HELP! The shrinks are trying to take over the world. This one issue of Today’s Psychopathic Times has an article suggesting psychiatrists vet political candidates to see 
if they are mentally healthy enough to serve as president. Of course, the editor of this publication, Tina Taylor, has long believed that presidential candidates be given an MRI brain scan to weed out the psychopaths. At least this involves a specific procedure the results of which can probably be objectively interpreted. But this is worse. They could eliminate any “condition” considered abnormal and their means of diagnosing that condition is pretty open-ended. That would give these shrinks enormous power over our political 
system. The author, Clifford N Lazarus Ph.D., argues that many occupations less sensitive than the presidency have stringent requirements and tests that applicants must take before they are allowed into that position. But the presidency already has an extremely stringent vetting process: elections. First, a candidate must persuade one of the political parties to nominate hir. In many cases, there is a primary election just to get nominated. Then the candidate must compete with the other candidate(s) for the job. The “experts” who evaluate the candidates are the voters. We are the ones, after all, who will have to live with the president’s policies.
As if that weren’t bad enough, another article suggests Occult Practices Feed Both Depression And Psychopathy. It seems odd to me that both conditions are lumped 
together since psychopaths are less vulnerable to depression than “normal” folk. The article even admits this:
“Psychopaths are generally less likely to suffer from typical depressive disorders, but drawing upon an extensive research, Dr. Zlatko Šram from Croatian Center for Applied Social Research argues, that people who practice black magic or have otherwise occult bondage in their history are particularly susceptible to comorbidity of depression and psychopathy.”
He goes on to say, “Psychopathy and depression were significantly predictive of “satanic syndrome” in individuals who had been subjected to the occult involvement, suffering bouts of depression and mental disorders nearly twice as often compared to the rest of society.” Satanic syndrome? I’m pretty up-to-date on most psychiatric terms but this is a new one on me. What is “satanic syndrome?” The article informs us that “it is measured by specific occult practices.” So a person who practices certain occult rituals is said to be suffering from “satanic syndrome?” Doesn’t this look like the “disease” and the “cause” are one in the same? A person who does these things “suffers” from a condition caused by the same behavior by which s/he is diagnosed as having the condition? That’s downright sloppy thinking. But it gets worse:
“This key correlation yields new perspective on the early-onset depression. ‘This is an important study in that it takes ontological claims seriously and supports the real possibility that demonic forms of bondage may be linked to psychopathology as […] evil forces can interfere in human behavior.’ comments Prof. Ralph W. Hood from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.”
Christian fundamentalists have long attacked occultism as spiritually harmful. But religiously-oriented concepts seem to be creeping into the realm of science. The above statement mentions “ontological claims” that “demonic forms of bondage may be linked…” That statement seems to take for granted that demons exist. When did science prove that there are demons? Or is he just saying that some “forms of bondage” are “demonic?” Is “demonic” merely being used as an adjective, in other words, not claiming that there has to be such a thing as a “demon” in order for some kinds of “bondage” to be “demonic?” Well, in the good old days of the Middle Ages, the “mentally ill” were certainly demonized.
We have writers such as M. Scott Peck, M.D. who boldly introduce the concept of “evil” into what purports to be a scientific discussion. Seems we have come full circle. There was a “religious” explanation for “mental illness” back in the good old days. Science attempted to cleanse people so stigmatized of the judgemental term of “evil.” That attempt has never been completely successful. People have always had a hard time dealing with behavior they find inexplicable. Such people who are “mad” are also felt to be “bad.” A popular put-down these days is, “That’s SICK!“ The context and way it is said make it clear that it isn’t said out of compassion, but, rather, a judgement of disapproval.
Society will always have ways of enforcing it’s norms. Whether behavior and attitudes that conflict with society’s values is called “sick” or “evil,” society has found language with which to isolate those people who threaten those values. Now we have a president who has been called a “psychopath” or a “sociopath” more often than any other American president. At the same time, a large number of American voters think he is the greatest president ever. I suggest we try to avoid sloppy thinking and are clear on the difference between a clash of values and what is scientifically verifiable.
Links
- Why U.S. Presidents Should be Psychologically Vetted. Psychology Today
- Occult Practices feed both depression and psychopathy. Medical Express
- Difference Between Ontology and Epistemology.
- Am I Evil? Yours truly
- Evil is a Point of View. Yours truly
- Mad, Bad or Rad. Yours truly
Reblogged from 
We have heard about the deficit in the connection between the amygdala and the pre-frontal cortex which helps explain psychopathy. But this is something else. This article (
Well, you can read all of this by clicking on the links. I want to move on to the question of how greater density and extra connectivity between such interesting parts of the brain adds up to a “disturbance.” Maybe it’s just a disturbance by definition if it is found in the brain or personality of a psychopath. I wonder how these scientists think connecting these two area leads to psychopathy. 
What we usually call “great art” is from the European tradition, “classical” (including “romantic”) art. I don’t think Bach’s music was very emotional. I don’t know much about the plastic arts of painting and sculpture. Lots of great paintings were pretty objective, faithfully giving form to what they saw. But all art, including music, goes through cycles in which work created in a certain period has a certain kind of similarity which makes it recognizable as belonging to a particular period. It’s kind of weird talking about great art during a period in which there is none. But, perhaps, it seemed that way throughout history. People usually don’t recognize great art that has been created during their own lifetimes.
The first problem I encounter as I try to assess Wagner as a psychopath is the fact that his music dramas are 
Grandiose? Once he wrote, “Some day, people will be erecting statues of me but, if I try to help myself out now, tongues wag.” (I don’t have his exact words before me but this is a fair paraphrase of what he wrote.) He knew he was great and was able to admit it. Of course, he’s been damned for it. 
Shallow effect? How would I know? 
Promiscuous sexual behavior? By the standards of his time, I guess one could say so. He left his first wife. I think he left her without support. He had a really hot love affair with Mathilde Wesondonck. I don’t know if they ever consummated their passion but they had a really hot correspondence. Later, he had an affair with Cosima von Bulow, the wife of a dear friend (and daughter of Franz Liszt). Cosima got divorced and married Wagner. The friend remained friends with Wagner, BTW.) 
Irresponsibility? Ask the wagging tongues. They think being in debt would qualify as “irresponsible.” 
Can we?
For a relationship to work there has to be personalities that really get each other. I for instance have to be willing to take into account what he needs from me. This is a practice that must be consciously done and I have to make concerted effort to succeed at it. Really, it isn’t that I don’t want him to be happy, it’s just that I don’t tend to think outside of myself very often. What I want/need has always been first. To consider differently is work, and I have to be willing to do it.
This looks like a mature relationship based on loyalty and friendship. This is a lot like my present relationship which is going on 40 years. Before her, my longest relationship was with Jack and it lasted two years, a record for me at that point. Before Jack, my relationships were sporadic and short-lived. That’s a lot more typical of psychopaths. “Many short term relationships” is one of the characteristics of psychopathy, after all. Jim Kolb was my first and I would be with him for a while and then run away. I used his last name with my middle name when I went public.
Now. Picture this. You’re going about your day, entertaining fun ideas about how you might go about getting into this particular guy’s trousers, because dammit being married is no excuse for not sleeping with me, right, so, anyway, your mindset is pretty much the same as always, plot, ploy, giggle. Then all of a sudden, you realise he’s got into your head, and while your mindset might still be the same (What? what do you mean, love, i don’t fall in love, fuck you, you’ll pay for this very offensive manipulation of my perfect mind!) you realise that huh, wait, you don’t want to hurt this person. And, in for a penny, in for a pound, you could try this out for a bit, it’s new and definitely not boring, and I do enjoy experimenting on my own mind as much as on the ones of others.
All it takes to get in their pants is a euphoric state of admiration. This is often mistaken as an emotional connection but it’s really not; it’s the desire for euphoria not the connection itself.
I suddenly realized that this is what I’ve been experiencing. This explosive, consuming passion that transforms everything. As Taylor Swift sang, in Out of the Woods, “The whole world was black and white. We were in screaming color.” As Casi suggested, I never did get to know these lovers beyond the stage where they are like God. Why would I want to.
Things were different with Vicki. I had been the submissive in my first two relationships. With Vicki, I started as the dom. She was a sub and I thought I was experienced enough in BDSM to “move on” to the dominant role. Playing this role forced me to see her as she really was. I had to understand her intimately to be able to get into her head and give her the kind of experience she was seeking. I enjoyed the creativity of the dominant role but it didn’t do much for me sexually. In time, I realized I missed the sub role. At the same time, Vicki was expressing the desire to top me. Once I saw the episode of Law and Order: SVU called “Slaves” based on the real case of “the girl in the box.” I thought the real thing heinous and the perp who subjected a girl he had kidnapped to severe torture with no consent. Funny, the way they represented it in the TV show, made the whole thing very sexy. The dom in the story was really handsome and charismatic, and the fantasy of seeing how much I could “take,” turned me on.
So the upshot was Vicki and I switched roles. Our scenes were more successful on my end. While dominating Vicki turned her on, something was missing for me. Now we were in our natural roles. During scenes, I would suddenly see Vicki, whom I hadn’t glorified before, as a Goddess. Well, for the duration. The rest of the time, we are ourselves. Our relationship is a lot like the one Athena described. I’m lucky to have someone stable in my life after all the madness of youth.
Life and Death
Yet decay is really part of the life cycle. Dead matter feeds new life. Witches make a point of honoring that side of the cycle. The Crone, the dark side of the Moon (or the new moon if you prefer), the Crow (who eats decaying animals). Scavengers keep the world clean. They remove decaying substances which would poison the living. They also transform decaying matter into living substance (themselves). The life cycle is also served whenever an animal eliminates waste or when a plant dies and is reabsorbed in the earth. The life cycle can be compared to the four turnings (decay being the fourth, of course).
discover, in the freezer, meat which has decayed is kept frozen. This struck me as horrible for some reason. Maybe it’s because things kept in the freezer are supposed to be preserved and still edible. Something already decaying, frozen…the frost and snow, concealing it like a really deep evil. The movie, Angel Heart, starts with the sight of a slum 
street at night in winter. The snow is all slushy and dirty. A kitten on one of the fire escapes stands, immaculate (as only cats’ fur can be). A dog, dirty, straggly, feeling the worst of the weather, walks bye and then the camera allows us to see the dog is sniffing a body that has been desecrated. Evil accomplished and stored like a horcrux. Frozen evil. Only decay isn’t evil. It’s a necessary part of the life cycle.
What’s it to me?
I have seen quite a few schizophrenics. I was a patient in a mental institution for two years, between the ages of 13 and 15. There I had the opportunity to witness people who were raving lunatics. Years later, to fulfill a requirement for a college course, I volunteered at a half-way house for ex-mental patients. Most of them were schizophrenics. They were “sane,” probably due to medication, but I found them very flat, uninteresting. Is their treatment to blame?
I have read The Divided Self by R.D. Laing and Mary Barnes, Two Accounts of a Journey Through Madness. I have also seen Asylum, a documentary film about an alternative treatment center for crazy people run by R.D. Laing. The point of view of Laing and his followers is that schizophrenia is a form of alienation from the self. When the person goes mad and has a psychotic break with reality, he or she is really expressing the madness that has been inside all along and is finally integrating or healing hirself. The treatment normally given for psychosis is medication which forces the person back into hir shell, preventing healing from every happening. The “sane” schizophrenics I met seemed to confirm Laing’s critique. The people I saw in Asylum seemed kind of like holy people (or people on an acid trip) rather than the sort of inadequate folks mainstream medicine considers cured.
Another opinion on schizophrenia can be found in Michael Schofield’s book, January First. The book is about his daughter, Jani, who had symptoms of madness from the moment of her birth. She was always staring at a blank wall where she saw a full litany of hallucinations. She was also a genius who began speaking when she was still an infant. She has been treated with meds and the family dislikes the anti-psychiatry movement around the ideas of Laing. Jani comes across as a winsome child full of grace and charm. Strangely, Jani’s life has been closely documented up until she hit puberty which she must have by now. She should be around 15. Perhaps the teen-aged Jani wants her privacy.
As mentioned above, I was in a full-on nut house between the ages of 13 and 15. I was there because of a suicide attempt although the story is a lot more complicated than that. I was very involved in my fantasy life. An avid reader, I would pretend to be different characters at different times. At no time, however, did I ever lose track of the difference between fantasy and reality. I sometimes made people act parts in my fantasy without knowing it. For example, being admitted to the institution was something I caused to happen. I saw myself as a director of the movie that was my life. I had no desire to let people know how their parts in that movie were being directed. Let them think they were acting on their own. I was discharged when I got tired of the fantasy of a suicidal girl and moved on.
Years later, I found out I could get a copy of my file so I did. I discovered then that I had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. A stunning diagnosis considering I had never experienced psychosis and had never even been given an anti-psychotic drug during the entire two years I was there. I’m glad I didn’t know at the time what those doctors had said about me. More recently, I went to a clinic where I showed them my file. They told me that diagnosis was just a product of the times. I find it rich in irony, however. The Urban Dictionary seems to have an explanation other than the benighted thinking of the bad old days. (Doesn’t psychiatry seem to change radically every 20 years of so?) “Super Sanity is when you have reached a point that you are so sane that you may appear crazy to the world.”
Years later, I still was firmly ensconced in my bookworm ways. A book called Cry For War by Richard D. Reynolds made me think of schizophrenics with new respect. This book is amazing for a number of reasons. The couple described therein is as outlaw as people can get. For one thing, they called themselves Muslims in a time when Muslims are the most hated and oppressed group in the world. But no actual Muslim group would have them. Their form of Islam was a completely individual product of their own minds. Suzan Thornell was clearly schizophrenic. Her consort, Michael, was a follower who entered with her into a cult for two. They believed they had a mission to kill “witches” whom they considered evil. There didn’t seem to be much in the way of objective standards for whom to call a witch. It was mostly people who upset them in some way.
Suzan and Michael made their living selling marijuana up and down the West Coast. They were quite competent at their job. They had sources from whom they bought good quality product and plenty of customers. They traveled by way of the thumb most of the time and crashed with people along the way or lived in primitive abandoned cabins in the wilderness. They were both able to endure austerities of great severity. They could live on next to nothing. Suzan was able to go into trances that would have made an advanced yogi proud.
After their first murder in San Francisco (they would have thought “execution”), they hitched up the coast to Oregon. They lugged some food and supplies up to an abandoned mountain cabin in the Cascade wilderness. They made the hut livable (by their standards) and stayed until their food ran out. Since they didn’t have any money either, Michael went off to get more supplies and work for jihad while Suzan fasted (which she had to do since she had no more food). She climbed up on a rickety attic and sat on the floor.
Term first used in connection with the Joker in Batman. It looks like a term for psychopathy. “Super sanity is worse than been insane because you can do anything you want and you wouldn’t feel guilt.. Normally crazy people do things and then they are regretting it all their lives even if they did it willingly. If you are super saner you wont feel guilt and will laugh at death..” I doubt that being able to do anything I want without guilt is a bad thing. “Super Sanity is when you have reached a point that you are so sane that you may appear crazy to the world.” — Urban Dictionary
CLUSTER B 