Wendy Gardner sentenced to 7 years to life
James A. Chamblee
> your pathetic culture
> still sees fit to lock 15 year old Wendy up in a cage. You created > her, and now you choose to deny your role in creating her, and to > inflict this perverse punishment upon her.
I am as anti-prison and anti-Death Penalty as they come.
But she plotted the death of her granny. I think the sentence is
entirely appropriate. She's just lucky she's a woman, and lucky she's
in New York. The N.Y. women's prison system is pretty good, from all
accounts I've read.
Jim
Md.
Jen1orbit
Hello,
I have posted several messages regarding Wendy Gardner, the 15 year old
girl who is being sent to jail because when she was 13 she managed to
convince her boyfriend to kill her grandmother.
Today was sentencing day, and the judge imposed a seven years to Life
sentence on poor Wendy. She will remain in a youth detention facility
until age 18, then will be transferred to an adult prison. I have already
ranted and raved about the perversity of your judicial system in this
case, so I won't do it again.
All I want to say is, sleep well tonight folks, knowing that your
pathetic society created Wendy and caused her to have the need to kill her
grandma at age 13, and even though she did not participate in the murder,
merely convinced her boyfriend to kill grandma, your pathetic culture
still sees fit to lock 15 year old Wendy up in a cage. You created her,
and now you choose to deny your role in creating her, and to inflict this
perverse punishment upon her. The theory of reflectivity will win out,
folks. Your own societal perversity WILL be reflected back at you, if not
by Wendy, then by other abused and tormented children when they reach
maturity and decide to claim their justifiable vengeance.
Take care, JOE
The following is from today's Reuters news wire:
KINGSTON, N.Y. (Reuter) - A 15-year-old girl who helped kill her
grandmother, then stuffed the body in a car, had sex with her boyfriend
and played video games in the dead woman's home was jailed for seven years
to life Wednesday.
Wendy Gardner was 13 when she and her boyfriend were charged with
killing Elizabeth Gardner, 67, in upstate New York. Gardner was convicted
on Feb. 21 and her boyfriend James Evans, now 18, was convicted of
second-degree murder last July and is serving the maximum term.
Gardner tearfully apologized to Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael
Bruhn and was so emotional during her sentencing that she was unable to
speak at first. The county's youngest murder defendant told Bruhn she asks
herself every day why she and her boyfriend committed the brutal murder
but does not have an answer.
``The judge was not happy to hear this,'' said Michael Miranda, an
assistant district attorney for Ulster County who prosecuted the case.
``Before she is eligible for parole at 21, she will have to give a
reason.''
The girl received less than the maximum nine-years-to-life sentence
because Evans was the one who actually killed Gardner by strangling her
with a kite string. She will remain in a state youth detention facility in
Valhalla until she is 18 when she will be moved to a woman's prison.
Defense lawyers said the grandmother was a church-going strict
disciplinarian who abused Wendy. They claimed the girl was innocent and
was under the influence of Evans, described by court psychiatrists as a
sociopath who tortured cats.
The teen-age couple had plotted the woman's death for several weeks
and had considered shooting her, chopping her up or stabbing her. On the
night of the murder, Gardner said she told Evans to ``just do it,'' and
ran upstairs and hid with her younger sister, Kathy.
Kathy, 11 at the time of the murder, testified at the trial that Wendy
forcibly kept her in the house and threatened to kill her if she went to
police. After three days she escaped to a neighbor who called police.
The couple stuffed the woman's body in her car trunk and drove around
town for a few days, using $880 they stole from her to buy video games,
candy, sneakers and lingerie and go bowling. They also had sex in the room
where they strangled the grandmother, who had taken Wendy and her sister
into her home in 1986 after their parents gave up custody of the girls.
Their mother was a drug-addicted prostitute who died of AIDS last year
and their father admitted to causing his own father to have a fatal heart
attack after an argument.
16:53 04-09-97
Agent@large
Here we go again. Let's keep it simple.
Wendy has no excuse - she was not abused by her grandmother. Her
younger sister, Kathy (2 years her junior) was raised in the same home
and commited no criminal acts. The grandmother "sometimes" slapped and
paddled Wendy, but there was absolutely no abuse at all from all
accounts.
Wendy was not manipulated by her boyfriend (he had even asked her if
she would love him if he killed the grandmother for her). And although
Wendy's mother was a prostitute, and her father was reported to have
caused his own father to have a heart attack during an argument, Kathy
had the same parents and did not turn into a criminal.
Wendy's attitudes (i.e., she thought only of herself, nobody was going
to tell her what to do, she was smarter than everybody else, other
people meant nothing to her except what she could use them for, all
her problems were caused by other people, she was blameless and was
really a decent person inside, etc.) are what caused her to commit
this crime. Wendy's boyfriend used her for sex, but Wendy used sex to
manipulate him to kill her grandmother.
Wendy's attitudes were the cause of this horrible crime. She should be
held accountable - for HER sake as well as for the sake of others. She
needs to learn that she is responsible for her own behavior - that her
behavior has consequences - and hopefully, when she finally is
discharged, she might not do something dangerous to herself or to
others again. She just might learn that by changing her attitudes, she
can live a reasonably satisfying life. However she has to WANT to
change - willingly. But even if she doesn't learn this, we will have
at least 7 years without Wendy carrying out another murder, with or
without an accomplice.
gmsp...@aol.com
> have posted several messages regarding Wendy Gardner, the 15 year old
>girl who is being sent to jail because when she was 13 she managed to
>convince her boyfriend to kill her grandmother.
Sorry, Joe, can't see where this child was abused. Just
because a person claims it is so doesn't make it so. Have
you ever considered the possibility of just a bad seed?
Grandmother Spider
Wouldbenic
I agree Grandmother Spider. Does anyone know if Ted Bundy was abused as a
child. He must have been done bad by somebody at sometime in his life, if
the excuse of a killer is my mommy did not like me!!!!!! I think most of
these killers are either just plain crazy or they want
something................money!!! For someone to kill their own Grammy is
just BAD.
Tony Bowman
Ah, the typical liberal response.....society is to blame for these poor
evil teenagers who commit murder, or convice someone to kill for them.
James A. Chamblee
> =
> I do not believe that any human being is born with their the > c=
apacity or the desire to kill or seriously injure anyone. This need > to h=
urt/kill others is something that is created within the child, or > within =
the adult, through his or her own negative experiences with > fellow hum=
an beings.
Not true. There are a well studied minority of humans who have been =
determined to be violent sociopaths, an uncorrectable condition. Hear =
is a summary of what some researchers have said about sociopaths. =
(Sometimes they use the term psychopath - means the same thing):
Superficially adequate and often excels in social situations.
Chronic inability to make a success of his own life.
Becomes a true disappointment to those who were charmed to expect more, =
to those who began to believe in him, to those who continue to see his =
potential. =
When confronted with his misconduct, the psychopath has enough false =
sincerity and apparent remorse that he renews hope and trust among his =
accusers. However, after several repetitions, his convincing show is =
finally recognized for what it is -- a show.
Nearly every type of treatment method has been tried with the =
psychopath. In general, the treatment.... has not been rewarding nor =
enlightening. =
Little is really known about possible organic factors that might be =
involved in the psychopath=B9s impulsive behavior. Until the etiological =
picture is clarified, systematic therapeutic procedures will be =
difficult to develop.
Richard M. Suinn, "Fundamentals of Behavior Pathology"
Lack of any feelings beyond the superficial. The antisocial personality =
is typically cynical, ungrateful, disloyal and exploitative Cannot =
comprehend on an emotional level how his actions hurt others. Other =
people are there to be used. James F. Calhoun "Abnormal Psychology"
Possible negative consequences of his acts do not concern him. Rather, =
he has a need for stimulation and acts recklessly, thoughtlessly taking =
risks, sometimes harming others, and not thinking about future =
consequences. Lykken (1957) demonstrated that psychopaths do not =
develop the fear necessary to avoid a noxious stimulus. They simply do =
not learn well from punishment, an observation that indicates =
imprisonment will not change their behaviors and personal traits. Rimm =
and Somervill
His emotional reactions are simple and animal-like, occurring only with =
immediate frustrations and discomfort. However, he is able to simulate =
emotional reactions and affectional attachments when it will help him to =
obtain what he wants from others. His social and sexual relations with =
others are superficial but demanding and manipulative.
The simple psychopath main characteristic is an inability to delay the =
gratification and biological needs, no matter what the consequences to =
himself or to others. =
Robert D. Hare "Psychopathy: Theory and Research"
The most important feature of the psychopath is his monumental =
irresponsibility. He knows what the ethical rules are, at least he can =
repeat them, parrotlike, but they are devoid of meaning to him.
No one wears the mask of normality in so convincing a fashion. He is =
strikingly cool and sure of himself in situations where others would =
tremble with sweat and fear. He retains a superhuman composure, =
Paul J. Stern "The Abnormal Person and His World"
No sense of conscience, guilt or remorse is present. Harmful acts are =
committed without discomfort or shame. Though the psychopath, after =
being caught or confronted with a brutal act, may verbalize regret, he =
typically does not display true remorse. =
The psychopath shows superficially adequate adjustment. He is not =
anxious or distressed. He shows no blatant irrational thinking and =
displays no bizarre behaviors. His initial charm and verbal ability =
distract attention from his deviant and unfeeling behaviors. =
Rimm and Somervill
Interestingly, the same personality has been identified in a small =
minority of chimpanzees.
Jim
Md.
Jen1orbit
jen1...@aol.com (Jen1orbit) writes:
> have posted several messages regarding Wendy Gardner, the 15 year old
>girl who is being sent to jail because when she was 13 she managed to
>convince her boyfriend to kill her grandmother.
gmsp...@aol.com Wrote:
>>Sorry, Joe, can't see where this child was abused. Just
>>because a person claims it is so doesn't make it so. Have
>>you ever considered the possibility of just a bad seed?
>>Grandmother Spider
Hello Grandmother,
I do not believe that any human being is born with their the capacity or
the desire to kill or seriously injure anyone. This need to hurt/kill
others is something that is created within the child, or within the adult,
through his or her own negative experiences with fellow human beings.
People are MIRRORS, they reflect back the sum total of their own life
experiences. Wendy is a creation of society. Yes, she did have "free
will", but that is merely something that narrow-minded moralists use to
condemn her. None of us have any OBLIGATION to deny or suppress the true
rage that exists within us. Most of us do deny it, and there are MANY fine
reasons to deny it, but none of us are OBLIGATED to avoid acting on our
justifiable rage, IMO.
Wendy was abused, throughout her childhood. And that abuse led her to
formulate the desire/need to kill/hurt her grandmother. That's my opinion.
Take care, JOE
gmsp...@aol.com
>Wendy was abused, throughout her childhood. And that abuse led her to
>formulate the desire/need to kill/hurt her grandmother. That's my opinion
And you certainly are entitled to your opinion. But, her
sister said they were not abused. And Wendy recanted.
IMO a good spanking has straightened out many a kid.
Now, I'm not talking about a beating, I'm talking about
the flat of my hand to a nice fat behind.
I got many a spanking when I was a mean little kid and
I never considered it child abuse and it never even
crossed my mind to kill my mother. Some kids think a
no is child abuse, they are so conditioned in this day and
age to think that they should have every little thing
their heart desires. 13 year old girls who think they
are in love are a little nutty, ask any mother.
Peace,
Grandmother Spider
Agent@large
On 10 Apr 1997 23:07:25 GMT, jen1...@aol.com (Jen1orbit) wrote:
<snip>
>... Wendy is a creation of society. Yes, she did have "free
>will", but that is merely something that narrow-minded moralists use to
>condemn her.
We "narrow-minded moralists" SHOULDN'T condemn her for exercising her
free will to plot and help carry out the murder of her grandmother?
If she had free will, and chose to do this crime, does it take only a
"moralist" to call what she did "wrong."
Her decisions leading up to the murder were hers alone, NOT society's.
How broad-minded must a person be to excuse the actions of this
teenage criminal?
> None of us have any OBLIGATION to deny or suppress the true
>rage that exists within us. Most of us do deny it, and there are MANY fine
>reasons to deny it, but none of us are OBLIGATED to avoid acting on our
>justifiable rage, IMO.
Then accept the fact that the people in the communites of Kingston and
Saugerties, the D.A. of Ulster County, Judge Bruhn, and the jury at
the trial had no obligation to avoid acting on their justifiable rage.
They surely felt they HAD an obligation to act on it. Criminals never
feel an obligation to anybody - this is one major, significant
distinction between a criminal and a responsible member of society.
>
> Wendy was abused, throughout her childhood.
Absolutely untrue. I know this for a fact.
But even if you don't take my word for it, anything resembling abuse
was brought out in the trial. Nobody believed it, and even Wendy
finally had to deny she was abused. Her father never abused her, her
mother never abused her, and her grandmother never abused her.
Kathy, her sister, never engaged in any criminal behavior, and she was
raised in the same households with the same family members as Wendy.
> And that abuse led her to
>formulate the desire/need to kill/hurt her grandmother.
>That's my opinion.
You opinion isn't supported by the facts in this case, Joe. Wendy is a
text-book case of a teenage criminal. She felt she had no obligation
to anybody. She wanted her grandmother dead so she would be free to do
whatever she damn-well pleased. If she had told the Judge that she had
her grandmother killed so she could do whatever she wanted to do, THAT
would have been the truth. But to the end, she manipulated - carrying
rosary beads, crying, and claiming she didn't think of herself as a
murderer. (Of course. Criminals never think of themselves as less than
decent persons.) She said she didn't know why she did it. And her
attorney (a personal acquaintence of mine) idiotically told the Judge
it was merely a "senseless killing" with no answer to the question why
the murder occurred. Judge Bruhn wisely said Wendy should never be
released until SHE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION!
I concur with the Judge's opinion.
gmsp...@aol.com
> Does anyone know if Ted Bundy was abused as a
>child. He must have been done bad by somebody at sometime in his life, if
>the excuse of a killer is my mommy did not like me!!!!!!
Ted Bundy was not abused, either physically or
sexually. His excuse was that he was an illegitimate
child and didn't know it until he was an adult.
That and pornographic magazines, according to him.
Put that Playboy down, boys, we know what you did
and we know where you live!
Peace,
Grandmother Spider
Gary
> I do not believe that any human being is born with their the >
capacity or the desire >to kill or seriously injure anyone. This need > to
hurt/kill others is something that is >created within the child, or >
within the adult, through his or her own negative experiences >with >
fellow human beings.
Not true. There are a well studied minority of humans who have been
determined to be violent sociopaths, an uncorrectable condition. Hear
is a summary of what some researchers have said about sociopaths.
(Sometimes they use the term psychopath - means the same thing):
(snipped)
I think the interesting unanswered question about psychopathy has to do
with the relationship between nature and nurture in these people. There
does seem to be some relationship between childhood abuse, particularly
childhood sexual abuse, and adult psychopathy, in some cases. Yet there
are psychopaths who were not abused at all, and most abused children do not
become psychopaths. Apparently, there is some evidence that brain damage
can also bring on this disorder. But everything is disputed.
So, probably, there is a genetic component to the disorder (or what WE
call a disorder; the psychopath himself doesn't) which can be triggered or
exacerbated by certain environmental conditions. Probably a mistake to
blame either genetics or environment entirely. (Here and with everything
else.)
Whatever the cause, the psychopath does not want treatment, has no
respect for those who want to treat him (or her, of course). In fact, if
he is able to keep his impulses in check, he may be much more successful
than others around him who are so mercilessly afflicted by conscience, a
problem he does not have. What's to cure? That's his attitude.
So our attitude has to be: the only cure for a dangerous criminal
psychopath is a .45 bullet right between the eyes, or something else just
as certain. That works every time.
gary
--
========================================
Gary Davis Media -- Television Advertising
E-Mail: ga...@REMOVEgarydavis.com
Web site: http://www.garydavis.com
(Remove anti-spam portion of e-mail address.)
========================================
Agent@large
I agree with you 100% about the "disorder" being all about the
psychpath's (or sociopath's) attitudes. Treatment *is* very difficult
- probably impossible for many if not most cases. But I believe SOME
can be reached and turned around, based on the reported results of the
experimental St. Elizabeth's program (St. Elizabeth's Hospital in
Washington D.C.).
This unique, experimental program is now ended, but I'm trying to see
if there are any other programs being used now that modeled this
original approach. (Yochelson died before presenting his first public
speech on the program.)
[Cf. THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY (3 volumes), Yochelson & Samenow
(? pub. date);
and INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND, Samenow, 1984]
On 11 Apr 1997 15:27:21 GMT, "Gary " <gdm...@REMOVEtexas.net> wrote:
<snip>
Hoover, J. E.
I think the following things are often confused with each other:
-sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists
-people who commit crimes out of mental illness/"justifiable rage"
-misanthropes/people who dislike society
The sociopath/psychopath/clinical narcissist will commit aggressive
crimes simply out of will, ego and a lifelong indifference to other
people. The sociopath's disorder is one of personality. Their bad
behavior is constant and is restrained only when there is fear of
punishment or a high chance of failure.
The second category includes those who are paranoid, schizophrenic, or
mentally ill in some way, or who have been victimized to the point where
they commit acts out of "justifiable rage," being driven to something or
out of displaced defensiveness. These people's problems are biochemical
or environmental, and their offensive behavior is not inherent in their
personalities. Although they may be guilty of their crimes to some
degree, they are not sociopaths.
The third category is simply people who distrust or dislike people or
human society. They are not sociopaths/psychopaths/clinical
narcissists, nor are they necessarily mentally ill.
Of course, these three categories sometimes overlap.
~Hoover
Agent@large
Thank you for that differentiation. I will look into it further; it
certainly sounds interesting.
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:33:44 -0700, "Hoover, J. E." <hoo...@drag.net>
wrote:
Martha Sprowles
Hoover, J. E. wrote:
>
> I think the following things are often confused with each other:
>
> -sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists
> -people who commit crimes out of mental illness/"justifiable rage"
> -misanthropes/people who dislike society
>
> The sociopath/psychopath/clinical narcissist will commit aggressive
> crimes simply out of will, ego and a lifelong indifference to other
> people. The sociopath's disorder is one of personality. Their bad
> behavior is constant and is restrained only when there is fear of
> punishment or a high chance of failure.
But how about people like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, who were able
to function well in their visible lives, but had absolutely no concern
for or remorse over their victims? I believe both of these men went to
their deaths truly not understanding in any emotional sense what they
did wrong. I think they felt as I assume members of N*MBL* do, that
what they did is something lots of people would like to do but don't
have the courage.
Martha Sprowles
Agent@large
I have to agree with Fiona on this, JEH. Sociopaths and psychopath ARE
practically indistinguishable from each other. Both refer to the
criminal mind, mainly from the perspective of the objective observer.
Also, after giving it some thought, I believe the category of mental
illness really only constitutes a tiny percentage of those who commit
serious crimes - as with the mentally retarded offender.
And as for people who dislike society - they're just ANYBODY who might
or might not be a criminal. This trait, alone, won't make someone go
out and commit a crime: "Well, your Honor, I killed the guy 'cause I
hate society" might be the excuse given by someone seeking a "not
guilty by reason of insanity" - or a diminished mental capacity
defense, but it just strikes me as too pretentious. Some killers have
green eyes; some have blue; most killers have brown eyes - but so
what?
"Justifiable rage" - what is THAT?
Who ever says, "I'm mad as hell and I'm gonna kill - but I know it's
not justified at all." ?
Of COURSE every person feels their own rage is "JUSTIFIABLE"; why
wouldn't a criminal?
Footnote: If hating society was a true cause of crime, most murders in
our country would probably occur on April 15, income tax deadline. (g)
On Sat, 12 Apr 97 13:40:53 GMT, f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona
Webster) wrote:
>J. E. Hoover writes:
>> I think the following things are often confused with each other:
>>
>> -sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists
>
>A mild nitpicking, if you don't mind:
>
>Sociopath = psychopath = antisocial personality disorder.
>
>Narcissistic personality is a separate disorder, although
>antisocial and narcissistic traits can co-exist in the same person.
>
>It is possible to have a narcissistic personality disorder, though,
>without being in the least bit antisocial/psychopathic.
>
>Martha asks:
>>But how about people like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, who were able
>>to function well in their visible lives, but had absolutely no concern
>>for or remorse over their victims?
>
>From what I've read, Bundy and Gacy were sociopaths/
>psychopaths/antisocials. Antisocials tend to function very well in their
>visible lives -- they are as adaptable as chameleons -- and have no
>concern or remorse for their victims.
>
> --Fiona
jj@
You miss the point(s) here;
a) *society* alone isn't to blame- simply abuse in all it's forms &
tolerance of that abuse.
(You guys are forcing me to admit something I don't normally mention; that
I, too, was abused- only for me it wasn't a family member; and it *was* a
total psycho killer- so please don't respond to my posts with "If you or
one of your family were a victim...etc"
b) It's an oxymoron to say ..."These poor, evil teenagers..."- we're saying
they are victims themselves and therefore *not* evil....
c) The 'typical' liberal response varies extremely widely so I think it's
too broad to say to say the 'typical liberal response' and mean anything of
sense.
Sorry- it's just that I've been through Hell & back and I *still* try to
understand those who hurt and kill- I want to understand for my own
healing....
Bye for now-
jj
Tony Bowman <trbo...@greene.xtn.net> wrote in article
<334D64...@greene.xtn.net>...
Agent@large
On 12 Apr 1997 04:37:13 GMT, "jj@" <j...@aardvark.apana.org.au.nospam>
wrote:
>
>You miss the point(s) here;
>a) *society* alone isn't to blame- simply abuse in all it's forms &
>tolerance of that abuse.
The Wendy Gardner case is a perfect example that exonerates society
AND child abuse as causative factors in the murder of her grandmother.
Wendy - for the forty-seventh time - WAS NOT ABUSED.
Wendy wanted her grandmother out of her life permanently because Wendy
wanted to do what Wendy wanted to do. Period.
<snip>
>b) It's an oxymoron to say ..."These poor, evil teenagers..."- we're saying
>they are victims themselves and therefore *not* evil....
So Wendy was a VICTIM?
Wendy was not a victim by any stretch of the imagination.
If Wendy was a "victim" in the murder of her grandmother, then there
is no such thing as evil.
>c) The 'typical' liberal response varies extremely widely so I think it's
>too broad to say to say the 'typical liberal response' and mean anything of
>sense.
>Sorry- it's just that I've been through Hell & back and I *still* try to
>understand those who hurt and kill- I want to understand for my own
>healing....
Understand that the criminal sees the world - and the people in it -
differently than most of us. The search for psychological and
sociological causes only leads to more confusion and debate.
The truth is : CRIMINALS CAUSE CRIME.
I know I may sound like a hard-core, "reactionary", "right-winger",
"law-and-order"-type person. But I'm not saying, "Lock 'em up, throw
away the key, and forget about 'em!"
I truly believe that SOME criminals can turn around, but it has to be
accomplished by a radical characterological change, which takes a very
long time. The criminal also has to WANT to change. Contrary to
popular belief, the criminal DOES feel genuine guilt and remorse - but
only very rarely, and for very short durations. These are the crucial
times that they may be reached, IMO. Without intensive treatment, the
criminal will continue in his/her attitudes inside prison walls. Once
they are released, they are usually more skillful criminals.
Yes, they need to be locked up, but we should also try to help them
become responsible members of society - even if it's only a small
percentage. Refusing to try only risks their return to society (unless
they're serving life sentences) where they will prey on more innocent
victims.
Jack1Olsen
Hi Gary --
Succinct -- one of the best all-around descriptions of psychopathy I've
read since Dr. Cleckley's THE MASK OF SANITY and Alan Harrington's
PSYCHOPATHS. And you took a lot fewer words!
Another way to put the various differences:
A normal person thinks that two and two are four.
A psychotic thinks that two and two are five.
A neurotic knows that two and two are four but can't stand it.
A psychopath knows that two and two are four, or eight, or eighteen, or
two hundred -- whatever he thinks you want to hear.
Jack
Fiona Webster
James A. Chamblee
>
> Where does conscience fit in with any of these? If there were no
> concern or remorse - then no conscience? No sense of right and
> wrong? I'm just asking since I don't know.
Sociopaths have no conscience. That is why it is so hard for us to
understand them, as each of us considers conscience as a basic human
trait. They know the rules and laws; but they believe that they are
above those social rules. Also, they are unable to see the consequences
of their acts, beyond the immediate gratification of some need.
There is a non-violent sociopath in my acquaintance. He wouldn't hurt a
fly; but if he needs a ride, he steals a car. If he needs food, he
steals it. He destroys everything which he is finished using. He is
very manipulative, and pity seeking. He has talked almost complete
strangers into putting up bail for him, and he always skipped. Until he
inevitably injures them in some way, people like him and defend him. He
is very personable and believable. He has a long prison record since
age 18, 20 years ago. He keeps getting released because the prisons here
are overflowing, and he has never committed a violent crime.
Jim
Md.
Hoover, J.E.
Re: Sociopaths
gaetz wrote:
>
> f...@oceanstar.comDeleteThis (Fiona Webster) wrote:
> >Narcissistic personality is a separate disorder, although
> >antisocial and narcissistic traits can co-exist in the same person.
> >
> >It is possible to have a narcissistic personality disorder, though,
> >without being in the least bit antisocial/psychopathic.
Is the reverse also true -- i.e., psychopathic without narcissistic
personality disorder?
Secondly, I believe there is a distinction between the clinical terms
and the colloquial usage. A narcissist in everyday parlance is merely
someone with a high opinion of themselves, an egotist or a selfish
person. Our Joe often calls himself a narcissist, which he may be in
the colloquial sense. In a psychiatric sense, narcissistic personality
disorder is something completely distinct. It is a pathological
personality defect closely related to anti-social personality disorder.
Symptoms of narcissistic personality disorders are manipulativeness,
excessive envy, extreme dishonesty, aggression, treating other people as
mere objects from which to get things, inflation of petty feelings and
desires, and lack of conscience. Clinical narcissists are often
killers, but the word narcissist causes them to often be confused with
egotists in colloquial parlance.
Similarly, the colloquial and psychiatric definitions of anti-social are
completely different. Anti-social in a colloquial sense means opposed
to society, anti-establishment, or non-social. Anti-social in a
psychiatric sense refers to anti-social personality disorder, in which
the person has no concern for other people. Symptoms are very similar
to narcisstic personality disorder, though I guess sociopaths may not
have such an inflated opinion of themselves.
> >Martha asks:
> >>But how about people like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, who were able
> >>to function well in their visible lives, but had absolutely no concern
> >>for or remorse over their victims?
> >
> >From what I've read, Bundy and Gacy were sociopaths/
> >psychopaths/antisocials. Antisocials tend to function very well in their
> >visible lives -- they are as adaptable as chameleons -- and have no
> >concern or remorse for their victims.
> >
> > --Fiona
> Where does conscience fit in with any of these? If there were no
> concern or remorse - then no conscience? No sense of right and
> wrong? I'm just asking since I don't know. For narcissists\antisocial
> - it would be whatever THEY feel\want without regard for others?
> Interesting and enlightening thread.
Whether they have had the conscience burned out of them by being the
repeated victims of other people's crimes, or they just never developed
a conscience, they both qualify as sociopaths in the eyes of the
psychiatric field. Antisocials do not consider other people when they
formulate a decision or an act, and feel no guilt afterward.
I have read that some serial killers have dulled central nervous
systems. They may also have some brain abnormalities, though whether
this is genetic, environmental or developmental, is unclear. These
things may account in part for why some killers can only get stimulation
from killing or other extreme acts, and are also unable to empathize.
Or they may be the result of those traits. Who knows.
~Hoover
(re-posting under my own alias for the sake of correctness)
Agent@large
>
>>
>> Where does conscience fit in with any of these? If there were no
>> concern or remorse - then no conscience? No sense of right and
>> wrong? I'm just asking since I don't know.
>
>Sociopaths have no conscience.
Actually, that is a common misconception, even among professionals.
A sociopath (criminal personality) does feel guilt and remorse - but
only for extremely brief periods of time and quite infrequently,
compared to the normative average person. However, it is extremely
difficult to know when he is sincere, since he is so manipulative and
will act as if he is remorseful at appropriate times (i.e., when it is
advantageous for him to do so).
<snip>
>They know the rules and laws; but they believe that they are
>above those social rules.
Very true.
> Also, they are unable to see the consequences
>of their acts, beyond the immediate gratification of some need.
Again, this erroneously depicts the criminal as somehow intellectually
deficient. The criminal believes he won't get caught, and/or that he
is too clever to have to suffer the consequences. Many career
criminals know the law better than the majority of people.
>
>There is a non-violent sociopath in my acquaintance. He wouldn't hurt a
>fly; but if he needs a ride, he steals a car. If he needs food, he
>steals it. He destroys everything which he is finished using. He is
>very manipulative, and pity seeking. He has talked almost complete
>strangers into putting up bail for him, and he always skipped. Until he
>inevitably injures them in some way, people like him and defend him. He
>is very personable and believable. He has a long prison record since
>age 18, 20 years ago. He keeps getting released because the prisons here
>are overflowing, and he has never committed a violent crime.
This demonstrates that he DOES know the consequences of his acts:
(1) he manipulates people to obtain bail money,
(2) he manipulates people to defend him,
(3) he skips bail,
(4) he gets released because of prison overcrowding, and
(5) he never commits a violent crime.
He sounds like he has all the consequences figured out perfectly.
darkstar
James A. Chamblee (cham...@erols.com) wrote:
: > I do not believe that any human being is born with their the > c=
: apacity or the desire to kill or seriously injure anyone. This need > to h=
Colin Wilson, in "A Criminal History of Mankind," would disagree. He says
that an infant, if it had the power, would destroy the whole world...it is
so rage-filled when Mommy doesn't appear with the bottle. Wilson said
socialization is a necessary process or we would all be sociopaths!
Agent@large
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:59:49 -0500, in alt.true-crime you wrote:
>Patrick Cheatham wrote:
>>
>> The 13-year old Wendy was probably suffering from P.M.S. (pre-menstrual
>> syndrom), this drove her into a rage to kill her Granny. Any Granny that
>> takes a whip or spanks a 13 year old is asking for trouble.
>> Society created Wendy-- moralism makes menstruation taboo, and young
>> girls have no way of knowing what is going on in their bodies. Dirty
>> old men want to 'use' 13 year old naive girls, and their 'morally'
>> enforced naivety makes them easy prey.
>> This points to the real reason for taboo morality, to supply innocent
>> and therefore vulnerable little girls for the powerful lecherous men to
>> victimise.
>
>
>****WHAT????????!!! Oh, please!! You can blame PMS on a lot of things,
>but this is NOT one of them! I agree she may have been harshly punished,
>but to blame it on pre-mentsrual stress, is way out there!!
Don't take Patrick's post seriously. He was obviously being satirical.
Wendy wasn't driven into a rage to kill her grandmother; Wendy and her
boyfriend plotted for several weeks to kill her. Also, Wendy - for the
forty-ninth time - was not abused. Even her sister, Kathy, testified
that she wasn't abused. And Wendy herself dropped the abuse claims.
(I also know for a fact - from confidential sources - that she wasn't
abused.)
I find it increasingly peculiar that people in general are very
reluctant to believe Wendy had no special, uncontrollable, force or
reason that "made" her commit the crime of murder with her boyfriend.
It isn't complicated: Wendy's grandmother tried to guide her
granddaughter. Wendy wanted to do otherwise. She felt if grandmother
was dead, she could do whatever she wanted to do - which is how Wendy
always was. So Wendy did exactly what she wanted: she got rid of
grandma.
Had grandmother been an annoying mosquito, no one would look for child
abuse if Wendy had killed it. To Wendy, her grandmother was nothing
more than an annoying mosquito. She and her boyfriend stuffed
grandma's dead body in the trunk of grandma's car, and then the both
of them returned to the room where they had just committed the murder
and had sexual intercourse. No abuse, no rage, no remorse.
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> If you subscribe to Alexander Lowen's description of Narcissism
> (_Narcissism, Denial of the True Self_) there is a spectrum of narcissistic
> personality disorders: phallic narcissistic, narcissistic, borderline,
> psychopathic, paranoid -- arranged from least to most pathological.
Enlightening post. I have three questions:
1) Are these disorders matters of degree or are they distinct
disorders?
2) What is the definition of each?
3) Is paranoid another one of these confusing overlaps between
psyhiatric terminology and vernacular? Schizophrenics who believe the
FBI is out to get them are paranoid, but not necessarily narcissistic.
(One can be paranoid without necessarily being delusional. E.g., someone
who is being stalked might be justifiably paranoid.)
~Hoover
Gary
Jack1Olsen <jack1...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970412194...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Hi Gary --
>
> Succinct -- one of the best all-around descriptions of psychopathy I've
> read since Dr. Cleckley's THE MASK OF SANITY and Alan Harrington's
> PSYCHOPATHS. And you took a lot fewer words!
I'm honored. This comes from the man who wrote in his book, _Son_ ,the
best description of a psychopath I've read. Anyone who has an interest in
the psychopathic mind should read Jack Olsen's _Son_.
There is a scene in that book where the psychopathic rapist's girlfriend,
who does not know what he's doing when he goes out in the middle of the
night, introduces him to one of her friends. Later, when the two women are
alone, the friend, who was not impressed by the psychopath, says to his
girlfriend, "Can't you see? He's empty!" That says it all, right there.
Gary
gaetz <ga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Where does conscience fit in with any of these? If there were no
> concern or remorse - then no conscience? No sense of right and
> wrong? I'm just asking since I don't know. For narcissists\antisocial
> - it would be whatever THEY feel\want without regard for others?
> Interesting and enlightening thread.
If you subscribe to Alexander Lowen's description of Narcissism
(_Narcissism, Denial of the True Self_) there is a spectrum of narcissistic
personality disorders: phallic narcissistic, narcissistic, borderline,
psychopathic, paranoid -- arranged from least to most pathological.
Throughout all these disorders run certain symptoms, in increasing
amounts: narcissism, grandiosity, lack of feeling, lack of sense of self,
lack of contact with reality. The lack of "conscience" is part of what
Lowen calls "lack of feeling".
He says the narcissistic person's lack of feeling for others' feeling or
suffering derives from his denial of his own feelings. Feelings about
others, Lowen says, are in resonance with our own feelings. You feel sad;
it resonates in me and I feel sad. I "feel for you". I feel WITH you.
But if I deny strenuously that I feel sad, then when you feel sad, I do
not recognize that feeling. I deny it not only in me but, as a
consequence, in everyone. I doubt that that you actually feel it. I doubt
that the feeling even exists.
This lack of feeling in resonance to others, or conscience, gets more and
more profound as you move up the spectrum of narcissistic disorders.
Gary
darkstar <dark...@sky.net> wrote
> Colin Wilson, in "A Criminal History of Mankind," would disagree. He
says
> that an infant, if it had the power, would destroy the whole world...it
is
> so rage-filled when Mommy doesn't appear with the bottle. Wilson said
> socialization is a necessary process or we would all be sociopaths!
Although I believe that the process of developing feelings for others, so
that we change our behavior to adapt to others' needs, is a part of our
natural biological maturation process, both genetically and culturally
driven. For us to turn into psychopaths, I think there has to be something
"wrong" with us (at least by most people's standards), genetic perhaps,
possibly brain damage, possibly extreme environmental pressures during
childhood, or a combination.
(Of course, there is no real difference between genetics and culture,
since culture, like everything else about us is, ultimately,
genetically-based. We can only be taught to do what we are biologically
equipped to do.)
The cave man who lied, cheated, and stole, and looked out only for
himself was probably thrown out into the cold to die a lot quicker than his
modern-day equivalent would be. That would limit the amount of genetic
material he would pass along and limit the total number of psychopaths in
the world.
On the other hand, the psychopath cave man who raped the chief's daughter
would pass along MORE of his genetic material than the more socialized cave
man who stayed away from the women when he was told to. Which probably
explains why there are some psychopaths still around. (Dr. Hare says 1% of
the population.)
Mignarda
I believe that sociopathy occurs as the result of the brain attempting to
protect the organism from the effects of prolonged stress in infancy.
Studies several decades ago on Rhesus monkeys showed that maternal
deprivation led to asociality and inability to function normally within a
group. Anecdotal evidence on serial killers seems to show some kind of
emotional trauma in early life. Two such were Ted Bundy and Theodore
Kaczynski, who seem to have experienced no family pathology at all, but
did experience maternal deprivation, the former for more than a month, the
latter for a week. Mrs. Kaczynski has described her son's "flat" effect
upon returning from the hospital and contrasts it with his lively demeanor
in the months prior.
Stress can be a harmful physiological factor and it seems logical that
there exists a mechanism whereby the entire organism can be protected from
it at the expense of the emotions. This is where I believe sociopathy
originates. The sociopath is emotionally flat; experiences "dead" periods
that seem to mimick autism, and has a high threshold of pain and stimulus.
He is usually very acute mentally and can focus his attention on a variety
of objects without distraction. He experiences almost nothing on an
emotional level, with the consequence that he has difficulty learning to
empathize and perceives everything in his external world as an object,
with little distinction between other people and inanimate things.
I agree with researchers who believe that there are many sociopaths who
are not criminals at all. It seems, fortunately, that some ancillary
experience in life is necessary to trigger the kind of response that leads
to the commission of serious crimes, especially insofar as murder and rape
are concerned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mign...@aol.com
"Conformity is the Omnibus of Death"
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <hoo...@drag.net> wrote in article <3351BA...@drag.net>...
> Gary wrote:
> > If you subscribe to Alexander Lowen's description of
Narcissism
> > (_Narcissism, Denial of the True Self_) there is a spectrum of
narcissistic
> > personality disorders: phallic narcissistic, narcissistic, borderline,
> > psychopathic, paranoid -- arranged from least to most pathological.
>
> Enlightening post. I have three questions:
>
> 1) Are these disorders matters of degree or are they distinct
> disorders?
Lowen describes them pretty much in terms of matters of degree. The
basic symptoms, described in my earlier post, are present in all these
disorders but they are less on the less-pathological end of the spectrum
and greatest on the other end.
>
> 2) What is the definition of each?
Phallic narcissists: men whose egos are invested in the seduction of women.
Narcissists: In the broader sense, persons pre-occupied with him or herself
to the exclusion of everyone else. More grandiose ego-images than the
phallic narcissists. "When I walk down the street, I have the feeling that
people step aside for me."
Borderlines: People whose underlying grandiosity and arrogance are hidden
because they cannot be support by accomplishments. Their facades collapse
easily under emotional stress, revealing the frightened and helpless
children within.
Psychopaths (Sociopaths): Contempt for others, denial of feelings, a
tendency to act out in antisocial ways.
Paranoids (Paranoid Personality Disorder, not psychosis): They feel that
people are not only stepping aside for them and looking at them, but
TALKING about them and CONSPIRING against them because they are SO
important! When they completely lose the ability to distinguish reality
from fantasy, they slip in paranoid psychosis.
>
> 3) Is paranoid another one of these confusing overlaps between
> psyhiatric terminology and vernacular? Schizophrenics who believe the
> FBI is out to get them are paranoid, but not necessarily narcissistic.
> (One can be paranoid without necessarily being delusional. E.g., someone
> who is being stalked might be justifiably paranoid.)
The delineation between paranoid personality disorder and psychosis has
to do with the paranoid's ability to separate reality from his fantasy.
With PPD, he says, "This is the way I feel". With PP, he says, "This is
the way it is." Or at least that's the way I see it.
Fiona Webster
Someone who didn't sign their name asked:
>Where does conscience fit in with any of these? If there were no
>concern or remorse - then no conscience? No sense of right and
>wrong? I'm just asking since I don't know. For narcissists\antisocial
>- it would be whatever THEY feel\want without regard for others?
Again: narcissistic personalities are in a different category, and are
not the same as antisocial personalities (commonly known as psychopaths
or sociopaths).
Antisocials know what is right and wrong by society's definitions,
but they have no *moral* awareness of right and wrong. In that
sense, they have no conscience.
>Interesting and enlightening thread.
Yeh, I think antisocials are fascinating. And so charming, too!
I've never met an antisocial I didn't like.
--Fiona
Fiona Webster
I wrote:
> It is possible to have a narcissistic personality disorder, though,
> without being in the least bit antisocial/psychopathic.
Hoover asked:
> Is the reverse also true -- i.e., psychopathic without narcissistic
> personality disorder?
Yes. Not all psychopaths display the traits of narcissistic
personality.
>Secondly, I believe there is a distinction between the clinical terms
>and the colloquial usage. A narcissist in everyday parlance is merely
>someone with a high opinion of themselves, an egotist or a selfish
>person. Our Joe often calls himself a narcissist, which he may be in
>the colloquial sense. In a psychiatric sense, narcissistic personality
>disorder is something completely distinct. It is a pathological
>personality defect closely related to anti-social personality disorder.
>Symptoms of narcissistic personality disorders are manipulativeness,
>excessive envy, extreme dishonesty, aggression, treating other people
>as mere objects from which to get things, inflation of petty feelings
>and desires, and lack of conscience. Clinical narcissists are often
>killers, but the word narcissist causes them to often be confused with
>egotists in colloquial parlance.
Well said!
--Fiona
gmsp...@aol.com
In article <5ioqf6$8ut$1...@newsd-4.alma.webtv.net>, Patrick Cheatham <Medi...@webtv.net> writes:
>Granny Spider: If Wendy Gardner was a bad seed, then her Granny
>committed suicide by giving birth to the parent that gave birth to her.
>Therefore, Wendy is innocent because of bad birth.
Makes as much sense as all this whining and complaining
that criminals do when they're caught. Maybe that's a
brand new excuse that defense lawyers can use.
Peace,
Granny Spider
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> Although I believe that the process of developing feelings for others, so
> that we change our behavior to adapt to others' needs, is a part of our
> natural biological maturation process, both genetically and culturally
> driven. For us to turn into psychopaths, I think there has to be something
> "wrong" with us (at least by most people's standards), genetic perhaps,
> possibly brain damage, possibly extreme environmental pressures during
> childhood, or a combination.
This must have been before the "me generation," the '80s and culturally
enforced selfishness.
> (Of course, there is no real difference between genetics and culture,
> since culture, like everything else about us is, ultimately,
> genetically-based. We can only be taught to do what we are biologically
> equipped to do.)
Excellent point. My own opinion is that the human species isn't really
as homogeneous as many assume, but is, like all species, in the process
of evolving. Humans have had many offshoots and ancestors in
evolutionarily recent eras and I suspect they are in the process of
branching today. I think agressiveness/amorality is one of the dividing
lines. Therefore, some people might be biologically equipped
> The cave man who lied, cheated, and stole, and looked out only for
> himself was probably thrown out into the cold to die a lot quicker than his
> modern-day equivalent would be. That would limit the amount of genetic
> material he would pass along and limit the total number of psychopaths in
> the world.
Have to disagree with you on this. My experience and reading of history
indicates that cavemen who lied, cheated and stole were either thrown
out or became chiefs. The unsuccessful ones fell out of favor with the
majority and were thrown out; the successful ones figured out how to
appeal to the self-interest of the majority, or how not to offend them.
They also figured out not to offend other liar-cheaters-stealers and to
conspire with them to victimize those they could get away with
victimizing. In many cases, they became leaders, socially successful
and probably over-procreated. Between then and today, these people were
warlords, lords, plantation owners, dictators, etc. Today, they are
often political, business and military leaders.
> On the other hand, the psychopath cave man who raped the chief's daughter
> would pass along MORE of his genetic material than the more socialized cave
> man who stayed away from the women when he was told to. Which probably
> explains why there are some psychopaths still around. (Dr. Hare says 1% of
> the population.)
I think a large portion of the species is capable of psychopathy. What
is the difference between someone who thinks they can indiscriminately
kill another member of their society for their own petty gain and
someone who thinks their society can indiscriminately kill people in,
say, Panama for their society's own petty gain?
~Hoover
Mignarda
<<<<
Subject: Re: Sociopaths
From: Xiuhte...@worldnet.att.net (Kolaga)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:13:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3356ff15...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
On 14 Apr 1997 05:13:06 GMT,
mign...@aol.com (Mignarda) wrote:
>Stress can be a harmful physiological factor and it seems logical that
>there exists a mechanism whereby the entire organism can be protected
from
>it at the expense of the emotions. This is where I believe sociopathy
>originates. The sociopath is emotionally flat; experiences "dead" periods
>that seem to mimick autism, and has a high threshold of pain and
stimulus.
Is there any term for the old Hollywood "tough guy" personality?
Humphrey Bogart types -- what would you call Bogart in Casabalnca?
So far as a "protective" reaction, what about people who are stoic?
How about a learned behaviour in which a person knows that "Life is
a bitch" and seeks to suppress emotions and sentimentality?
<<<<
Good observation, but I think there's a big difference between those who
rationally seek to suppress the "effect" of emotion and those who have no
capacity for emotion. I believe the emotions play a vital role in the
learning and developmental process. It's only when we, as adults, allow
emotion to cloud reason that trouble occurs.
A stoic feels his emotions just as keenly as anyone else. But
understanding the falseness of relying on emotional responses as a means
of guiding his intellect he endeavors to transcend them.
The sociopath, on the other hand, is emotionally flat, not as part of a
conscious decision, but because that's the way he is by nature.
Kolaga
>Stress can be a harmful physiological factor and it seems logical that
>there exists a mechanism whereby the entire organism can be protected from
>it at the expense of the emotions. This is where I believe sociopathy
>originates. The sociopath is emotionally flat; experiences "dead" periods
>that seem to mimick autism, and has a high threshold of pain and stimulus.
Is there any term for the old Hollywood "tough guy" personality?
Humphrey Bogart types -- what would you call Bogart in Casabalnca?
So far as a "protective" reaction, what about people who are stoic?
How about a learned behaviour in which a person knows that "Life is
a bitch" and seeks to suppress emotions and sentimentality?
>He is usually very acute mentally and can focus his attention on a variety
Karen
The nature/nurture argument is alive and well!
Glad to see it..however..from my experience/reading, it seems that
anti-social behaviour shows up in the early years, such as a child who
enjoys torturing neighbourhood animals. This would lead one to think
that sociopathic behaviour has more of a genetic basis than
environmental. Of course, there is evidence to support both theories.
Does anybody have any opinion on "imprinting"?
I think it has a place in the nature/nurture argument as to what
"creates" an anti-social personality disorder. Jeffrey Dahmer is a
good example.
Karen
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 21:33:44 -0700, "Hoover, J. E." <hoo...@drag.net>
wrote:
>I think the following things are often confused with each other:
>
>-sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists
>-people who commit crimes out of mental illness/"justifiable rage"
>-misanthropes/people who dislike society
>
>The sociopath/psychopath/clinical narcissist will commit aggressive
>crimes simply out of will, ego and a lifelong indifference to other
>people. The sociopath's disorder is one of personality. Their bad
>behavior is constant and is restrained only when there is fear of
>punishment or a high chance of failure.
>
Kelly
Gary wrote:
>
The
> psychotic kills you because he's making a salad and he thinks you are a
> tomato.
I just had to say I'm STILL laughing at this line. What a great
analysis.
Kelly
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <hoo...@drag.net> wrote
> My experience and reading of history
> indicates that cavemen who lied, cheated and stole were either thrown
> out or became chiefs. The unsuccessful ones fell out of favor with the
> majority and were thrown out; the successful ones figured out how to
> appeal to the self-interest of the majority, or how not to offend them.
Well, there must have been SOME biological advantage for psychopathy, or
at least for whatever allows it to exist, or there wouldn't be such people
around today.
One theory of the life of primitive humans has it that very few males
were allowed to breed. The chief and his buddies did most of the breeding;
the rest of the males had to hang out on the fringes and look on with envy.
Perhaps some criminal tendencies paid off for those guys.
Keep in mind that even psychopaths have allies and are willing to work
together with others as long as they are benefited by it. Some, in fact,
are able to work within society's rules quite well and never even get
arrested. You might say it is only the unsuccessful psychopaths who get
caught -- those who allow their impulses to run away with them.
> I think a large portion of the species is capable of psychopathy. What
> is the difference between someone who thinks they can indiscriminately
> kill another member of their society for their own petty gain and
> someone who thinks their society can indiscriminately kill people in,
> say, Panama for their society's own petty gain?
If you stick to the generally accepted definition of psychopathy, the
percentage is usually put at about 1%.
There's a huge difference between a criminal psychopath who puts his
thoughts into action, harming others for his own selfish benefit, and
someone who simply subscribes to an ideology. Ideology is just thought,
and not necessarily very serious thought.
Even the actual soldier who jumps out of the helicopter and shoots
people is unlikely to be psychopathic (although he could be). He does what
he does because of his training, in which he has learned to objectify the
enemy, because he is protecting his buddies, and because he believes what
he is doing is patriotic.
In any case, keep in mind that it is you who says people are killed in
Panama (or wherever) for "their society's own petty gain". If others who
initiated these policies thought that, they would not be doing it.
I think it is confusion to equate people who hold ideologies you
disagree with criminal psychopaths who lie, cheat, steal from, and
sometimes rape and kill their fellows, on a face-to-face basis. All
ideologies, after all, can lead adherants to kill others. This includes
probably every religion and political philosophy that exists or has ever
existed.
One of the ways this happens, I think, is that political opponents are
catagorized as "psychopaths".
Gary
Karen <ka...@idirect.com> wrote
> The nature/nurture argument is alive and well!
> Glad to see it..however..from my experience/reading, it seems that
> anti-social behaviour shows up in the early years, such as a child who
> enjoys torturing neighbourhood animals. This would lead one to think
> that sociopathic behaviour has more of a genetic basis than
> environmental. Of course, there is evidence to support both theories.
I suspect that his disorder, like everything else about us, is a
combination of nature plus nurture. We are born with a certain genetic
makeup. Some of our genes compel us to behave in certain ways, others
simply suggest or allow certain behaviors.
In the latter case, if there is no trigger in the environment, the
tendency is not expressed.
So we might have 10% of the population with genes that ALLOW
psychopathy. In 1/2 of 1% of these people the genetic tendency is SO
strong that it will be expressed no matter what. In another 1/2 of 1%
there is a trigger or triggers. So we end up with 1% psychopaths.
We have 9% of the population that COULD have been psychopaths but there
were not sufficient triggers for them, so they are not.
I think this is the way it works, and probably the way just about
everything else works, including homosexuality, a condition about which the
nature/nurture argument is often heard.
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> One theory of the life of primitive humans has it that very few males
> were allowed to breed. The chief and his buddies did most of the breeding;
> the rest of the males had to hang out on the fringes and look on with envy.
This would be very similar to the societal behavior of certain other
animals on the African savannah -- hyenas, for example. The
evolutionary advantage was that the strong and aggressive procreated,
got the "lion's share," and survived in a hostile environment. Those
tendencies continue today in humans -- it's why women tend to value
muscularity, success and a certain amount of aggression in males, and
why one often hears the criticism, "He lacks a killer instinct," which
implies a willingness to act without reservation or remorse. Whether
these leftover tendencies are still an asset to the species today is
another matter.
<snip>
> There's a huge difference between a criminal psychopath who puts his
> thoughts into action, harming others for his own selfish benefit, and
> someone who simply subscribes to an ideology. Ideology is just thought,
> and not necessarily very serious thought.
I don't see how such an easy distinction can be made between acting on a
social ideology (e.g., that US society has a right to kill people in
another country to stop them from selling drugs in the US) and acting on
a personal ideology (the unabomber's campaign against industrialists for
ruining the environment). IMO, ideologies are often an excuse for
individuals to commit crimes behind the defense of the group.
> In any case, keep in mind that it is you who says people are killed in
> Panama (or wherever) for "their society's own petty gain". If others who
> initiated these policies thought that, they would not be doing it.
Assuming that they do place a higher value on being morally right than
on their own personal or group gain, which is often not the case.
> I think it is confusion to equate people who hold ideologies you
> disagree with criminal psychopaths who lie, cheat, steal from, and
> sometimes rape and kill their fellows, on a face-to-face basis. All
> ideologies, after all, can lead adherants to kill others. This includes
> probably every religion and political philosophy that exists or has ever
> existed.
Psychopaths have their own personal ideologies that they use to justify
their crimes. If you put the rationalizations of criminal psychopaths
side by side with the rationalizations of political leaders, ideologues,
militarists and others who hide behind the group to commit similarly bad
acts, the similarities are too striking to be coincidental. Many
societies kill, lie, cheat and steal, as you say. That they convince
themselves afterward they didn't really do what they did, that they had
good intentions, or that it was their victims' fault, sounds just
like... criminals, to me.
> One of the ways this happens, I think, is that political opponents are
> catagorized as "psychopaths".
;) you mean drug runners? ;)
~Hoover
Nick Buckle
>
>Is there any term for the old Hollywood "tough guy" personality?
>Humphrey Bogart types -- what would you call Bogart in Casabalnca?
Rick.
Nick
Patrick Cheatham
CURIOUS: A society that can't deal with the sexuality of 13 year old
girls can't understand that these children cannot handle their own
sexuality either! A 13 year old is still a child (especially in the
U.S.), but now with grown up sexual problems and NO ONE to help her or
understand her problems!
so...@pitnet.net
... killing those of ones own species is not "normal" .. but Jane Goodall
found chimps that did just that ... in war between 2 groups, territorial
disputes.. in another case, it was one female teaching her daughters to kill
and eat other chimp infants... they were all notoriously poor mothers as well,
very cold and non-nurturing ... other kinds of "mental abnormalities" in
humans, including retardation, manic/depressive and schizophrenia do not
predispose to violence and murder .. violence that leads to murder, murder for
gain, is quite different than planning a murder like serial killers do..
they do so without any conscience or feeling of remorse... and often they feel
they have a right to kill or it satisfies some deep need... in that sense, all
murders are mentally ill, but rather than "excuse" them, it indicates that
they need to be separated from the rest of society for life as there is no
reliable method of changing behavior that abnormal.. with kids, there is a
chance .. after 13/14 years old, little chance at all.. solo
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:01:09 GMT, an10...@maedata.net (Agent@large) wrote:
>Also, after giving it some thought, I believe the category of mental
>illness really only constitutes a tiny percentage of those who commit
>serious crimes - as with the mentally retarded offender.
so...@pitnet.net
>understand them, as each of us considers conscience as a basic human
>above those social rules. Also, they are unable to see the consequences
than the cops....
>There is a non-violent sociopath in my acquaintance. He
>is very personable and believable. <snip> Jim
... and then, there are CEO's of large corporations... still believe they are
above the law, the laws dont apply to them.... and dont believe they will get
caught either.... solo
Dorothy Marker
On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:02:32 -0700, "Hoover, J.E." <hoo...@drag.net>
wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>> If you subscribe to Alexander Lowen's description of Narcissism
>> (_Narcissism, Denial of the True Self_) there is a spectrum of narcissistic
>> personality disorders: phallic narcissistic, narcissistic, borderline,
>> psychopathic, paranoid -- arranged from least to most pathological.
>
>Enlightening post. I have three questions:
>
>1) Are these disorders matters of degree or are they distinct
>disorders?
>
>2) What is the definition of each?
>
>3) Is paranoid another one of these confusing overlaps between
>psyhiatric terminology and vernacular? Schizophrenics who believe the
>FBI is out to get them are paranoid, but not necessarily narcissistic.
>(One can be paranoid without necessarily being delusional. E.g., someone
>who is being stalked might be justifiably paranoid.)
Or someone who has been stalked in the past or has been a victim of a
crime.
>
>~Hoover
-----------------
D. Marker
Lisa B
nbuckle-...@u-net.com (Nick Buckle) wrote:
>Rick.
Ooh, Smarty! ;-)
Lisa (Remove Spamalama.to reply)
acq_...@dayton.Spamalama.lib.oh.us
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <hoo...@drag.net> wrote
> I don't see how such an easy distinction can be made between acting on a
> social ideology (e.g., that US society has a right to kill people in
> another country to stop them from selling drugs in the US) and acting on
> a personal ideology (the unabomber's campaign against industrialists for
> ruining the environment). IMO, ideologies are often an excuse for
> individuals to commit crimes behind the defense of the group.
I don't know that the Unabomber is psychopathic or not. Not all killers,
not even all mass murderers, are psychopathic.
A psychopath MIGHT use an ideology to defend himself later against crimes
he has committed. He certainly will if he thinks that is what you want to
hear. But if he believes he will do better by taking another tack, he'll
go that way. For a psychopath, an ideology would just be a tactic to get
you to do what he wants. For him, everything he says to you is a tactic.
He doesn't have any real ideologies or beliefs in the sense that most
people do.
On the other hand, there are ideologically-driven individuals who have
strong beliefs that they think require killing and injuring others. Some
of them suffer terrible pangs of conscience over what they do, but do it
anyway. Ask them why they do what they do and they will expound their
ideology to you, no matter what they think you want to hear. These people
are not psychopaths.
> Assuming that they do place a higher value on being morally right than
> on their own personal or group gain, which is often not the case.
So, you think there are people out there who, like a villain in a
melodrama, go out in the morning to "do evil"? If so, there are not many.
Most of these people who do things you do not like believe that they ARE
morally right. They place as high a value on morals as you do. They think
YOU are immoral.
>If you put the rationalizations of criminal psychopaths
> side by side with the rationalizations of political leaders, ideologues,
> militarists and others who hide behind the group to commit similarly bad
> acts, the similarities are too striking to be coincidental
I don't know that what criminal psychopaths say about their crimes, other
than "I didn't do it", is actually similar to pronouncements by political
leaders at all. I have never noticed that similarity. In any case, how
many ways are there to rationalize doing something that others think you
should not have done? I didn't do it. He did it. I had to do it. I
couldn't have done it. I wouldn't have done it. Etc. Wouldn't read too
much into that.
> > One of the ways this happens, I think, is that political opponents
are
> > catagorized as "psychopaths".
>
> ;) you mean drug runners? ;)
I have not said that. I imagine there are drug-runners who are
psychopathic, but I doubt that most are. Most are just people in a
criminal business who justify their actions, i.e., they're going to take
the stuff whether they get it from me or not.
Gary
Michael Leclair <mlec...@clark.net> wrote
> Quite true. A savvy psychopath can go quite far. And many, many have. In
> fact, a case could be made that *having a conscience* is pathologically
> maladaptive.
Of course, the conscience makes it possible for people to live in groups,
essential to human survival.
In any case, most people DO have a conscience, but still do not let it
get in the way of activities they would never practice on members of their
own families. We don't let our consciences get in our way so much that
they seriously interfere with business.
Chriwor
> Of course, the conscience makes it possible for people to live in
groups,
>essential to human survival.
> In any case, most people DO have a conscience, but still do not let it
>get in the way of activities they would never practice on members of
their
>own families. We don't let our consciences get in our way so much that
>they seriously interfere with business.
> gary
--
This idea has got me wondering about something.
What about the person who is caring and considerate
in their personal relationships, but is utterly ruthless
when it comes to business? Could this be an example
of something which might be called selective or situational
sociopathy? Or is it inappropiate to to link such behavior
to antisocial personality disorders, since our society condones
and even nurtures this kind of contemptiveness in the
workplace?
The only thing which leaves me assure that is the answer
to my own question is the fact that there are a lot of
intelligent and talented people who lack the "killer instinct"
to succeed in business, while others -- who are nice
enough once you get to know them -- seem to come by
it naturally.
Thanks to all who've contributed to this great thread!
It's been one of the most interesting I've ever seen here.
Gary
Chriwor <chr...@aol.com> wrote
> What about the person who is caring and considerate
> in their personal relationships, but is utterly ruthless
> when it comes to business? Could this be an example
> of something which might be called selective or situational
> sociopathy? Or is it inappropiate to to link such behavior
> to antisocial personality disorders, since our society condones
> and even nurtures this kind of contemptiveness in the
> workplace
I disagree with some of your premises here.
I think very few people in business are "utterly ruthless". I am sure
some are, but I suspect they are rare, and probably not the most
successful. I know that in my business I avoid people I don't feel I could
trust, and I think that's what other people do too. That eliminates the
"utterly ruthless" from my dealings, if, of course, I am successful at
identifying them.
I don't think that anyone who could be "utterly ruthless" in business
could be "caring and considerate" in personal relationships.
Finally, I don't think society condones and nutures contemptiveness in
the workplace.
I do think that different standards are applied at home and at work.
In my business, advertising, for example, we tell one side of the story
only -- our clients' side, the positive side. But if an advertising person
was describing this same business to his wife or child, he would take care
to give both the pros and cons.
So that IS a different standard. But it doesn't mean that, as an ad
person, I would work for a criminal client that dealt fraudulently with the
public, or sold dangerous products. I wouldn't. While there are different
private and business standards for conduct, they are not different in the
extreme.
Business relationships are built on shared interests and trust. A real
sociopath would have a hard time doing well in the world of business.
James A. Chamblee
chr...@aol.com (Chriwor) wrote:
> What about the person who is caring and considerate
> in their personal relationships, but is utterly ruthless
> when it comes to business?
These people are not sociopaths, by any stretch of the definition.
They justify their actions to themselves and others with a variety of
arguments, e.g. "I work harder", "I'm smarter", "This is a cut-throat
business", etc.
Jim
Md.
"BigMac"
if they didn't have the arena of business, where in the past anything
goes
as long as you win----they might direct the violence toward murder.
I have read loads of accounts of criminal sociopaths who are "caring etc
to the people not on "the mental list"----just ask Ann Rule.
regards
Hoover, J.E.
"BigMac" wrote:
> BigMac reply.....I disagree, there are in my opinion business sociopaths
> if they didn't have the arena of business, where in the past anything
> goes
> as long as you win----they might direct the violence toward murder.
> I have read loads of accounts of criminal sociopaths who are "caring etc
> to the people not on "the mental list"----just ask Ann Rule.
> regards
I agree. Sociopaths don't necessarily victimize everyone in they meet.
There are sociopaths who are ruthless to people they don't know or fear,
then perfectly nice to their families and friends, at least the ones
that don't cross them. For example, Hitler and some serial killers were
quite nice to their family and friends. There are others who put on a
nice facade to the outside world, but secretly torture their wives and
children. Horses of a different color but both horses.
~Hoover
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <highp...@absurd.net> wrote
> I agree. Sociopaths don't necessarily victimize everyone in they meet.
> There are sociopaths who are ruthless to people they don't know or fear,
> then perfectly nice to their families and friends, at least the ones
> that don't cross them. For example, Hitler and some serial killers were
> quite nice to their family and friends
No. Sociopaths, formerly known as psychopaths, DO victimize everyone they
meet by USING them, even if that use requires being "perfectly nice". It
is part of the definition of the "psychopath" or "sociopath" that he
doesn't feel empathy for others around him. So he doesn't act "nice"
because he wants them to feel the way he would want to feel, as you or I
might. He acts "nice" because of what it GETS him, personally. He does
EVERYTHING because of what it gets him. That is his world. "What can I
GET right now?"
I think it is a mistake to classify Hitler as a clinical sociopath. If
you do that, then you must also classify Churchill, who ordered the
fire-bombing of civilians at Dresden and countless other places, as a
sociopath, as well. And Roosevelt, and Lincoln, and President Fugimori who
had those rebels offed the other day.
None of these people are necessarily sociopaths. They are
warrior-leaders, who ordered the death of their country's enemies, or
people whom THEY PERCEIVED to be their country's enemies. To Hitler, those
who died in the war and in the camps were the enemies of his country and
his people, who had to be defeated. Same was true of Lincoln, and the
others.
To you or I it may be inconceivable that Hitler's or even Lincoln's
perceived "enemies" were actually enemies. For you or I to order death on
such a scale, WE would have to be psychopaths, because we do not share
their perception of the world, or their place in it, but that says nothing
about them.
It is a common mental exercise for people to think, "If I did this, I
would have to be a psychopath (or whatever). Therefore, because this other
person did this, HE must be a psychopath." That, in my opinion, is an
error in thinking.
I think it is highly unlikely that an actual clinical psychopath would
rise to the level of head of state. The people around psychopaths are
usually divided into those who cannot see what the problem is and those
others who see IMMEDIATELY that they are "empty", looking out only for
themselves, and cannot be trusted. Usually, this trips them up. Someone
who is onto them gets rid of them.
I think Bill Clinton obviously has a serious narcissistic personality
disorder, and is thereby probably closer to being a psychopath than Hitler.
Clinton (who is still most likely not a psychopath) seems to be VERY using
and untrustworthy in his personal dealings, right down to the level of his
family, giving in recklessly, time after time, to his infantile
narcissistic desires and whims, to the detriment of other around him. A
low-conscience, narcissistic, user of others, if there ever was one.
Hitler, on the other hand, was known to be scrupulously honest in his
personal dealings. Even his worst enemies never accused him of corruption.
He even returned his salary as Chancellor and lived off his book
royalties. Hate him for what he believed; hate him for what he did. But
he probably wasn't a clinical psychopath.
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> I think it is a mistake to classify Hitler as a clinical sociopath.
I see your point, but Hitler was, in fact, a textbook sociopath.
Although as a leader he resembled many leaders, privately he displayed
standard symptoms of sociopathy. Before he was chancellor, he was
described by those who knew him as extremely manipulative, dishonest,
selfish and cruel. I believe three of his girlfriends committed
suicide, if Eva Braun is included. He was charming and nice toward his
friends, but those that crossed him, caught on to him or just didn't do
what he wanted often wound up dead. Those that didn't, of course, wound
up being part of one of humankind's larger criminal conspiracies. And
the country that accepted him as a leader wound up accomplices in
aggression and holocaust, and losers in a world war. The guy was a
walking pile of trouble.
There is the notion that the root of Hitler's evil was his prejudiced
views, which may be partly true. From what I have read, however, it
seems to be a fiction of politically correct historians. Ernst Rohm
(sp?), for example, was Hitler's best friend, despite the fact that Rohm
was a known homosexual. (Homosexuals were also on the Nazis' hit list,
and 1 million were executed along with 6 million Jews). Of course, when
Rohm disagreed with Hitler, he lost his life.
There's a very good, well-researched book on Hitler that describes his
behavior. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it! If I
remember, I'll post it. In truth, Hitler had many bizarre behaviors
that were evident early on and were signs not only of a sociopath, but
also a paranoid, extreme obsessive-compulsive and possible
schizophrenic. It's rather shocking that people could ever have
followed someone who early on was so clearly disturbed. But then, the
older I get, the less shocking it is.
~Hoover
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> I have read at least two or three Hitler biographies, and have not seen
> any evidence of his having been what would now be called a psychopath, or
> "sociopath".
> Sociopaths are typically juvenile delinquents. Hitler was not. They
> usually have an "inability to sustain consistent work behavior". Hitler
> was the Consistent Work Behavior POSTER BOY! They tend to be law
> violators, promiscious sexually, to be fighters and liars, impulsive and
> reckless. In his personal life (no matter what you may think of his
> political life) he was none of these.
> In WWI, Hitler got the Iron Cross for heroic and selfless behavior in
> the front lines, as a lowly messenger. He was imprisoned for political
> activity and used the time to write a book. The royalties from the book
> provided his income for the rest of his life; he turned down his salary as
> Chancellor. He took a tiny beer-hall debating society and turned it into
> the German Nazi Party, mostly through his own energy.
> These are not the kind of things a psychopath could manage.
> I guess you will continue to insist that people from whom most of us
> differ so radically must be mentally ill or suffer personality disorders
> because WE would have to be mentally ill to do those things. In my
> opinion, that is an error.
> Perfectly sane people, without substantial personality disorders, can
> imprison or kill millions of people with the push of a button or the stroke
> of a pen without even thinking twice about it, IF their minds are
> sufficiently prepared by training (as in the military) or religious or
> political fanaticism and/or indoctrination. It is important to understand
> this.
> Don't kid yourself that you and I are so different from Hitler, or
> Stalin, or Mao (except perhaps in intelligence and charisma and certainly
> in ambition). Yes, psychopaths ARE different from you and me. VERY
> different. But it does not require a psychopath to kill, even to kill
> millions. You or I could do it. All that would be required would be that
> we had the means and believed with all our heart and soul that what we were
> doing was RIGHT.
> "I discovered that is is necessary, absolutely necessary, to believe in
> nothing..."
> --Shunryu Suzuki Roshi
> I do the Roshi a disservice by taking him out of context, yet, there's
> something to be said for the idea, just as it is here.
As a few historians have pointed out, there is a need to inflate Hitler,
to make him a grandiose uber-villain, a man with special powers and
energy. How else could so many "ordinary" people have followed him into
criminality? What would it say about "ordinary" people that they so
easily jumped on the bandwagon of a man who was nothing more than a
garden-variety sociopath, a man who was quite ordinary himself, perhaps
even limited by severe mental illness? Let's not forget that most of
the killing was not done by Hitler but by the millions of "ordinary"
people.
Whatever Hitler's emotional background, there is no disputing that by
the time he was rising to power, he was a petty crook and nut. He is
reported to have babbled to himself at public gatherings, as if carrying
on a conversation to himself. He is also reported to have visited the
same field every day, walked out to the same spot and thrown a stick,
one of many peculiar obsessive-compulsive behaviors he had. At least
two of the girlfriends he had prior to becoming chancellor killed
themselves, largely because of him. One was his niece. Those who were
around him described him as being verbally very manipulative, deceitful
and constantly using other people. Like most sociopaths he was
initially charming, but took advantage of people constantly and
exhausted their friendship. He was also conscienceless -- he was
described as acting as if he had no recollection of abuses he committed.
The notion that Hitler was the product of racist views is politically
correct bunk. His criminality occasionally found form in racist views;
other times it was evidenced in stealing money, deceiving people, etc.
Like many sociopaths, Hitler was a good speaker, and that's about it.
He was a poor artist. His idea of science was phrenology -- reading the
bumps on people's heads to tell their character. He would sing Wagner
but always got the lyrics and music wrong, a point even his friends
pointed out to him. He was a fool of a military strategist. Most of
his close associates said after the war that Hitler was the poster boy
for the banality of evil: They themselves couldn't figure out why
anyone had followed him.
I think he was a very ordinary man, both in terms of his powers and his
criminality. He might just as easily have been a petty crook or a
used-car salesman. The real horror of Nazi Germany's crimes is that
they were committed by... ordinary people for no particular good reason.
~Hoover
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <highp...@absurd.com> wrote
>
> I see your point, but Hitler was, in fact, a textbook sociopath.
> Although as a leader he resembled many leaders, privately he displayed
> standard symptoms of sociopathy. Before he was chancellor, he was
> described by those who knew him as extremely manipulative, dishonest,
> selfish and cruel.
I have read at least two or three Hitler biographies, and have not seen
any evidence of his having been what would now be called a psychopath, or
"sociopath".
Yes, there was a book by someone called, _Adolf Hitler, the Psychopathic
God_, or something close to that, and many choose to CALL him a psychopath,
but that does not make it so.
I suggest you pick up a copy of the DSM-4 and actually read the
"standard symptoms of sociopathy". I don't think you will find that they
describe Hitler, by a long shot.
Gary
Hoover, J.E. <highp...@absurdity.net> wrote
Well, there is little point in arguing this further, since you are
obviously convinced of all this, but from what sources, I can't imagine. I
think you have been reading some very bad WWII propaganda.
Even Hitler's worst enemies never accused him of personal corruption.
Petty crook? Give me a break! The man even returned his salary as
Chancellor, living off his royalties from Mein Kampf. True, he was not
much as a military strategist, and some say he began to act a bit looney
late in his life after a bomb went off right next to him, but that's to be
expected.
I think it is purely a psychological self-defense to lable politicians
such as Hitler or Mao "psychopaths". In no way do they fit the clinical
profiles. IMO, it is a way of claiming that WE are not like that, that WE
could never do such things. I say, given proper indoctrination or
fanaticism, we could.
What Hitler did he did out of personal conviction, fanaticism, call it
what you will, and his killings were, in his mind, acts of war. He was at
war against the Allies; he ordered the Allies attacked. He was at war
against the Jews; he ordered the Jews attacked.
If Hitler was a "psychopath", so different from you and me, then
Truman, who ordered atomic bombs dropped on hundreds of thousands of
innocent Japanese civilians, and Churchill, who ordered a hundred thousand
or so German civilians burned alive at Dresden, must also have been
"psychopaths". Be consistent.
Hoover, J.E.
Gary wrote:
> Well, there is little point in arguing this further, since you are
> obviously convinced of all this, but from what sources, I can't imagine. I
> think you have been reading some very bad WWII propaganda.
> Even Hitler's worst enemies never accused him of personal corruption.
> Petty crook? Give me a break! The man even returned his salary as
> Chancellor, living off his royalties from Mein Kampf. True, he was not
> much as a military strategist, and some say he began to act a bit looney
> late in his life after a bomb went off right next to him, but that's to be
> expected.
I believe Hitler was acting looney in early 1930s, when his public
conversations with himself and other strange behaviors were first noted
by those around him.
> I think it is purely a psychological self-defense to lable politicians
> such as Hitler or Mao "psychopaths". In no way do they fit the clinical
> profiles. IMO, it is a way of claiming that WE are not like that, that WE
> could never do such things. I say, given proper indoctrination or
> fanaticism, we could.
I agree with you in that most of us could do such things, and I don't
think we even need elaborate indoctrination or fanaticism.
> What Hitler did he did out of personal conviction, fanaticism, call it
> what you will, and his killings were, in his mind, acts of war. He was at
> war against the Allies; he ordered the Allies attacked. He was at war
> against the Jews; he ordered the Jews attacked.
Well, this is where I think you're a little wrong. Hitler was a
narcissist and sociopath, and probably suffering from some serious
organic mental illnesses.
Like any manipulator, he skillfully rallied his subjects around him by
creating enemies for THEM. He claimed the Allies had created Germany's
problems, he claimed Jews were money-hoarders during a worldwide
depression, and he claimed various other groups such as communists and
homosexuals would destroy Germany.
I doubt he really believed such stuff much more fanatically than many
other people of his time. He knew how to manipulate people into giving
him power by inciting their hatred and focusing it on one target after
another. Hitler and Joseph McCarthy differ only in degree. And I do
consider both to be sociopaths.
The problem was, that was all Hitler knew how to do. Once he attained
power he really didn't know any other tactic, so he just kept repeating
this tactic, attacking bigger and bigger enemies -- Western Europe, then
Russia, then the U.S., the Holocaust, etc. In much the same way, one
hears about Iraq or N. Korea needing to start a war with some
neighboring country (or the U.S. needing to do it) in order to keep
their people rallied around them. In Hitler's case it was a lifelong
personal behavior pattern, really typical of sociopaths.
As for these "deeply held" convictions, I know he believed in them. But
they were not deeply held enough to stop him from characterizing himself
as a moderate and attacking the radicals who were committing acts like
Crystal Nacht (spelling, I know) during the mid-30s. In fact, he really
seldom pounded the podium about Jews, although he did about the allies.
> If Hitler was a "psychopath", so different from you and me, then
> Truman, who ordered atomic bombs dropped on hundreds of thousands of
> innocent Japanese civilians, and Churchill, who ordered a hundred thousand
> or so German civilians burned alive at Dresden, must also have been
> "psychopaths". Be consistent.
Again, I agree with you that Hitler wasn't that special a fellow, and
that he has been made into something worse than he really was to deflect
societal guilt. But he didn't rise to power by being a nice guy. He
was pretty ruthless. Whether Churchill or Truman were psychopaths I
couldn't say. However, the incidents you cite for them were one-time
decisions made for strategic reasons in war. They were not lifelong
behavior patterns.
I do agree with you that the acts committed in Nazi Germany were largely
the acts of normal people.
~Hoover
Dale R Worley
In article <19970410230...@ladder01.news.aol.com> jen1...@aol.com (Jen1orbit) writes:
I do not believe that any human being is born with their the capacity or
the desire to kill or seriously injure anyone.
Well, is there any evidence that this belief is true, other than fond
hopes?
Dale
Dale Worley wor...@world.std.com
--
What I wouldn't give to go through an entire day without hearing about
how somebody's "rights" have been infringed. -- Tom Leylan