Psychopathy/Sociopathy is a Manifestation of Dictatorship!

I guess that you may have already come across the controversial tweet by an actress that has stirred the political hornet’s nest.

The provocative tweet as reported by the Quartz [“You are a psychopath”: An actress’s post on Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has gone viral, October 9]

“First of all, no one is trying to fight you. As a matter of fact, you’re the one who’s picking a fight. Secondly, the country where you are elected as president by 16 million out of 100-plus million is Third World. You talk as if the Philippines is a superpower. Excuse me, we don’t want to go hungry. If you want, you do it yourself. Leave us out of it. So many people have nothing to eat, and yet you’ll starve us even further… Third, I know a psychiatrist. Get yourself checked. You’re not bipolar. You are a psychopath.”

Although I sympathize with the above, this has been emblematic of what I call personality based politics.

Personality based politics is where political leaders, as ramification/s of their actions or statements, are critiqued "ethically" based on their individual character rather than the “unseen” contextual substance or message. The template: Leader X did or said Y, hence he/she is moral/immoral.

Let us put the alleged mental malady tweet into perspective.

Mr. Duterte had been a “psychopath” prior to the elections (cursed the Pope and the US ambassador), yet got elected by 16 million or close to 40% of the voting population. At the end of the first 100 days in office, media reported a +76% trust rating, according to polls—even after having exhibited sustained psychopathic behavior!

You see, the problem has even been more than Mr. Duterte as a “psychopath”.

Instead, the crux of the problem has been that a significant segment of the Philippine populace has been enamored or mesmerized by Mr. Duterte’s manifestations of mental disorder. It would rather seem that de rigeur politics can be described as biased in favor for “psychopaths”.

The lesson here: Mr. Duterte’s actions are a symptom of populist politics (the superhero syndrome)

Or the Philippine politics has drifted to the politics of psychopathy.

And because of the high trust ratings, the administration even expressed confidence to pursue such “psychopathic” path: (GMA October 12) “This will further motivate his administration to continue what he started in his first 100 days--fighting illegal drugs and crime, combating terrorism, curbing corruption, and sustaining the momentum of economic growth,” Andanar said.

Let me add that the tweet has rather been charitable to Mr. Duterte because it described the Philippine leader as a “psychopath” which is defined as (dictionary.com) amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

The more cogent behavioral description should be “sociopath” or “advanced psychopathy”. A sociopath signifies (dictionary.com) a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

How do you call a person who bears an obsessive compulsion to see arbitrary mass killings in the name attaining utopia (nirvana fallacy)?

As far back in December 2015, when Mr. Duterte’s popularity began to surge, I wrote about the Strongman Bubble: (Before It’s News used to republish my blog articles so you read it here)

Financial Bubbles which are the belief in something out of nothing, can traced to have spilled over to the du jour politics in the form of the strongman rule.

The strongman rule bubble evinces of the desire to solve social economic and political problems with the arbitrary use of force.

The strongman rule bubble believes that such arbitrary use of force will serve to benefit the populace.

The strongman rule bubble believes such arbitrary use of force will be applied platonically on perceived popular moral grounds.

The strongman rule bubble believes in the oxymoron that the democracy, a government by the people, is inferior to and should be substituted for a reign of absolute power—dictatorship. Essentially people who adore the strongman rule bubble have really been against democracy. Not only have they have been incoherent, they must be petty tyrants.

The strongman rule bubble believes everyone has to conform with strongman’s values, preferences, tastes, perception and priorities.

In the same December post, not only did I warn that this would lead to undermining of the currency, I even pointed out that psycho-sociopathic is the NATURE of dictatorship or tyrants (regardless of the political ideological leanings).

The free market academic field has even proposed three models for why dictators are essentially sociopaths: namely, the Acton (Power corrupts) model, the Hayek (Worst Gets to the Top) model and the Eugene Richter (Born Bad) model. Back to my December post [bold added]

For one, the strong man bubble depends on a leader, which for Lord Acton (John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton) will be corrupted by power or “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”.

Another, dictatorship depends on leaders whom are unfettered by social compulsion such that the great FA Hayek says that the “Worst Get on Top”.

Such totalitarian leaders will take on the task that are “ruthless ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals can execute”. Such task essentially attracts sociopaths, sadists and morally insensitive people.

Third, Eugen Richter a German politician saw totalitarians as “born bad”. Why? Economist, author and Professor Bryan Caplan explain:

Richter: they are idealists, but their ideal is totalitarian. Deluded zealots who sincerely believe in their cause but their cause from the outset is one that involves doing terrible things to people. Consistent with Lenin, Castro, people who you could have believed and many did believe were idealists and altruists, but they were quick to destroy and kill. Very often people assume that if you are not corrupt, then you are good. So Stalin, for example, by all accounts lived an extremely modest life, slept on a cot; but he murdered millions of people. 

In a modern dictatorship where you have to fight to get to the top, those who get to the top have to kill; whereas in a hereditary monarchy, you actually do eventually have a chance of getting lucky. King Leopold situation: one dividing line people make between sociopaths and simple murderers is that sociopath doesn’t mind doing horrible things to people who are well known to him. Stalin a sociopath in this sense; Hitler really was not. Stalin enjoyed putting the wives of people he worked with in prison. Hitler, while he was willing to do things to millions of strangers, with people he knew, he really had to work himself up. The decision made to kill Ernst Roehm, he spent several hours trying to convince himself it would be all right. Probably similar for King Leopold–easier to kill people far away.

In short, dictatorship depends on leaders who are largely malignant narcissist, who would not hesitate to “kill, murder, hurt anyone who gets into their way”—to please their egos.

Again the above shows why I empathize with the actress’ gripe, although our difference is that instead of being seen as a character defect or anomaly, sociopathy are manifestations or evidences of tyrannical behavior

And again I have repeatedly pointed out here, Mr. Duterte’s supposed mental disorder should be seen asdeliberate expressions or a thespian political act (social signaling)  designed to entrance the populace [Phisix 7,580: Media "Cries Uncle" as the Maginot Defense Line Caves In! September 11, 2016]

Anyone who dares criticize on his supposed mandate to use extrajudicial means to his pet project the “war on drugs” will be subjected to ad hominem politics through intimidation, expletives and threats at the very least. The idea is to paint himself as sincere, steadfast in commitment, and morally upright to his followers

And such acts have done exactly what it has been meant for: to captivate his desired audiences to the point of establishing a halo effect. The Halo effect is a cognitive error which (Wikipedia) influences the observer's feelings and thoughts about that entity's character or properties. This Halo Effect syndrome seems to have been so successful as to even subvert formerly entrenched traditional values/beliefs, such as the Catholic faith and the affinity for the US, in favor of Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs founded on the judge, jury and executioner or the implicit policy of murder.

The point of all these has been that the public fails to appreciate that socio/psychopathy has signified a tool for the "Transforming the consciousness of society" in order for society to embrace socialism or the Philippine version: Ochlocratic leftist dictatorship

And as proof, because the actress who made the tweet, has been subjected to intense social media mob lynching, Mr. Duterte responded to this with ironic and uncanny “civility” to even cite the actresses' "constitutional rights" (Philstar October 12). Although, a senator appears to have taken up the cudgels in favor of the embattled actress. (Rappler October 12)

And because of high trust ratings, the war on drugs will now be expanded to include the war on smoking or cigarettes and eventually to the war on alcohol (Rappler October 10)!

If you haven’t noticed all these have signified as a slippery slope to curtail people’s property rights and civil liberties. And in order to secure such goals, interventions will beget interventions (eventually monitoring will have to be done on a household basis, so the government will keep expanding to ensure controls at household levels).

And burgeoning interventions will lead to the point that we would be told what to eat, what to wear, the allowable things to watch to read, who to associate with or more…

Furthermore, the tweet also argued that "picking a fight" leads to hunger. Yet another important attribution of the socialist political economy is that they operate on the premise on self-sufficiency (autarky). And to achieve this, the socialist political economies reduce private sector participation, be it internally and externally.

In short, socialist political economies are basically closed economies. And this is why socialist political economies implement either direct ownership of the factors of production (basic socialist template) or indirect ownership of the factors of production through economic fascism (limited privately owned firms but are government directed or the Nazi blueprint). So “picking up fights” signifies as an intuitive socialist behavior because the aim is to CLOSE the economy or to eventually attain autarky.

The reported throng of 400 businessmen who will flock to China to accompany Mr. Duterte’s state visit looks likely a symptom of this shift. (Inquirer October 13)

In essence, if politics is to determine a nation’s economic path, then the fickleness of the political environment would lead to tremendous volatility or dislocations from regime uncertainty (uncertainty over property rights). So business people will have to cozy up with the leadership to generate privileges for them to become key economic agents /cronies of the government.

And if Western businesses are to be eschewed and substituted for Chinese-sourced business today, then not only will there be a huge adjustment period, there will be an enhanced risk of dependence, and more importantly, discontinuity. By the risk of continuity, think of this way, all things being equal, (or if there will be no change in the constitution), just what happens at the end Mr. Duterte’s term if he is to be replaced pro-West anti-Chinese leader? Then what happens to all these? You see, this shows why there is a powerful incentive to change the constitution. Mr. Duterte will have to see it to it that there will be continuity to this socialist evolution process.

At the end of the day, this attraction to economic and political-superhero syndrome bubbles (short term orientation) ensures that the Philippines will remain, sorry to say, a third world country.

Popular opinion will shape political trends, as the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, (Bureaucracy p 115)

The aim of the popularization of economic studies is not to make every man an economist. The idea is to equip the citizen for his civic functions in community life. The conflict between capitalism and totalitarianism, on the outcome of which the fate of civilization depends, will not be decided by civil wars and revolutions. It is a war of ideas. Public opinion will determine victory and defeat

The tweet only has revealed how Philippine democracy has morphed into the politics of sociopathy!

Quote of the Day: The Person Who is Best Qualified to Govern You is You

From self development and libertarian author Robert Ringer at his website: (italics original)

All this by way of saying that because of the way our political system operates, it makes it a certainty that the scum will always rise to the top. And why not? Getting into politics is the easiest and quickest way known to mankind to become rich and powerful. How can a larcenous person resist such an opportunity?

As early as the mid-nineteenth century, the great individual anarchist Lysander Spooner put it simply when he explained that when someone says that a certain type of government is best, that does not mean it’s a good government. It simply means that it’s the least bad of all other forms of government.

The challenge, then, is to find a way to educate the public so it understands that government, by its very nature, is inherently evil. Generations from now, if the United States starts to rise from the ashes of its criminally controlled bread-and-circus existence, perhaps some social genius who is a firm believer in liberty can come up with a much better system of government than a “republic” or democracy.

Whenever some slick-tongued politician says something “patriotic” like, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” it takes an enlightened mind to understand the truth in Samuel Johnson’s observation, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Which means that virtually all presidential candidates, this year or any other, are scoundrels.

No system will ever be perfect (even the Founding Fathers failed at that), but the only hope for a morally based society is one that is rooted in Thomas Jefferson’s words that “That government is best which governs least.”

If ever a majority of citizens come to believe this, we may finally find a way to invent a government that governs so little that it becomes almost invisible. The fact is that criminal politicians have no qualifications to govern you. As you labor through the next seven-plus months of political theater, always keep that in mind and remember that the person who is best qualified to govern you is you.

Quote of the Day: Why the Worst 'Politicians' Get on Top: The Comparative Advantage

Austrian economist and Senior fellow at The Independent Institute Robert Higgs discuss the modern day application of the great FA Hayek's “Why the Worst Get on Top” from his classic the Road to Serfdom.

The rise of reprehensible individuals to the top of the political heap is precisely what anyone with a realistic view of history and a bit of education in public choice theory would expect.

Consider first that politics is a competitive endeavor. In this realm, office seekers and program promoters strive to gain their objectives, each at the expense of others similarly striving to promote themselves, their programs, and their other governmental aims. What sort of person is most likely to succeed in this competition?

When prize fighters compete, they first learn how to avoid, ward off, or soften the opponent’s blows while landing the most and the strongest punches themselves. This form of competition is not for the weak or the timid. Besides having a natural fearlessness and training for personal combat in the ring, the prize fighter must possess a capacity for aggressive assault and battery on another human being. Beating a man senseless is all in a successful day’s work. Those incapable of or averse to such conduct cannot succeed in this line of work.

Likewise, given the institutional, psychological, ideological, and economic realities of the current electoral system in the United States (and many other countries), no one can succeed if he or she is too fastidious about violating a host of moral and legal strictures. Imagine a presidential aspirant who insisted on always telling the truth, speaking clearly without evasion or distortion of the issues; on proposing only feasible and rational policies to promote the public’s general interest, rather than the self-serving plans of powerful special interests; and on steering clear of unnecessary involvement in the affairs of other countries or engagement in quarrels abroad that do not jeopardize the security of Americans in their own territory. To imagine such a candidate is to imagine practically the exact opposite of the present candidates. These malodorous persons are so far from being morally upright, honest, and forthright—not to mention being simply decent by ordinary standards—that claiming they are basically good people seems only to evince how out of touch with reality one is.

Why is it, then, that the virtues and decencies that we generally expect people to have in their private life are so manifestly absent in the people who succeed best in politics and government? The answer lies in the nature of government itself—at least, government as we currently know it all over the world, a system of imposed, involuntary, monopoly rule whereby the system’s kingpins use military and police power along with ideological enchantment to plunder and bully innocent people—and to get away with doing so year after year. Just as only physically tough, fearless, aggressive persons succeed as prize fighters, so only dishonest, slick, evasive, power-hungry, unscrupulous, and vicious persons have what it takes to succeed in a system whose very foundations—violence, aggression, extortion, and misrepresentation—are completely at odds with private standards of just and virtuous conduct.

If someone like me—elderly, small, weak, timid, and untrained—were put in the ring to fight for the heavyweight boxing championship, you would not expect me to survive more than a few seconds. Likewise, if someone like me—someone who respects other persons’ natural rights to life, liberty, and property and who abhors dishonesty, extortion, aggression, and unnecessary violence—were thrown into the political or governmental arena, I would scarcely last much longer. There’s a reason why today’s leading campaigners are such morally ugly individuals: they have a comparative advantage in taking the kinds of actions one must take in order to reach the pinnacle of government power.

Quote of the Day: Why the Worst Get on Top

The great Austrian economist F. A. Hayek explained of why the worst people rise to become despots or totalitarians: (An excerpt from Chapter 10, Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944) as published by Fee.org (bold added)

It would, however, be highly unjust to regard the masses of the totalitarian people as devoid of moral fervor because they give unstinted support to a system which to us seems a denial of most moral values. For the great majority of them the opposite is probably true: the intensity of the moral emotions behind a movement like that of National-Socialism or communism can probably be compared only to those of the great religious movements of history. Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarian regimes which horrify us follow of necessity.

From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual, are essential and unavoidable consequences of this basic premise, and the collectivist can admit this and at the same time claim that his system is superior to one in which the "selfish" interests of the individual are allowed to obstruct the full realisation of the ends the community pursues. When German philosophers again and again represent the striving for personal happiness as itself immoral and only the fulfilment of an imposed duty as praiseworthy, they are perfectly sincere, however difficult this may be to understand for those who have been brought up in a different tradition.

Where there is one common all-overriding end there is no room for any general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in wartime. But even war and the greatest peril had led in this country only to a very moderate approach to totalitarianism, very little setting aside of all other values in the service of a single purpose. But where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable that occasionally cruelty may become a duty, that acts which revolt all our feeling, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, should be treated as mere matters of expediency, that the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands should become an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims, or that suggestions like that of a "conscription of women for breeding purposes" can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of the collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no limits in any rights or values of any individual.

But while for the mass of the citizens of the totalitarian state it is often unselfish devotion to an ideal, although one that is repellent to us, which makes them approve and even perform such deeds, this cannot be pleaded for those who guide its policy. To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds, he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realise, no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks, and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility involve. The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way. 

Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and spying, are numerous.

Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Italian or Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads. It is only too true when a distinguished American economist concludes from a similar brief enumeration of the duties of the authorities of a collectivist state that they would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tenderhearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation.