The Psychopath Under the Bed, Part 4
Commentary for 22 December 2014
If a nucleus of this macrosocial pathological phenomenon already exists in the world, always cloaking its true quality behind an ideological mask of some political system, it irradiates into other nations via coded news difficult for normal people to understand, but easy to read for psychopathic individuals. ‘That’s the place for us, we now have a homeland where our dreams about ruling those “others” can come true. We can finally live in safety and prosperity.’ The more powerful this nucleus and the pathocratic nation, the wider the scope of its inductive siren-call, heard by individuals whose nature is correspondingly deviant, as though they were superheterodyne receivers naturally attuned to the same wavelength. Unfortunately, what is being used today is real radio transmitters in the hundreds of kilowats, as well as loyal covert agents of pathocracy networking our planet.
- Andrew M. Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology, p. 147
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays upon its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities…. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.
- Winston Churchill, The River War, Vol. II, p. 248-50
In a remarkably short period of time, the philosophy of Karl Marx profoundly changed the course of human civilization. In fact, no system of ideas transformed the world as quickly or as comprehensively as did the philosophy of Marx—not even the teachings of Jesus or Muhammad. At the height of Marxism’s political power and influence, half the world was under its dominion, and the other half feared that it too would succumb to communist imperialism.
- C. Bradley Thompson, The Objective Standard, Vol. 7, No. 2
On Saturday I had an encounter with someone who might be characterized as a passionate hater of America and Israel. She would protest, of course, that she is not a hater, for she does not hate the average Jew or American. She is merely against the killing of innocent Muslim women and children by the Israeli government which, she says, is supported by American taxpayers. Blood is on their hands, she passionately implied. Her vehemence gave voice to an emotional tongue-lashing, which might easily shatter the composure of the bravest man. Her frequent references to Noam Chomsky, the anarcho-syndicalist, gave me a clue about who she had been reading. Yes, the usual anti-American rant, I thought. It made perfect sense. A normal person doesn't talk like this without reading Chomsky.
There was something inappropriate in the intensity of this woman’s anger. She was not angry about Americans being killed, or worried about the plight of her own people. She only had scorn for America and Americans. It was evident, from all she said, that she rejected everything to do with her own heritage, and embraced as if by instinct the heritage and language of the “other.” If Islam was opposed to America, she was for it. If Putin was having trouble with America over Ukraine, then she would take his side as well. If EU leaders are preparing for a long confrontation with Russia, then Europe's leaders are American lackeys. It was all of a piece.
So, what am I missing? Why do her arguments leave me skeptical? Well, the far left agrees with her, and I have never found those people to be honest in their arguments, sound in their judgments, or sane in their motives. To have supported totalitarian dictatorships in the past while condemning the United States does not evidence a genuine concern for human rights. Whatever evildoing can be attributed to America, the regimes supported by the far left have been directed by history's most brutal psychopaths. Saddam Hussein’s regime tortured children to death. The Chinese and Russian Communists murdered tens of millions of innocent people. The crimes of the "religion of peace" are too brutal for recounting when Christmas is so near. Why would a white (former Christian) American become a passionate partisan of Islam? Why did she convert to “the religion of peace”? To this question she could give no clear answer except that she had, quite logically, rejected the Christian denomination to which she had previously belonged.
Discussion is not possible with such a person. The best and most pointed questions were ignored by her. She always reverted to the usual anti-American talking points. It would seem she was trained in this, for she evaded dialogue by way of monologue. And her monologue, once again, was nothing but the propaganda talking points of the Moslem/Leftist camp. From these she could not depart without sounding unintelligent. She also displayed an overwrought moral outrage, which made no allowance for dissenting opinions and gave no quarter. The only just peace, she seemed to say, would involve the destruction of Israel. And as for America, it deserved a similar fate.
Though I did not ask her opinion of North Korea’s alleged cyber-attack on Sony, or on Raul Castro’s claim that Communist Cuba “won the war” against America and will remain a Communist country, I could easily guess all of her answers. That she would take Castro’s side against America and enjoy Sony’s embarrassment is apparent. After all, Cuba is the victim of American imperialism and Sony is a large corporation which is part of the evil U.S. military industrial complex which stands as the main enemy of mankind. As I knew from my anti-American friends in college, we could only expect good things from the defeat of America and the victory of her enemies. This is the central theme underlying all leftist discourse, which ought to give the game away. She did not understand that her entire being had been hijacked by the enemies of her country. One might say that she was an angry person, intrinsically, and the enemy had shewdly provided an outlet in a special brand of self-hatred. In this she was an easy mark.
To be sure, the American who converts to Islam has special reasons for doing so. But these have less to do with Islam and America than it does with the psychological makeup of the individual. It is not through intellectual brilliance that one “discovers” the truth and becomes a follower of the Prophet. If this were true, then all intelligent people would have converted long ago and Allah’s religion would reign supreme throughout the world. No, no, the qualifying factor is not intelligence. The qualifying factor involves a psychological predisposition. To reject one’s own, and to hate one’s own, is always a special case.
Human beings can be broken physically and psychologically. Usually, it is a seemingly small thing that breaks us: a bad upbringing, a bad diet, bad company, bad attitude or bad luck. It doesn’t take much to break down a human being, since we are fragile and our civilization is likewise fragile. An accumulation of small mistakes, even by well-meaning people, can destroy a civilization. Of this we should not have any doubt. An accumulation of small mistakes can also destroy an individual.
The opening quote, above, from Laboczewski deserves to be read and reread when we are considering the role of the self-hating American. These haters, with all their passion, may correctly list the evils of the existing order, but they do not make the list for a constructive purpose. Filled with rage, they list their country’s faults because – as Lobaczewski explained – their nature is “correspondingly deviant.” Filled with hate, their motives are destructive and one should be wary of them. Perhaps they were emotionally abused as children. Perhaps they feel rejected by society, either because they are abnormal or because they possess that tyrannical spirit which expects other people to bow to them. But this has nothing to do with politics. It is personal, having to do with the individual’s inability to adjust to society. Quite clearly, such people adopt the enemy’s creed out of their own disappointment. Their rage is a reflection of their maladjustment. They side with the “other” because the “other” is not their parent, not their peers, not their tribe. All these refused to accept them, or refused to bend to them. Therefore, it is better to be anything but a Christian or an American. It is better to be as alien and hostile as one might be, and there you will find the power of an unconscious attraction (for the deviant) which simply cannot be resisted.
Those who hate America belong to a psychological category. The question that ought to trouble us is whether our president, Barrack Hussein Obama belongs to this category and suffers from this same “unconscious attraction” to the “other.” Obama’s dislike of an historical artifact – a bust of Churchill which was a gift from England belonging to the White House – is a case in point. Just as an advocate of Islam would be offended by Churchill’s firsthand account of Islam, the African-American president was offended at Churchill’s likeness and sent the bust of Churchill back to the British. Looking ahead to the year 2015, and seeing how the crisis with Russia now develops, I am worried that we have a secret malcontent in the White House who is not interested in defending America because America represents something he detests – something akin to the Churchill bust. Are we presently governed by a maladjusted individual who has brought with him a legion of like-minded persons? Does he possess normal feelings for the country, or is he filled with a secret rage which drives him to purposeful missteps?
The deviant may sincerely believe that his or her hatred of America is justified. No doubt, deviants are skilled at blaming others and typically cannot see their own faults. Perhaps such personas inwardly wish to murder their parents, but as their parents are dead and gone, their country must serve as a stand-in – a substitute that is yet in reach of the child’s rage. And being an unconscious parricide at heart, what is the political outcome likely to be? Treason is one name for it. Revolution is another name. God help us if the economy collapses, or if another world war breaks out.
In John A. Keel’s book, Operation Trojan Horse, we may read the following paranoid summation of the psychological forces underlying the occult: “Suppose the plan is to process millions of people and at some future date trigger those minds at one time? Would we suddenly have a world of saints or a world of armed maniacs shooting at one another from bell towers?” The origin of evil has always been difficult to explain. “Demonology,” Keel wrote, “is not just another crackpot-ology. It is the ancient and scholarly study of the monsters and demons who have seemingly coexisted with man throughout history.” Lobaczewski, the scientist, would describe these demons in terms of abnormal psychology and abnormal brain function. Both writers share a sense of foreboding about our future. From my own study of political fanaticism, I believe it is true that there are millions of minds waiting to be triggered all at once. We saw what those minds did during the Terror of the French Revolution, and during the Communist revolutions of the last century. At this moment in history we are not finished with “the monsters and demons” since these have always coexisted with us. In fact, they are all around us. Perhaps they are even inside of us.