The Pathology of Evil in Politics

From the American Thinker:

Do purely evil individuals exist who can hide their true nature from the rest of the world? And are these individuals drawn into politics as a conduit for dominating an unsuspecting and acquiescent populace?

There is a theory that evil is a pathological disorder. The observation that psychopaths, including sociopaths and narcissists, all exhibit chronically evil behavior makes a persuasive argument for that theory. In Andrew M. Lobaczewski's book, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, the case is made for equating evil and psychosis in the political arena:

The actions of [pathocracy] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every town, business, and institution. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people.

Lobaczewski also references the following passage from The Sociopath Next Door, by clinical psychologist Dr. Martha Stout:

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.

Dr. Stout estimates that this psychosis affects approximately 4% of the population. It seems obvious that many of these will gravitate to politics, where power over others is most attainable. Lobaczewski places the amount of undiagnosed psychopaths who join the pathocracy at 6%:

Approximately 6% of the population constitute the active structure of the pathocracy, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality. ...

This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies. ...

The 6% group constitute the new nobility; the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. ... Only 18% of the country's population is thus in favor of the new system of government.

The question is, how do we recognize and ferret out the sociopaths and narcissists currently in power in both political parties? This is an inherently difficult task due to the ability of these psychopaths to disguise their disease. I believe it is possible to isolate them through critically observing and identifying the inconsistencies between their apparent irrational behavior and the image they are trying to present.

For instance, what are we to make of a president who suddenly bursts out laughing while being interviewed on the potential for economic depression in the U.S.? How about a jovial president giving a friendly "shout-out" to a colleague before delivering a listless homily on the brutal murder of thirteen American soldiers by a ruthless domestic Islamist terrorist? Perhaps the picture of Obama striding down the White House steps while his "friend" Professor Gates is helped by Officer Crowley is an indicator of his true personality.

Go read the whole thing.