In this book I have learned that most, if not all of the governments of the world, have been taken over by a pathological infection from just a small group of psychopaths who understand the psychology of normal people to a very high degree and they have corrupted these governmental structures to the very core. These psychopaths have silently, but with mind boggling persistence and stealth moved in and taken over and hollowed out the very soul of humanity using lies and deception as their weapons of choice. These psychopaths, this inhuman race of pathological deviants, who do not have the capacity to feel conscience and feel the pain of another, now literally rule the world.
One psychopath can terrorize an entire town, even an entire city. The majority of normal people are now ruled by a minority of psychopaths and they have basically made our governments criminal networks. Criminal governments. Those working for these governments are now working for what basically is a criminal enterprise and they don't see it because they are in it and profit by it, yet it is these people who are determining our future and the future of our children."
Maybe a little tinfoil hat for my taste, but it seems to be based on ration, and psychopathy is really interesting to me. If your willing to do whatever, then you'll have an easier time rising to the top.
Where is sixshooter? Isn't he a psychologist?
Tin foil hat types simply believe that the world is run by a monolithic hierarchy, a conspiracy, which controls everything.
The above doesn't claim any such conspiracy exists. If you study the psychopath stuff, you will see that it is very plausible that because psychopaths have an inherent advantage in rising to positions of power, that the majority of gov't leaders ARE psychopaths. And this explains a lot, like this guy writes:
Overt criminality by leaders and passive, unclear thinking by the proles have become the norm. The two go together, creating a symbiotic ecosystem of tyranny. Fraud, theft, and murder have become widesppread, just as the scale of lies told and believed have reached new heights. Irresponsibility has become socialized while people in the honest pursuit of good get thwarted.
Those of us who want little more than peace and freedom don't run the world. Pursuing freedom contradicts controlling others, so we can reason that people who pursue power have some motivations separate from our own.
I have not fully comprehended the implications of this until recently. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I had assumed that the people who wield power feel similarly about moral issues as I do I just couldn't see why they commit and justify unethical behavior. I already knew that states operate according to a code that the rest of us don't follow in our own lives. Nevertheless, I assumed that a man who acts without regard to moral laws must feel guilty about it. Then, one day, I stumbled onto this idea: Suppose he doesn't.
It turns out this personality type has a scientific name: psychopathic. Lest you think I merely kid you, I quote from Scientific American:
Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.
This seems like a nearly perfect description of those who seek political power. That same article goes on to say that fields over-represented by psychopaths may include 'politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this intriguing conjecture is preliminary.' It turns out that much stronger evidence for this exists than the article lets on.
In the book Political Ponerology, Andrew Lobaczewski claims that about 6% of the people within a population have psychopathic characters. The implications of this, which he recognized soon after World War II, stagger the mind. Moreover, he suggests that another 12% of the population has high susceptibility to psychopathic thought. (The video calls them "Secondary Psychopaths".) In a world dominated by hierarchical structures, these people sieze control of the key positions and create a so-called 'pathocracy.' Lobaczewski continues, writing in ways that clearly anticipate the current reality:
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 01-10-2012 at 12:44 AM.
The author explains how individuals and factions rise to power through cronyism and support from special interest groups, even in "democracies". When said individual is in power, they then reward those that got them into power. The smaller the special interest groups, the greater the concentration of wealth and the worse off the general population is.
In the extreme case, is North Korea. The general at the very top, get very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. At the other end are liberal democracies such as the USA. In the USA the special interest groups include the military-industrial complex, the "corporatocracy", the union bosses, and "the poor". So to some extent the trappings of democracy serve to limit the damage and abuse that gov't leaders do.
He goes through an example of the Congo under the Belgian King Leopold. He was a constitutional monarch who hated the limits the constitution placed on him. The average Belgian admires him as the king that made them wealthy, because he opened international trade. However, few understood how he started the Belgian Congo and created a brutal regime run by psychopaths, and he didn't care because it made him wealthier.
...studies the behavior of politicians and government officials as mostly self-interested agents and their interactions in the social system either as such or under alternative constitutional rules.
You can think of it like game theory that explains why gov't intervention in the economy almost always reduces economic efficiency (by reducing competition and granting special privilege). The average person ends up being worse off, than if the free market were left alone and gov't merely protected property rights and enforced contracts.