Those Fighting Monsters...

... have to become monsters for the fight, but don't have to remain so

---

Psychopathy starts with conformity

(Link to an entertaining experiment)

---

Myth-creation

characterizes all cultures, because commonly-shared concepts alleviate the incessant and often futile struggle for successful interpersonal communication.

All popular terms are based on myths, that is, on “truths” that nobody questions or dares to question. Those, who do are considered stupid, deviant, or rebellious.

Myths don’t have to be expressed in words or conjured up in ceremonies; common mundane practices can perform the task. For example, humiliating people by shutting them up with a muzzle or forcing them to act or speak in nonsensical ways can be habit-forming and create “myths” that, sooner or later, the majority automatically embraces. As a result of recognizing the phenomenon, I coined a phrase for “the common man” about 25 years ago: “the conformist psychopath.” Considering that only a few ascend to a level of consciousness where they can take advantage of their Free Will, it’s hardly an understatement that common forms of behavior are fundamental domains and hotbeds for psychopathy. American public schools represent a major field for compliance-training and conditioning for conformity.

Imposing myths on the masses dehumanizes the subjects, lowers their self-esteem, and takes away the little integrity they might possess. Name-calling, without a doubt, is part of these processes, and the bad news is that it works.

Dead ends in name-calling

I often single out the label “Nazi” as a cuss word that causes only harm to everyone involved and, possibly, compromises the person who is using it:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/missing-the-target-the-globalist

This time, I direct my focus on another cuss word, “psychopath.”

To me, calling someone a psychopath is just another name-calling strategy. The most common such terms are usually divisive: “communist,” “Marxist,” “DemocRat,”and the like. Name-calling objectifies the target, creates a false sense of superiority for the user, encourages unnecessary boldness, mandates specific (and mostly fake) categories in conceptual thinking, and just like cussing, puts an end to any further thinking and discussion. I addressed the problem before, specifically on July 2, 2022, when I pointed out that with a little effort, anybody can more-or-less accurately identify anyone else a psychopath, which is not good for anyone involved:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/looking-for-psychopaths

Considering how common this label and similar meaningless terms prevail in the public domain, the problem deserves more attention than whatever it receives.

It doesn’t matter if the use of the term is naive or manipulative, because it is downright noxious either way.

Forms of origin and manifestation

Everybody is capable of ignoring or repressing feelings, and empathy is a feeling, whose lack defines the mythical and pseudo-academic concept of the “psychopath.” Various factors can contribute to assuming such an attitude.

More often than not, psychopathic behavior can only be countered with a reaction that also lacks empathy. Do you become a psychopath, when forced to defend yourself or or protect others and must assume such a stance? Psychopaths feel next to nothing or directly despise their victims. For that, they can evoke your compassion, but feeling sorry for your attacker cannot protect you or the ones for whom you are responsible.

PTSD occurs a lot more often than people might assume and it is not restricted to those who returned from war. Someone whose emotional threshold has been raised by traumatic experiences can develop a certain level of immunity to feelings. When anger¹ contributes to their disposition, they can very well behave like psychopaths or can even turn into one of them. That’s one way a victim can become a predator.

While psychopathic behavior openly reveals itself, calling someone an incorrigible psychopath can harm the judging party more than it can affect the accused, and it puts an end to further discussions, while calling someone names gives away more about the person than about the target.

Billy Goat, Schwab, Killary, Fuxxi, and the like, are convinced of their superiority, and treat those they consider subhuman accordingly, but they can be nice and humane to their own folks. Maintaining a sense of superiority is an essential feature of all cultures and it functions as a cohesive force. A “culture” doesn’t have to be civilized. Humans are pack animals and their tribal nature constitutes one of their definitive characteristics; this is perhaps the main reason why propagandists can use the word “we” so successfully, and by creating imaginary groups or communities, otherwise-isolated members of their audience, all of a sudden, become malleable and they lower their guard against manipulative input. The innocuous-sounding “we” is actually an indispensable factor in the most powerful mode of manipulation:

Externalization of one’s own evil usually necessitates the selection of an enemy or, at least, a scapegoat. It can manifest itself as cultural pride, but it can also become part of the official propaganda and take a turn to demonizing the opponent. Demonization turns the targets into subhuman pests or inanimate objects, only to be annihilated.

You must remember cases, when you were expected to comply with cruel or idiotic expectations or requirements, but you didn’t. Why?

Perhaps you realized that your humanity can be taken away by tiny increments until nothing is left of it. Those doing it to you were already not behaving as humans with empathy, and perhaps you didn’t want to become one of them. Picking up the gloves necessitated that you also objectified the enemy, but that alone did not turn you into a “psychopath.”

For better or worse, judging others can be a slippery slope:

That doesn’t mean you must give up². The fight you pick is yours:

Perceived weakness can be a manifestation of strength.

1. More on anger:

2.