Politicians do not have a MENTAL DISEASE...They are Healthy!
The Enlightened Perspective on the Political Personality
Enlightened people call politicians psychopaths not because they have some "mental disease." They are "psychopaths" because they do not fit our perception of what qualifies as a decent and moral person. They lack compassion and empathy. They manipulate, harm, and murder others for fun, without feeling a sense of guilt or wrongdoing.
But we do not call these behavioral traits or transgressions diseases for an even more specific reason.
Their behavior is a natural consequence of the power structures of this society, of the cold and emotionless feel of the world, of the authoritarian parenting all around, and the utter degeneracy of the relationship culture of this milieu.
Thus, it is no great shock that psychopaths are perfectly healthy within the context of the current system. They are not diseased at all. They are functioning optimally inside dysfunctional communities.
Change the parameters and formulas of society and the psychopathic individual does not exert as much influence or possess as much energy.
The psychopath draws his maliciousness from the institutions of society as a vampire draws blood. He is given life as a result of humanity's indiscretions about how the social order should be, and now he feeds relentlessly until everyone decides to reprogram civilization.
My name is Sterlin. Follow me at @sterlinluxan and Psychologic-Anarchist. I also run the Psychologic-Anarchist Facebook page and produce YouTube videos. My interests lie in the intersection of counseling psychology and anarchism. I write about the depredations of psychiatry, and also the philosophy of compassionate anarchism.
I think many politicians are by controlled and influenced by big companies and lobbyists... sometimes it's more and sometimes less obvious. Here are some pics that I like about politicians:
Vote for this reply. Your vote really does count.
seems legit ;)
an interesting perspective - as usual.
not all politicians fit in the mold, however, I do feel that they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to stay if office for the perks. I wonder exactly how many people would actually run for office if they didn't have those perks? Had the same healthcare they're trying to shove down our throat and actually had to work a minimum 40 hour week to make ends meet? I think many start off trying to change or save the world, but it's old-school and they get a taste of power and prestige, and that's what makes them crazy. Just my opinion :)
I think it's more of a chicken and the egg situation than you give credit for. Do politicians become sociopaths because of rewarded behavior and a broken system, or are narcissists and sociopaths more prone towards being a politician?
Regardless, it's easy to lose empathy for others when viewing them as pawns towards increased power.
Yeah you are right @sterlinluxan, politicians are not sick they dont have disease, what they are showing is their natural self, its their true personality.
That's right @jubyjabian. They can't be sick if the institutions are broken. They are just playing the game based on how the cultural rules have been laid down.
It's a very simple, and successful response to thier environment. Humans can adapt to new situations quickly, and politicians are no exception. They're just people put into an environment that rewards callousness and one sided pandering to powerful social interests. The ones who don't adapt well to that environment eventually stop being politicians. The ones that grow and thrive simply continue to do so, and they will keep continuing to do so until such a time as that environment no longer rewards them for those actions. And many of them who have lived in that environment for decades may not stop even then.
That's right. It is a social game of sorts, based on the current institutions we have in society. Well articulated thought process here. I followed your blog, Erroneous. I will keep up when you post, and share some of them with my social networks every now and again. Thanks for being part of this community.
Most politicians are intelligent, at least from the perspective of their ability to manage people. With that said, I believe they're ignorant to the plight of those above them who really run the show. In all reality, politicians are nothing more than public relations for the masses. They can make small adjustments to the system to give the appearance of power, but they have very little ability to actually create any real change. This goes for congress, the president, Supreme Court Judges, etc.. They all have bosses, they all answer - whether they realize it or not - to a much more influential power consisting mostly of men whose names we don't know.
I can very confidently say - without speaking in their support or defense - that most politicians act no differenly than the working class from the perspective that all they're doing is obeying orders. Yes, they're better paid. Yes, everyone wants to judge and blame them. As a whole, I understand. But individually, the average politician is not much more than an extremely connected order-follower.
I think there is too much hate for government and politicians, as many run charities and help others a lot. Look for the stories and you will find them. Its just some bring a bad name to it. Its not all bad, but its not all sunshine and rainbows either. One should take a balanced approach. So called 'Anarchists' have a misguided stance when they say 'all' forms of governance are wrong etc etc. Without the history of government our society would not be what it is today, so it is obviously done more good than harm. People should remember this and look for positive stories surrounding politics and government as well and not just the negative ones.
"Without the history of government our society would not be what it is today, so it is obviously done more good than harm." Conversely, despite the history of government, our society is where it is today. Imagine how far advanced we would be if we didn't have government to hold us down.
Your theory that it has "obviously done more good than harm" is baseless.
My statements are based on my perceptions, which are true for me. Everything has a balance to it. Two sides. Hypothetical ideas like "Imagine how far advanced we would be if we didn't have government to hold us down." are baseless and useless. What is fact is what has been, and one should respect it for what it has brought into being. Government has allowed a economic market to form that allowed the creation of all kinds of miraculous things. War and death and needed in order for things to progress, obviously, as that is what happened and continues to happen. So you cannot deny what is. It is axiomatic, it requires no proof.
I will agree both assertions are basically without support. I cannot say we would be further advanced without government because that would be conjecture. Likewise, you cannot honestly say government has done more good than harm when you do not have anything to compare it too. The sad situation here is we have not had the opportunity to explore a world with no government to determine whether that government has done more harm than good.
I agree that your statements, as well as many others, are based on perceptions and experiences in life. However to say war and death are needed in order for things to progress, obviously, is far from honest. Just because something continues to happen, does not make it right or good. Further, your statement that government allowed an economic market to form that allowed the creation of all kinds of miraculous things is disingenuous. It is fairly common knowledge that crony capitalism is a result of government interaction in the market. The fact remains all kinds of miraculous things have and will be created despite government.
I do wish you the best.
One cannot deny what is. So its best to look at both sides and appreciate how both good and bad push life forward along its path, like the two pedals on a bike.
I also wish you the best brother :)
pretty sloppy jump from raising children in an "authoritarian" way to psychopath politicians who kill for "fun" -- disappointing analogy
I have written extensively about the problems of child-rearing in Statism in great detail elsewhere. The goal of this post was not meant for in depth analysis. See my other content.
That said, I am open to deving deeper into these ideas.
i have read your other articles
Awesome, than you should have an understanding of the relationship between authoritarian societies and violent parenting. In theory, this would have only appeared as a "jump" or "disappointing analogy" had you been unfamiliar with all the work I have done in relationship to non-peaceful parenting.
Политика и мораль не связаны между собой. Это как две параллельные линии, которые никогда не пересекутся...
No, they aren't.
That they have successfully adopted to
an unhealthy environment is not proof
that they are healthy.
Get your terms straight.
They are healthy in this regard, because a "mental disease" is a psychiatric construct, based on subjective valuations. These folks are just responding to the incentives created by this culture.
In what regard?
In the regard that there is not a such thing as "mental illness" as a physical disease.