A. (Directors). (2006). V for Vendetta [Motion Picture].
Michels, R. (n.d.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy. Retrieved from http://www.wikipedia.org.
Mobus, G. (n.d.). http://questioneverything.typepad.com/. Retrieved from Question Everything.
Niemoller, M. (n.d.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
Parry, B., & BBC (Directors). (2005). Tribe [Motion Picture].
Pearce, F. (2012). The Land Grabbers. Transworld digital.
Peter, L. J. (n.d.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle.
Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin books.
Price, D. (2014). http://www.infowars.com/politicians-are-psychopaths/. Retrieved from LewRockwell.com.
Quinn, B. (2013). http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/26/mod-study-sell-wars-public.
Raffaele, P. (2006). Sleeping with Cannibals. Smithsonian Magazine .
Ronson, J. (2011). The Psychopath Test. Picador.
RussiaToday. (2013, 7 16). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDFIVVmXE-g.
Seymour, J. (1961). The Fat of the Land. Faber & Faber.
Sheldon, R., & Arens, E. (1976). Consumer Engineering: A new technique for prosperity. Arno Press.
Stout, M. (2005). The Sociopath Next Door. Harmony.
Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry .
 (McTeigue & Moore, 2006)
 (BBC, 2014)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2004)
 (Hare, 1991)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Stout, 2005)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Pinker, 2003)
 (Brothwell, 1977)
 (Eysenck, 2006)
 (Channel4, 2013)
 (James & Blair, 1996)
 (Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005)
 (Babiak & Hare, 2007)
 (Boddy, 2011)
 (Basham, 2011)
 (Harari, 2015)
 (Dugatkin, Sobus, Mealey, & Rice, 1992; 1987; 1995; 1997)
 (Pinker, 2003)
 (Ronson, 2011)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Babiak & Hare, 2007)
 (Ronson, 2011)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Raffaele, 2006)
 (Parry & BBC, 2005)
 (Zimbardo, 2015)
 (Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: understanding how good people turn evil, 2007)
 (Moyers & Krugman, 2014)
 (CNBC, 2012)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Channel4, 2012)
 (Rummel, 1994)
 (Price, 2014)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Durrant, 1935 -1975)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Murray & Frijters, 2015)
 (Chakrabortty, 2015)
 (Jensen, 2006)
 (Hersh, 2013)
 (Jones, Endgame: Blueprint for global enslavement, 2007)
 (Huxley, 1959)
 (Albert, 2003)
 (Brzezinski, 1997)
 (Huntington, 1975)
 (Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects, 2010)
 (Lippman, 1964)
 (Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects, 2010)
 (Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2004)
 (Varoufakis, 2015)
 (Sheldon & Arens, 1976)
 (Pearce, 2012)
 (Pearce, 2012)
 (Dawkins, 1986)
 (BBC, Unnatural histories, 2011)
 (Pearce, 2012)
 (Seymour, 1961)
 (Curtis, 2002)
 (Chomsky & Herman, 1988)
 (Sudhaman, 2014)
 (Hitler, 1925)
 (Robinson, 2004)
 (Chomsky, Dettering Democracy, 1992)
 (MediaLens, 2015)
 (Quinn, 2013)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Carlin, 1992)
 (Goering & Gilbert, 1947)
 (Levine, 2015)
 (Chomsky & Herman, 1988)
 (Even, 2003)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (BBC2Newsnight, 2013)
 (Jeltsen, 2013)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (RussiaToday, 2013)
 (Cleckley, 1941)
 (Lobaczewski, 2007)
 (Stewart, 2011)
 (Popik & Hanna)
 (McChesney & Lowery, 2014)
 (Sartor, 2011)
 (ThinkOutsideTV, 2013)
 (Huxley, 1959)