Politics and Psychopathy

libertarianismLiving in California, I am surrounded by progressives. These people love to equate psychopathy with right-wing views. Of course, libertarianism, the politics of individual freedom of choice, seems to be very compatible with psychopathy and what is called libertarianism is often synonymous with right-wing values of the “free market,” in other words, untrammeled capitalism.

The reality is that psychopathy is not married to any political viewpoint. A forum for “sociopaths” I once belonged to polled us for our politics and it turned out that we represented all positions on the political spectrum. A valued friend who is a psychopath is even a socialist. So I object to progressives equating progressive politics with empathy and demonizing the most reactionary politicos as psychopaths. Sure many or most progressives have empathy for the poor and downtrodden. But that isn’t the only factor that goes into progressive positions. Membership in the 99% is reason enough to be progressive in our own self-interest.

To my surprise and amazement, I have just come across a website called Disordered World which looked, at first glance, to be just another place for dissing psychopaths and ianhughesnarcissists. But, surprise of surprises, this one has a sort of right-wing slant. It is the brain child of one Ian Hughes, who has a book called Disordered Minds. The blog lists world leaders and prominent politicos as examples of psychopathy and narcissism. They are “Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Islamic State, narcissistic bosses, Noam Chomsky, religion and evil, and more…” Interesting how Hitler hasn’t made the list but Noam Chomsky has. While rich people are usually right-wing, Noam Chomsky is an anomaly in that he is wealthy but supports progressive causes. The right hates him for that.

noamchomskyMr. Hughes devotes an entire page  to Mr. Chomsky, whose “disorder” is evident by the way he thinks. His view of “how the world works” reveals his disordered mind. What are the three tenets of Chomsky’s political philosophy that so damns him?

  • The U.S. government is subordinate to private power
  • The US government uses war as a tool of economic policy
  • Inequality is written into the system by the rich

The truth of these positions seems self-evident to me. If these beliefs indicate a personality disorder, Chomsky has a lot of company. Why thinking these statements are true indicates the presence of a personality disorder isn’t explained. Hughes has made similar statements, himself. How his ideas differ from Chomsky’s ideas isn’t clear.

us-imperialism-by-latuff-2007-political-cartoon-drawingIf ruthlessness and lack of empathy are psychopathic traits, the ruthlessness with which the United States has enforced it’s imperialist rule and the lack of empathy evident in the application of it’s policies should make the leaders in the White House and State Department candidates for the title of psychopath but none of these people are listed. Only Chomsky, who criticizes them, is listed. Apparently criticizing the wealthiest 1% is reason enough.


Elsewhere, Hughes praises a book called Living Well at Others’ Expense by Stephen Lessenich which claims that the all-too-obvious economic inequality isn’t really the fault of the rich. Everyone is “complicit.” There is some truth to this. When capitalism became increasingly toxic, it developed into imperialism which divided the rest of us, aside from the super-rich, into waring factions. By conferring privilege on some parts of the population, the 1% gained the complicity of the privileged. But it just will not do to blame everyone as a way to give the rich, who have us doing their bidding, a free pass. Lessenich knows the system needs to be dismantled and replaced with something else. But he doesn’t know with what. With Hughes demonizing all socialists, I think we can count socialism out as the alternative to capitalist-imperialism.

Let’s look at some of the other “disordered” people on the list.

  • Pol Pot, Cambodia
    Pol Pot, another “leftist” technically but not really progressive. The campaign was cruel in the extreme. It had all the earmarks of fanaticism. Are we to label all cruelty “psychopathic?”
  •  Stalin. Another “leftist” if you can call him that
  •  Mao. You get the drift

Hughes may go on and on about people like Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao. To his credit, he does add Trump later in his blog once Trump is elected. But why pick on Noam Chomsky? And what about Chomsky’s ideas that made him one of the monsters? Oh well. Too much for my head. Time for a holiday in Cambodia.

How Addiction Leads to Personality Disorders

REBLOG FROM https://luckyottershaven.com/2019/04/29/guest-post-how-addiction-leads-to-personality-disorders/

I am reblogging this article by Sharon Torres which I found on Lucky Otter’s Haven. It’s right on the topic of Cluster B.

How Addiction Leads to Personality Disorders
By Sharon Torres

Personality disorders such as narcissism and sociopathy are often blamed upon the nature vs. nurture model. When people’s brains are wired to have these kinds of problems and it is coupled with childhood trauma, these are possible causes of having a psychological disorder.

However, there is another side of the story where personality disorders don’t just come from childhood trauma nor a natural brain wiring–it comes with the development of an addiction. I hope that my experience with being in a relationship with someone who is suffering from both addiction and a personality disorder will provide you with insight into how one caused the other and vice versa.

My story of narcissistic abuse

I was a naive girl in college back in my home country. I always dreamed of having a perfect relationship so I kept myself free from exclusively dating unless I was certain. My cousin then invited me to a social ball at this college, and this is where I met my dashing, charming, ex-boyfriend.

My ex was a senior of my cousin, so he was required to introduce me as his partner in the social ball. This young and handsome bachelor was known among his batch mates and he was known as the heartthrob of his class. This is where it began–after the party, he added me on Facebook which was to my surprise! I wasn’t even able to take a hint that he noticed me.

After hours and days of talking, the friendship quickly grew to something romantic. Looking back, I believe it was the love bombing phase in our relationship. Since he knew that I took the bait, he was eager to win me.

This romantic phase turned sour when we eventually became a couple after 3 months. I started to feel neglected, and I discovered something he had hidden from me throughout that getting-to-know-you phase–he had a drinking problem! Still, my rose-colored glasses stayed on. I was determined to “change” him and make our relationship better.

Little did I know that those hopes were just that–mere hopes. He was deep in denial of his drinking problem, and when he had fits of rage he would say things that he didn’t mean. He would threaten to break up with me, curse me, suddenly stop responding to my calls, blaming me as being too “controlling.” He would even talk to other girls just to show that I was easily dispensable. Being naive as I was, I thought that these were normal relationship conflicts. I took the verbal and emotional abuse as though it was something that I should work on. When he was sober, he would lure me in again through his sweet words and coaxing. The pattern repeated itself again and again, which ultimately tore my self-esteem.

My relationship with my ex was full of heartache and pain, until one day, I chose to free myself from this vicious cycle. It took me one whole year to finally get away from this narcissistic abuse after months of hoovering and questioning my decision. Needless to say, I do not regret my decision. I am happily married now to another man, and the difference was clear as day. Looking back, I realized how one’s personality can change due to having an addiction problem.

Why is addiction linked to personality disorders?

Addiction of any kind, whether it is drugs, alcohol, or other substances, can affect a person’s physical, mental, and emotional state. The addictive component found in these substances changes the brain’s wiring through continued use. In the case of alcoholism, the brain is led to the release of endorphins, which are the natural feel-good hormones of the brain.

The problem with continued, increasing use of these substances is that it quickly escalates from tolerance into dependence. When the brain and body are dependent on drugs and alcohol, functioning without it becomes a disaster–this causes the multitudes of withdrawal symptoms, anxiety, distress, and the dreaded changes in personality.

According to several Colorado addiction resources, a person who is addicted to substances may show one or more of the following traits:

Impatience. When a person suffers from substance use, it is their source of comfort and gratification. Without it, they may often find themselves having an attitude of impatience. They are impatient towards their partners, become unreasonably demanding towards others, or may show fits of rage because of their inability to wait.

Easily aggravated. Anger is another issue that may often appear due to substance use. When the body is largely dependent on drugs or alcohol, it may easily suffer from physical symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, cramping, or fevers. Additionally, it can also affect the person’s mood because of the many discomforts without the substance.

Impulsive. When combined with being easily aggravated, people who suffer from substance abuse and personality disorders tend to say or do things that they may regret later. They are prone to getting in physical fights, reckless driving, having multiple partners, or doing other dangerous acts that could affect them or their loved ones.

Manipulation is one of the hallmarks of personality disorders such as sociopathy and psychopathy. People who are highly manipulative will do anything to get what they want–without a sense of morality of their means to get there. In the same way, people with addictions can use other people and situations to their advantage, and this is because they need the immediate pleasure of consuming the substances they need.

Abusive. Abuse is not just through physical means. They can also involve verbal and emotional abuse, which are hard to determine especially if you are blindsided in your relationships. Most people who suffer from personality disorders along with substance abuse will use rudeness, cursing, and other forms of hurtful words at their peak of anger. A steady, loving relationship ensues respect from one another–and although conflicts are bound to happen, it does not involve hurting each other physically or through words. If you are a victim of abuse, seek help right away.

It is important to understand that people suffer from personality disorders due to their genetic or familial predisposition to them, from an abusive or neglectful early childhood, or from other early trauma. They learn that using substances make them feel “in control” of their disorder. In the same way, people also develop personality disorders due to continued substance use. It is a two-way cycle that exacerbates and increases the risk for both.

If you feel like a loved one is suffering from a personality disorder coupled with substance abuse, there are addiction resources to help them out. They offer medical treatment, counseling, and lifestyle rehabilitation to help them take a shot at recovery and to manage their personality disorders.

Sharon Torres is a freelance writer who is chronicling her experiences through this thing called life. She believes that if you always move forward in life then there is no need to look back. Her favorite writer is Phillip K. Dick.

Visit Sharon’s blog at: http://sharontorreswriter.blogspot.com/



Science is about what is. Morality is about what should be. In the Middle Ages, Western man believed God was micro-managing everything. There must not have been much of a divide between science and morality in those days. God’s will was automatically the ultimate good and the way things were the expression of that will. I guess things were a lot simpler then. If anyone tried to question those verities, he was burned as a heretic.

Reason, Enlightenment and Renaissance made things a lot more complex (and more interesting). Man came to understand that what is was not the same thing as what should be. Sure, it all had to be God’s will as long of God was believed to be in charge. But God’s will wasn’t always the good. God allowed evil to reign for limited periods of time with the understanding, of course, that the good would eventually win.

Atheism opened up a whole lot of other possibilities. Without God’s will and the Bible, man had to figure out what was good on his own. Hence, philosophy replaced theology. All that uncertainty must have given man the willies. Thank gods science was developed at a pathway to certainty. But science was limited in that it was only allowed to study what is, not what should be. Still, society seems pretty settled on the nature of good and evil.

Of the many fields of scientific inquiry, psychiatry and psychology are the most loosey-goosey and, hence, the least certain. Still, those who labored in those fields usually tried their best to stay true to science. Below are some exceptions…


  • Simon Sez. Psychologist George Simon thinks psychopathy should be called a “character” disorder instead of a personality disorder because we are bad people with a bad character. So imagine my surprise when I read that this same man has said we are born this way.
  • Malignant Narcissism.
  • Science and Morality. In a pluralistic society such as ours, philosophy and religion are considered the realm of the individual. That is simply because people can’t agree.
  • Shrinkocracy Anyone? 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.

Childhood Psychopathy

John Marshall, The Scotsman

aaron_campbellJohn Marshall, a consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, writing under the handle “The Scotsman,” wrote an article, Political correctness strikes again: Many social workers are in denial about child psychopaths dealing with a case in which a 16-year-old boy, Aaron Campbell, raped and killed six-year-old, Aleisha MacPhail. From this extraordinary case, Dr. Marshall goes on to make the case for diagnosing kids with psychopathy, something that is verboten in professional circles. Kids who show psychopathic traits can be called “callous unemotional” instead. The brain of a child is in such a volatile state of development that children can’t be called “psychopaths” according to psychiatry, psychology and other related fields. The article points out that one doesn’t “become” a psychopath on one’s 16th birthday. Actually, 16 is considered too young for       the diagnosis. The brain is still developing.

The Scotsman argues,

alesha_macphailIt would be tempting to think that the type of sadistic homicide carried out by Campbell is so rare that there is little we need to do about people with psychopathic traits. It is estimated that less than one to three per cent in the population will be diagnosed with these traits over their lifetime and even among offenders only around eight per cent are psychopathic. However, psychopaths are responsible for overwhelming misery, disproportionate amounts of crime, more varied offending and they are far more likely to be responsible for homicide. They may even be responsible for more than half of all persistent, violent crimes.

scotsmanAs a psychopath who knows other psychopaths, none of us having raped and killed a child, I get bloody tired of seeing out kind characterized this way. Of course, society has a tendency to call a perp of any heinous crime “a psychopath.” And yet, “At a hearing after the trial ended it emerged the teenager had a history of self harm, anxiety and depression, and has been tested for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” Self-harm, anxiety and depression are not symptoms of psychopathy. In fact, psychopaths have less of those symptoms than nons. This is a perfect example of equating a horrible crime with psychopathy. Has this boy been diagnosed with even callous unemotional disorder (the approved diagnosis for pre-psychopathic youth)?

This boy is a poor example to use if the Scotsman wants to argue for giving minors diagnoses of psychopathy. And it’s high time to stop all this loose talk about how psychopaths are “responsible for overwhelming misery…” when using such questionable data.



Things I Don’t Relate To

…and yet,

furries-500x333My friend, Lucky Otter, doesn’t believe I’m a psychopath. Yet, I never “felt” more psychopathic than I did reading her latest blog, A furry that I never met helped me conquer my fear of death. Her son is what is known as a “furry.” I had never heard of them until Lucky blogged about her son. I’m sorry, Lucky. I just can’t relate to this phenomenon.

dogbomb1The furry who helped her overcome her fear of death, Tony Barrett, aka “Dogbomb,” is pictured on the blog I linked to above. His face is what I can only call “creepy.” He has what I would call “a kick me face.” Furries wear animal costumes which look like pajamas with fake fur and a head mask. What I find most off-putting is the way they almost all look like “animals” you would see in kids’ cartoons. They are unbearably CUTE.

I did some research and found that furries love to cuddle with each other. Isn’t that DARLING? They have a reputation for being evil degenerates which seems undeserved. Sure, they have sex. Don’t most adults (and teenagers)? But some have been accused of having sex with real animals and with children. I guess some of them probably do but some non-furries do as well. (shrug) What I find icky is the way they seem so fixated on such infantile images.

When transsexualism became a thing, some people repudiated it by reducto ad absurdum. “What if someone claims to be another species?” they would say. Well, I don’t know how many furries would actually claim to be animals “trapped in the body” of a human being.

The most outrageous example of a transsexual being absurd is the 52-year-old father of seven children who decided he was really a six-year-old girl and abandoned his family to live with a couple who had real children but let him move in to pretend to be one of their kids. It’s amazing how much support he is getting from even the transgender movement which I would have thought would find him an embarrassment. The articles about him keep calling him “her.”  No. I draw the line at that.

What I seriously dislike about transgenderism is the way they are so authoritarian. I never had a problem calling drag queens “she.” But I will not be forced to call anyone by a pronoun because they demand it or, even worse, get laws passed to compel the world to support their delusion. Furries don’t have a lot of rules for people not in their genre. At least  not so far.

Lucky Otter has a blog post called My son is “furry” — got a problem with that? She introduces the topic by saying, “So far my blog has been pretty inoffensive. Well, I like to think so anyway. But I knew the time would come where I’d have to post about something controversial and now is that time.” But Lucky Otter has never shied away from controversy. She defended people with borderline personality disorder, critiqued anti-narcissist blogs by suggesting many of the writers on these blogs were narcs themselves and regularly badmouths psychopaths. Well, that last thing isn’t all that controversial except to psychopaths.

Well, I am not writing this to diss furries. I am more interested in exploring the difference between my reaction and people like Lucky Otter. About Dogbomb’s video (pictured on her blog), Lucky wrote, “This little animation made me totally lose it for almost an hour. Not just a few tears, but full blown sobbing. This wasn’t actually unpleasant at all, but cathartic. Like a good emotional enema, I felt like my soul had been cleansed.” I played it and thought, “Is that it?” Nothing! I didn’t even connect cognitively to the emotional content. Hm….

And, yet, when I was a child, I wanted to be a cat. Our cat looked so contented. He didn’t have to go to school. Lucky cat. I even told my mother I wanted to “mate” with the cat.  When I was older, but still pre-puberty, I wanted to be a boy. I seriously thought of dressing like one and passing. Had transgenderism been an option in those days, I might have chosen it. I’m glad it wasn’t an option because that feeling passed and I was happy to grow into a woman. I never had a problem calling cross-dressers by the pronoun of the gender they were dressing as. But that was a courtesy, not something they were entitled to demand of me. I guess some of the disconnect is due to the fact that I am neither a millennial, nor an empath.