Blueblood Blues

  • “Serial killers ruin families. Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies and societies.”

 

“Psychopaths, like anyone else, are born with different basic likes, dislikes and desires, which is why some of them are doctors and presidents and others are petty thieves or rapists.

… What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron, or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer, is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.”

 

“In every competition in life, the cheaters are going to have an advantage. The people who act immorally, who have no regard for truth, are gong to have an advantage over those who play by the rules. The result is that those who achieve positions of power will be the most ruthless, the most sociopathic, the ones with no conscience.”

 

“If you’re very bright, know how to dress well; you have, say, the gift of the gab; you’re raised in an affluent family background; then you don’t go in the bank and rob it, you get in the bank and become a director.”

 

http://www.pathocracy.net

 

Many people look upon right and wrong, good and evil as relativists.  They believe that every person has the innate desire to be good, to appreciate Platonic “Goodness” and that evil is simply a misalignment of values and misinterpretation of what it meant to actually be good.  A radical Muslim willing to martyr himself at the expense of innocent western lives, including that of women and children, actually believes he is doing a “good” thing.  Hitler, with his racist genocidal agenda, actually believed in his cause as sacred to the history of the world, and truly felt he was doing the “right” thing; it was simply the  maligned value system of racism that distorted what was truly good and right that allowed the Nazi regime to feel justified in genocide.  In general as well, this can be attributed to every heinous act carried out in the name of religion- simply back your evil action with “the will of God”  and people will truly believe they are doing the right thing.  This of course is a far cry from the cartoonish villain who wants to take over the world for its own sake, or the red pitchfork yielding half goat half man depiction of the devil.  This, many believe is only in fiction, and that in the real world, people are good but do evil acts simply because they are deluded they are doing the right thing, because we all want to be good…right?  

Reality check:  Evil actually does exist. There are actually people that exist in this world that simply enjoy sadism.  Simply look at the list of serial murders like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson to clarify what pure evil actually looks like. Of course, once we reach this conclusion, where else can this logically lead? Are there entire systematic institutionalized status quos that promote and  incentivize evil? Is there any sufficient reason why this is impossible, or indeed not the case today?  As Stalin said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” And for this reason, it’s simply easier to determine the brute serial murderer as the embodiment of pure evil but more difficult to perceive systematized oppression by an oligarchy of world leaders as such.  I encourage you to watch the documentary “The Corporation” which lays out a cogent argument that the premises of laws established on corporate personhood necessarily and causally result in what we can officially deem psychopathic behavior on the corporation’s part, as the metaphorical “neurology” of a corporate “person” is wired, within current law to simply minimize empathy, other than when the perception of empathetic behavior is deemed more profitable.

 

But how can this be defined in solid, rational terms, free from religious and cultural bias?  The most compelling answer is probably in the realm of psychology, and even from a purely materialist perspective can be ascertained as the inhibition of what neurologist Vilayanur  Ramachadran describes as “mirror neurons” which are the physical reflection of human empathy.  If you were to witness a heinous act such as extreme violence against another human being , would you feel joy? Would you feel apathy or numbness?  Or would you “feel” their pain, and cringe in horror?  If the latter, then you just felt empathy, and your neurons literally fired in a similar way to the person who was being afflicted.  But, what if instead of a physical heinous act against a single person, it’s a systematized odiousness against an entire class of people, indeed, most people in the world?  Is that a tragedy or a statistic?  If you are in the oppressed class, you might sympathize with your own kind, or perhaps numb yourself.  But if you’re not?  Do the oppressors feel empathy towards the oppressed?  Or worse, do they empathetically understand their plight, but simply have no sympathy and revel in the power differentiation?

 

It is simply a truth of this world that people range across the spectrum in all forms of mental health and illness.  It is also a truth that people’s mental health generally has a propensity to correlate with the mental stability of their surroundings, especially in childhood.  According to pathologists, most schizophrenics or sufferers of multiple personality disorder developed these extreme mental traits as defense mechanisms against extremely negative environments.  In order to cope with such levels of anguish, the brain “snaps” and compartmentalizes the abused ego into another ‘self’ as to identify with another ego to cope with the trauma.  Most if not all neuroses and certainly psychoses, (and indeed mental health and self-actualization)  exist on a cause-effect basis from life experiences.

 

How does this reality then apply to the state of the current world order?  The world order in which the ratio of wealth between the haves and have-nots is ever increasing, the world order in which a few are masters over the many, the world order in which the vast majority of earth’s resources are commanded by an absurdly tiny ratio of individuals, a world order in which these individuals simply perpetuate their wealth dynastically inter-generationally with no correlation to merit or virtue?

 

Some theories conclude that these elites are actually of alien origin (how else could they be so evil!?).  The Reptilian overlords are at the top, that’s why they are so powerful, they aren’t even human!  This superstitious, illogical argument makes absolutely zero headway in the realm of psychology or politics.  It is simply a “fill in the blank” answer akin to fairies, goblins and orcs.  Psychologically to the truth-seeker, it might provide some comfort that humans aren’t capable of creating this world order (in the same way a creator-god provides comfort to the religiously superstitious on ontological issues).

 

Let’s be clear now-  if you can ascertain that evil does exist within humanity through endless proof in human behavior throughout history then let’s use Occam’s Razor…it would be absurd to attempt to reason that humans at the top echelon of wealth in the world are truly incapable of evil, and so the Reptilian theory is superfluous and unnecessary.  The human beings we know that have been responsible for slavery, sadism and the like are very much capable of making it to the top…indeed, traits of greed, narcissism, and non-empathy are actually helpful to do so, and even worse, these traits are incentivized and ingrained into the inter-generational elites from their own childhood.  They are air-breathing, food eating, happy, sad, angry, ambitious, lazy, insecure, confident PEOPLE with red blood (or maybe blue!)

 

So, as stated in an earlier paragraph, childhood indoctrination and experience plays a large role in the mental outcomes of human beings in adulthood.  I’m sure most of you intuitively understand this- it’s what makes you want to keep negative stimuli away from a child, and provide children with love, support, empathy, etc, as to cultivate those traits within them.  And just as a severely poor, broken home will more likely produce an insecure or angry adult, let us examine… what does growing up in an elite environment result in in terms of psychological development for a child?

 

We all know the “bratty rich kid” stereotype.  You might know one personally, if you weren’t formerly one yourself.  The child who is given everything at their whim will simply be trained to not develop humbleness, empathy or patience- hence the impatient “I want it NOW” attitude.  But of course, you could simply be upper middle class and give your child toys at their every whim, and a nice car when they are a teenager (without them earning it in any way) and produce the “spoiled” effect.  But the ruling class aren’t simply “well off” and don’t only have financial capital to spoil their children with.  The ruling class spoil their children financially and socially… and keep in mind, since these dynasties are inter-generational, the parents doing the parenting are themselves spoiled narcissistic brats.  Their wealth is not only large, but for all practical purposes infinite as far as a growing child is concerned.  The social capital tied to a strong family name like Rothschild or Rockefeller will necessarily produce droves of ass-kissers throughout their upbringing. “No” will simply be unheard of.

 

So, if a poor family in a broken home creates insecurity, anger and disillusionment, if extreme trauma can create schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder, what does the elite family situation likely result in psychologically?

 

Let’s take the “spoiled brat” syndrome to the nth degree, and what do you get?  Narcissism on a practically infinite level, of course.  With this then is the logical outcome of a major lack of empathy (other than for their own family members and cronies)- especially against the plebeian masses.  I ask you to now take an exercise in empathy.  If all you have ever been exposed to are the elite schools with other elite “chosen” children, your family only mingling with other elites- presidents, popes, top bankers and business people, you have lived only in lavish palatial gated resorts, and within this oasis resides a sea of infinite narcissism and ego, what would your perception of the masses be?

 

So then let’s pull the curtain back and take a hard look at reality…  The world is run by evil people, their evil is cultivated as a mental illness of narcissism and psychopathy,  and this evil perpetuates through the process of inheritance and nepotism. Thus, those in power perpetuate the narratives in our culture that glorify this in order to justify this societal framework thereby maintaining the status quo of their dominance.  A lot simpler and more logical of an answer than reptilians, isn’t it.  The irony?  Reptiles, in their physical brain development, have an undeveloped amygdala, and the “reptilian brain” is associated with the limbic system of basic survival and self interest, without emotion.  So the elite are metaphorical reptilians after all!

These deluded human beings are actually victims of mental illness, but since the current world order actually rewards cutthroat greed and simple wealth accumulation, they truly believe they are the select, the “blue bloods” with not only financial capital but social capital, so that “new money” will always be shunned upon and only those with the right ‘blood’ will ever be the ‘select.’  Didn’t Robespierre take care of these fuckers over 200 years ago?

Of course, most things are a matter of simple propensity and likelihoods- growing up a so called ‘blue blood’ simply makes it extremely likely that you will grow up a narcissistic sociopath.  Just as there are exceptions to the rule among those who grow up in poor broken homes that make it to become self-actualized and mentally healthy, so to must there be examples of better souls among the elite class that grow disillusioned with the filth of the society they grew up in, and for all the exceptions to the rules, the ones who make it to grow empathy, rationality, and a “bigger picture” perspective, you are commendable.

 

Wealth as a tool does not necessarily equate to evil, as there are plenty of examples of honest entrepreneurs who genuinely solved a problem in society through creativity and hard work who have enjoyed the fruits of their labor, although wealth’s propensity to correlate with power means that traits like greed and antipathy tend to be conducive to its accumulation and therefore evil often does not stray far from it. When wealth and resource ownership are utterly divorced from both personal merit as well as a cause to better the human condition, then this wealth begins to rot in its hyperaccumulated status, constipated within an absurdly small set of families instead of circulating to rationally increase human capital and happiness for all people.  When the status quo is such that a select few are  simply born into this level of resource control relative to the overall amount of resources per capita on the planet, the line between this and aristocracy proper is quite blurred.

 

Carnegie vs. Rothschild

Consider two starkly opposite examples of the super rich and consider their respective psyches thus.  What difference is there between Andrew Carnegie and Mayer Rothschild, two men that amassed enormous fortunes in their lifetimes? Born poor, Carnegie rose to become one of the most prolific ultra wealthy capitalists of all time in productive capacity that built and produced an industry of capital production and labor in the steel industry.  Towards the end of his life after building an industry that led to the industrialization of modern society, once his great fortune had been amassed, he strove to push forth a culture among the rich of giving back to society, and scoffed at passing vast fortunes down through inheritance.  He even wrote an  article entitled The Gospel of Wealth that argued that it was indeed the responsibility of rich individuals to redistribute their fortunes towards altruistic ends.

 

“By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction.” Andrew Carnegie

 

“The amassing of wealth is one of the worse species of idolatry. No idol more debasing than the worship of money.” – Andrew Carnegie.

 

Now contrast Carnegie- the productive capitalist who built an industry with very tangible effects on industrialization and employment, to Mayer Rothschild, a man who built his fortune not through production and meaningful industry but through finance and deception-money for money’s sake.  Arguably the most notorious financier of all time, The Rothschild’s are known to have made a name for themselves by deceiving the British public in the final moments of the Napoleonic war.  With a network faster than the government’s, Mayer’s son Nathan was able to use advanced knowledge to speculate heavily on the outcome of the British economy on news regarding Napoleon’s defeat at the battle of Waterloo to lodge himself into a strategic position of wealth and power.  This quintessential economic element of deception and speculation, as well as making money through money itself rather than actual productive capacity goes further.  Polar opposite to Carnegie, whose last dollar went towards endowments and charities at his death, Rothschild set up his 5 sons in various cities in Europe in order to maintain a family dynasty and extend financial power intergenerationally.  This was exacerbated by the known fact many of Rothschild’s heirs kept marriage extremely close into the family, often times with marriages between first cousins.  In short, deception and speculation built a vast fortune that continued to be entrenched within the family through their zeal of intergenerational wealth maintenance- in essence, an obsession with hegemony and a power differential between them and the rest of society.  

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

Carnegie’s money went towards charities that funded initiatives that improved the human condition, the needy recipients of which arguably became better supported and self actualized and hence fed back into society as better citizens than they otherwise would have been.  The Rothschilds, in turn, obsess with ‘keeping the money in the family’ and the charities they do support represent a bone thrown to society.  Is it not absurd that over 200 years later, there is still a Rothschild dynasty?   Without any regression to the mean, what is the point in which the average person would see this as absurd?  Until the single decision of a sociopath in the family can bring an entire nation, or indeed the world, to its knees?  Is it not like this now? Does this not mean that someone who has not earned any power or expressed any competence or will towards universally positive ends for a nation  is able to yield more influence than actual elected officials?  Is this not madness?

 

As for psychoanalysis, it’s quite obvious Carnegie was significantly more of an empath, as his value system aligned with the betterment of the general human condition, while the Rothschilds and their counterparts are sociopaths.  To hoard material objects ceaselessly and compulsively would deem one eccentric, anti social, and perhaps mentally ill-that is-unless it’s money!  To have an obsession to make sure your vast fortune is kept away from social cultivation and instead maintains a power differential is to perpetuate structural violence as this misalignment of resources quite literally results in needless suffering and death that would not otherwise have been the case.  Is this a tragedy or a statistic?

 

A Glimpse Into the Psyche…

Another documentary I recommend is Jamie Johnson’s “Born Rich.”  Johnson’s namesake is that of the Johnson & Johnson company, one of the largest corporations in the world, his family dynasty stretching back to the 19th century.  As a ‘blue blood’ insider, he interviews other children of elite origin, to gain a perspective on their psyches and lifestyles.  The beauty of this film is that all the interviewees, and even the filmmaker himself are very young, and so many of them hadn’t developed the sense to maintain good PR!  This unabashedly results in one of the most candid and telling insights ever seen into this realm.  While the documentary speaks for itself, it’s telling to point out some revealing quotes from the super-rich brats in the movie.

Luke Weil on what he would do if he lost his fortune: “I think it would be like losing a parent or a sibling.” –

“If someone from some shitty little town in Connecticut is pissing you off” you can say, “Fuck you, I’m from New York and my family can buy your family.”

On being asked what she would do if she were given 1 million dollars today: “I’d give it all away to the homeless… HAHAHA just kidding!!!”

Josiah Hornblower, the more grounded heir of the film, talks about how when he was a small child, his uncle showed him famous landmarks in New York and told him “You will own all this” to Josiah’s reply: “What kind of a thing is that to tell a kid?”  While Josiah appears to be one of the more transcendent types, does it not become obvious that for every one of him there are countless others in his position that are told by arrogant relatives that they too have a supremely privileged position in society?  What type of personality and value system does that cultivate?

 

Remember this is merely a glimpse… is it impossible to imagine the systematic brainwashing of unrestrained narcissism and sociopathic behavior into these children, who will one day become adults, instill it into their children, and pass to them all their wealth (and hence power and control)?

 

There are people who don’t care one iota about being good, who believe the concept of altruism is vile and who revel in hegemony and narcissism.

For those with a propensity towards empathy, There is a potent element to take from the evil playbook… WILL.  For arguably evolutionary reasons Will has a strong inclination with self interest. It is the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest writ large. As Nietzsche observed, power is the name of the game. So, shall this will to power take the easy route of simply conquering or shall it be sublimated towards the higher end of empowering the people?

 

Without empathy there is little to no perceived need to empower the people and so this Will pushes forth alone or within a closed group such as family. To combine empathy with a potent Will to Power is to engage in empowerment- and that is the difference between building up or tearing down, although the great irony is that in a world dominated by altruistic empowerment even those who would stand to trample would ultimately see the benefits of this world.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our world is run by sociopaths.  Their antipathy is cultivated in the value systems of their upbringing, and the narratives they create through their media networks perpetuate the false consciousness of their deserving status.  Sociopathy is conducive to effective wealth accumulation and hence, while money is simply a tool and not evil in and of itself, it has a high propensity to gravitate towards particular psychological types.

 

Therefore, psychology, mental health, inheritance tax, and a will to empower the masses must be the MO of any enlightened state, and this means a state that is willing to stand up to the psychopaths.  They must be overthrown.  The odds are on their side because of false consciousness in the form of propaganda and bread and circuses sponsored within their circles in the media towards the minds of the masses.  The odds are also on their side because psychopaths will not hesitate to subdue their enemies, while empaths have a higher propensity to hesitate.  This is exemplified by liberal phrases like “All you need is love.”

Love is impotent without power. Psychopaths are generally dominant.  Empathy by nature is a more submissive concept.  It is when empathy is paired with dominance that the sufficient potency of force can be mustered to push back the agendas of the psychopaths.  Of course, it is the dominant empaths that we most often see assassinated.  Get the game? Power to the empaths!

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s