Skip to main content

View Diary: "Secession by another means" Bill Moyers (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Cultural ill" is the way many people react to (8+ / 0-)

    my idea. The problem is that history is replete with undeniable evidence that tyranni seek power and when they get it things get bad in a hurry. Because many people tend to think that such bad people are rare, they can get away (literally) with murder and do great harm to the people they rule.

    E. O. Wilson, in his most recent book asserts that there is a genetic basis for the behaviors of these two different kinds of human beings. This dichotomy is a natural part of our species, and the sooner we accept that fact, the sooner we will be able to institute policies that will control the negative effects of tyranni.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:47:42 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  as an anthropologist I disagree (27+ / 0-)

      strongly that this is genetic.

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition." Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 03:52:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I could see their being an evolutionary logic (3+ / 0-)

        to that kind of dichotomy, up to a point. I don't buy that there's a genetic component, though. You can't convince me that there's a nature component that overrides the nurture component of creating evil.

        However, I don't find it totally implausible to say that there's potential social value to evil. We're the richest nation in the world off of a lot of people's backs. I might not prefer that economies all over the world are plundered to benefit me, but I probably do benefit nonetheless.

        I'm certainly not an anthropologist, though, and I don't want to derail.

        •  Calling it evil seems unproductive to me. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, StrayCat, lotlizard

          I prefer to think of it as a strong, self-determined sort of personality that tries to organize human societies into empires for themselves to control.

          Empires, historically, produce vast amounts of wealth, science and technological progress.  It's just that they also tend to be very destructive to people not in the beneficial ruling class of the empire.

          •  So, you deny that some behaviors are evil? nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Chi

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

            by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:14:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's at issue is not a few bad apples. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mary Mike, lotlizard

              Vilifying the opposition party is how the Republican party got off track anyway.  In civil political discussion, evil has pretty much no place.

              •  But you do agree that some behaviors are evil? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Chi, mkor7, Gorette

                You seem to be evading my question. You seem to want to switch the topic to how to persuade the evil doers to become good doers. That is another topic for another time. But in order to win such a discussion and to get the bad guys to do good things, one must first accept that there are genuinely bad guys. Otherwise one would naively be playing into their hands. They would constantly make and break promises to you, right?

                Another way of thinking of this problem is to think of man-eating tigers. They are beautiful and dangerous at once. They are products of evolution just as we are. We cannot persuade them to stop eating men, so we have to find another way to control them. Killing them does not seem fair, so we want to find another way to keep them from killing us.

                I have written my book to propose a way to control the tyranni among us.

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:32:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Evil isn't a term I like to use. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lotlizard

                  Sure, serial killers and the like are something close to evil.

                  A politician serving a wealthy elite class may look evil to you because they defund programs the poor need to survive day-to-day.  But from their perspective, the poor will learn how to adapt and the general economic boost their policies provide will make everyone (including the poor) more prosperous.

                  I'm not willing to call that evil.  You don't have to be willing to harm other people in order to accidentally cause harm.

                  You don't have to be a monster to be misguided.  Calling that evil precludes the possibility to talking to someone who espouses such a view, and negates the possibility that they will ever come around.

                  •  Wow! (0+ / 0-)

                    You still don't want to admit that evil is a real part of human nature. But you are not alone. You are a democratus. You work for the common good, but you are misguided, and you give the other guys, the bad guys, the benefit of the doubt. You have this mistaken belief that they can be reformed and that is just not so.

                    There are examples of reform. Teenagers who get caught up in criminal behavior are often reformed by the juvenile justice system, and that is a very good thing. But they are democrati who have fallen into evil, tyranno, behavior. Once they are given a chance to see the difference between good and evil and once they are given encouragement, they don't reform they just start doing what comes naturally to them.

                    But, on the other hand, the same juvenile justice system fails more often than it succeeds. In these failures tyranni are already doing what comes naturally, and no amount of persuasion, no amount of good examples, and no amount of punishment will reform them. They are tyranni and they also do what comes naturally to them.

                    That is the way the world works, and there is nothing that you or I can do about it. By giving the bad guys the benefit of the doubt we will often be played for suckers. And if we keep doing it, they we will actually be suckers.

                    BTW, how do you explain that the brains of sociopaths are different from the brains of non-sociopaths?

                    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                    by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:56:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Brains are incredibly complex. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mary Mike, terrypinder, lotlizard

                      Environment, culture, genetics, etc..

                      There's a lot of factors that influence the development of the brain.  I'm no expert at this sort of thing and I don't pretend to be.

                      Also, if the theory you have about juvenile reform holds true, I would expect that recidivism rates for juveniles to not vary by country or by culture.

                    •  Evil is an adjective, not a noun. Acts can be (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      hestal

                      evil, as can motives and intent.  Some benignly motivated acts result in evil consequences or circumstances.  Maybe your Tyranni are just socially successful psychpaths.

                      Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                      by StrayCat on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:23:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually evil is a noun as well as an adjective. (0+ / 0-)

                        You can look it up in the dictionary.

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                        by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 02:19:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  What is your scientific field, hestal? (3+ / 0-)

                      Because your explanations are muddled from an anthropological or even an ev psych perspective.

                      "Evil" is a culturally specific category. The behavioral dispositions you're talking about would far predate the emergence of language and culture (even Wilson, also muddled, would say our best evidence of behavioral disposition in the present comes from other primates).

                      All human individuals (all primates, indeed) are organically capable of aggression, and many primates besides humans seem capable of deception, in pursuit of reproductive advantage.  But to go from that to "evil" requires a moral framework, which requires culture, which puts its emergence in the relatively recent past and makes it subject to historical and developmental variation.

                      •  Talk about muddled.... nt (0+ / 0-)

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                        by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 04:52:28 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why please do talk about it (0+ / 0-)

                          And you never answered my question.

                          In what field is your phd?

                          •  How obnoxious. You are just aching to (0+ / 0-)

                            tell us all what yours is, so go ahead, we are all waiting with bated breath.

                            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                            by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 02:16:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You (0+ / 0-)

                            go prattling on about a scientific subject about which you are wholly ignorant in my opinion, citing pop science texts and simplified versions of evolutionary theoretical arguments utterly out of scientific context to make a confused ideological point, and back it all up by claiming you've written a "book" on this silly theory of Teh True Evilz. The science you do cite is selective, muddled, and/or obsolete.

                            Yes, I do have a phd. That wasn't my point. I want to know what field your expertise is actually in before I bother to debate you on the basics of evolution.

                            "Evil" is not a thing found in nature. That's where you are going off the rails, trying to squeeze your moral argument into a biological box.

                            You sure are defensive, though. Always a good sign of someone who knows they don't know enough to argue the facts.

              •  Morality has no place in politics? n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  And ultimately, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hestal
            It's just that they also tend to be very destructive to people not in the beneficial ruling class of the empire.
            destructive to themselves.

            "Where do we go from here, chaos or community?" - MLK

            by Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:56:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I believe there are evil (7+ / 0-)

            human beings, where it comes from is up for discussion, which is what's happening here.

            Another good book on this is Scott Peck's "People of the Lie."

            "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

            by StellaRay on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:35:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  See my response downthread. nt (0+ / 0-)

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:12:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nature and nurture work together to produce (0+ / 0-)

          adult human beings, and there is a name for that process. It is called evolution--Evolution by Natural Selection to be precise--Charles Darwin's theory.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:17:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I wa adopted by an authoritarian family... (11+ / 0-)

        and knew from a very young age that we were different.  Their natural born son is just like them.

        If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

        by kharma on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:07:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was not adopted, but I saw a clear difference (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chi, Munchkn, kharma, mightymouse

          between my father's side of the family (tyranni) and my mother's (democrati). Both my parents were democrati. Democrati can be born to tyranni and vice-versa.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:13:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your quarrel is not with me, it is with (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chi, Dvalkure, mightymouse

        history and E. O. Wilson. Read his book. Here is an excerpt from my book in which I refer to Wilson's ideas:

        If Charles Darwin were still alive, I think that he would say that Edward O. Wilson is one of those “naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience,” that we should listen to. Wilson has written many important books on various topics concerning evolution. His latest, The Social Conquest of Earth, may well be his most important. In it, He says that these two conflicting behaviors have a genetic basis:
        Alleles (the various forms of each gene) that favor survival and reproduction of individual group members at the expense of others are always in conflict with alleles of the same and alleles of other genes favoring altruism and cohesion in determining the survival and reproduction of individuals. Selfishness, cowardice, and unethical competition further the interest of individually selected alleles, while diminishing the proportion of altruistic, group-selected alleles. These destructive propensities are opposed by alleles predisposing individuals toward heroic and altruistic behavior on behalf of members of the same group. Group-selected traits typically take the fiercest degree of resolve during conflicts between rival groups.
        Wilson’s conclusion is that this conflict, this struggle between two kinds of humans, has only one outcome:  
        An unavoidable and perpetual war exists between honor, virtue, and duty, the products of group selection, on one side, and selfishness, cowardice, and hypocrisy, the products of individual selection, on the other side.

        … In summary, the human condition is an endemic turmoil rooted in the evolution processes that created us. The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be. To scrub it out, if such were possible, would make us less than human.

        I can think of no better description of our present predicament. The Darwinian struggle has long been with us.  In fact, Darwin foresaw that the struggle could be violent even among relatives. In the third chapter of Origin he included this section heading:

        Struggle for Life most severe between
        Individuals and Varieties of the same Species.

        The best we can do is to do our best. We must control the harmful effects of tyranni, we must control the harmful effects of factions—we must work for the common good. Fortunately, there is a way forward.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:11:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, your theory is based on a-priori reasoning? (3+ / 0-)

          Sorry, I think I'll go with the sociologist.

          •  Ehhh, minor error. (0+ / 0-)

            Anthropologist.

          •  No, my ideas were not conceived beforehand. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PZinOR, terrypinder, Dvalkure

            As I explain in the entire first chapter of my book, I became aware through long experience that there are human beings who behave in certain consistent patterns. I was not searching for a theory of human nature, but I was trying to find a way to be more successful at my job. I introduced change to large enterprises and people reacted to this in two distinct, and consistent, ways. Out of this grew a list of characteristics that I used as a guide in deciding how to deal with each type of personality. My rate of success shot up. Thereafter I read widely and discovered that many others had noticed this difference before me, and they described the tyranni in terms almost identical to my list of characteristics.

            E. O. Wilson is a biologist and he thins that there is a genetic basis for these contrasting behaviors. So do I. So will many others as time goes by, perhaps even you, if you can just keep an open mind.

            It seems to me that you are the one who is guilty of a priori thinking.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

            by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:41:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  When a man says, "your quarrel is not with me," (0+ / 0-)

          he's squirreling out of defending his thesis.

          I liked your hypothesis, actually, but now...

          next.

      •  Stanford prison experiment (8+ / 0-)

        I haven't read Wilson's book, but I do find it plausible that some people have predispositions -- genetic and otherwise -- that lend themselves to being "tyranni," perhaps of various kinds. Understanding how some of those predispositions function can be helpful, somewhat like understanding how abusers can seem loving.

        That said, the Stanford prison experiment seems to be a spectacular (and appalling) demonstration of how "power tends to corrupt" in social contexts. There are many, many ways of looking at the problem of "human nature" -- that experiment didn't reveal anything that many people didn't already know -- but it sure isn't all about lambs and wolves.

        Madison's analysis of faction isn't reducible to a critique of "tyranni." Certainly Madison worried about unscrupulous leaders, but such people aren't the cause of faction. Madison wrote that there were two ways to remove the causes of faction: to annihilate liberty, or to give every citizen "the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." I don't worship the Wisdom of the Founders, but by golly, Federalist #10 makes some good points. :)

        "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:46:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the second chapter of my book, I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dvalkure

          go through Federalist 10, section by section, to show that Madison was wrong, not in his understanding of the cause and effects of factions, but in his proposals for how to deal with them.

          As to the causes of faction, Madison was quite explicit and clear. Here is another excerpt from my book in which I address this point:

          Madison told us the origin of factions, and how they pass their time:
          The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
          Factions arise out of human nature. Some men join together in pursuit of goals that are harmful to the public good. Other men, also examples of human nature, work together in pursuit of the public good. Unfortunately, Madison’s centuries-old description of the effects of faction gives us strong evidence that the Framers were not able to create a system that would keep our government focused on the common good and thereby free of faction. His remarks accurately capture the political environment of our modern world. “Mutual animosity” perfectly describes the interactions between the Democratic and Republican parties of our era. And religion plays an important role in our political life. And who can disagree with Madison’s prediction that Democrats and Republicans would be “more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.” And, I, for one, am weary of hearing our politicians raise a furor over “frivolous and fanciful distinctions.” Because of the persistence of human nature, factions are alive and well in 21st century America—and so are the men who form them. These men can be found in any institution, and they can occupy positions of great power.

          The Framers went to the trouble to describe the characteristics of these men. In Federalist 1, Hamilton said (emphasis added):

          Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
          In Federalist 10, Madison said (emphasis added):

          Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

          Later, near the end of his second term as President, George Washington published his Farewell Address, and said this about men who form and control factions (emphasis added):

          They [factions] are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.
          I made a list of the definitions of the words I emphasized in the preceding quotations and found that the Framers had identified the characteristics of very dangerous men:  

          •    factious—“addicted to form parties or factions and raise dissensions”
          •    prejudice—“an unreasonable predilection, inclination, or objection”
          •    sinister—“evil or productive of evil”
          •    intrigue—“to cheat or trick”
          •    corruption—“impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle”
          •    betray—“to prove faithless or treacherous to”
          •    obsequious—“exhibiting a servile and sycophantic complaisance”
          •    demagogue—“a politician who seeks to gain personal or partisan ad-vantage by specious or extravagant claims, promises or charges,”
          •    tyrant—“an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”
          •    cunning—“marked by wiles, craftiness, artfulness, or trickery in attain-ing ends, ability to mislead or trap,”
          •    ambitious—“eager for rank, fame or power—pretentious, showy,”
          •    unprincipled—“a lack of moral principles—conscienceless,”
          •    subvert—“to bring to nothing, destroy, or greatly impair the existence, sovereignty, influence, wholeness of, especially by insidious undermining”

          The Framers were describing men who were troublemakers, who were inclined to do evil, who were not trustworthy. They would lie to get what they wanted, and they were without personal integrity. They were clever, they would lay traps for the unwary, and they had no conscience.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:11:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Prison experiment showed the opposite (3+ / 0-)

          Of hestal's rigid binary personality types model (which are a blatant misreading of Wilson, sorry hestal but professional social scientists gonna profess).

          Milgram showed that all humans are capable of doing "evil" things under certain circumstances. There are not simply "evil" people and good ones.  

          •  Nice try, but you cannot sever the deed from the (0+ / 0-)

            doer of the deed. Someone who does evil, no matter how you define it, is an evil-doer. Even George W. Bush understood this.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

            by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 04:57:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are clearly (0+ / 0-)

              out of your depth scientifically.

              You're talking moral philosophy and seasoning it with confused references to sociobiology. Sorry, gotta call bullshit when I see it.

              Your resentful tone avoids answering anyone's substantive critique, which is how I know you're not actually a fellow scientist.

              The doer and the deed? You're fully inside a theological conception of agency.

              Nothing you said has anything to do with the question of whether there are innate and binarily opposed human types we can call such pseudoscientific names as "tyranni" and "democrati." You seem very sure of your folk psychological theory, and that's fine, but by citing evolutionary bases for your analysis, you reveal a lack of knowledge of biology or anthropology, where these are very old and mostly resolved questions. There aren't good and evil chimpanzees. There are no genetic markers of good or evil. It isn't on the genome or expressed as phenotype. Any human, as Milgram and many others have shown (and indeed any primate) is capable of acting violently, selfishly, cruelly, and duplicitously.

              We are all capable of "evil." It's a behavioral continuum, not a class of beings.

              •  Prove what you are saying, otherwise (0+ / 0-)

                you must admit that you are just voicing your opinion.

                I provided in my comments several other observers who reached the same conclusions long before I did, and some after I did. You have done nothing but blow off steam.

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                by hestal on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 02:15:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Anecdotal agreement,,,,,, (6+ / 0-)

        I grew up with an older brother. That makes him fairly close, genetically, and for that matter culturally.

        I am a pragmatic liberal, strongly believe in a society that helps the vulnerable, and I see the world as very complex and interconnected.

        My brother is an authoritarian, a rabid and un-apologetic racist, and fully believes that his opinion is the natural law of the universe, and anyone who disagrees with him is simply wrong.

        So I think it is a very complex issue as to why some people go one way, and some go another.

        •  Tyranni and democrati can be siblings. (0+ / 0-)

          We know that children receive different genetic endowments resulting in may differences in behavior, appearance, etc.

          In my family there were four of us. We did not look alike at all. My mother would often say that if she did not know better she would think that we all had different fathers. One brother was tall, red-haired, and freckled with small facial features. Another was tall, dark and with large facial features. Another brother was dark, short, and with medium features. The one girl had blond hair and a fair complexion. We all had the same kind of smile (teeth), however. As we have aged we have various types of graying hair, but none of us are bald. One curious element is that two of the boys have identical telephone voices. We can't tell them apart, in fact we would often ask our mother to guess which son was calling her. She couldn't do it, until she got call-id.

          Differences emerge as a result of nature and nurture working together, and there is a name for that process. It is called evolution--Evolution by Natural Selection to be precise--Charles Darwin's theory. We are all children of natural selection. Genetic endowment + interaction with the environment (be it the womb or the dorm room) = finished adults after about 26 years or so. After that, major changes are rare.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

          by hestal on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 07:22:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If you had said "as a geneticist I disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hestal, RocketJSquirrel

        strongly that this is genetic" it would carry more weight.

    •  You might find 'Political Ponerology' (4+ / 0-)

      as described (and linked) in this comment of real value.

      An excerpt:

      Political Ponerology. The genesis of evil
      The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.

      ..."In any society in this world, psychopathic individuals and some of the other deviant types create a ponerogenically active network of common collusions, partially estranged from the community of normal people... Their sense of honor bids them to cheat and revile that ‘other’ human world and its values at every opportunity." (Lobaczewski, 138)

      …Living in a world whose morals and customs are meaningless to them and even seen as oppressive, psychopaths dream of a "happy" and "just" world where their depraved worldview is accepted as reality. They seek, by any means necessary, to achieve positions in government where their dreams can be brought to fruition.


      Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

      by Jim P on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 09:40:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site