"In a perfect world, we could always be certain that we could achieve peace and freedom for ourselves and others solely through non-violent resistance to violence and oppression. However, non-violence fails when we have to deal with conscienceless, sociopathic [or psychopathic] individuals and groups. Their complete lack of moral compass, and insensitivity to moral pressure from within or without, means that violence must be met with violence in turn, when dealing with these sociopathic[/psychopathic] personalities. Had someone like Hitler ruled India in the 1920's and 30's, Gandhi, Nehru, and the rest would have disappeared into labor camps, and up the chimneys of [the] crematoria."
Between November 2008 and July 2009, I expanded my discussion of sociopaths among us, and wrote three articles for OpEdNews, "Waging Slavery," "The Cult of the Individual," and "An Opening Manifesto," In "An Opening Manifesto," I wrote the following [corrections and amplifications in brackets]:
"The primary reason for laws against theft and other crimes is not that without those laws, and their attendant punishments, everyone would go out and rob and murder and rape, etc., just for the hell of it. It is primarily because there is a small part of the population--the estimates are around four percent--that are wired wrong mentally. These people are to some greater or lesser degree, sociopaths.
"Why this is true, I do not know. Perhaps humanity needs, or in the past has needed, a small percentage of its population with the 'mark of Cain,' as it were. It may be that in our more barbaric past that people without a moral compass were needed by society to perform some acts that were 'morally' wrong or at least reprehensible: acts of war, [executions,] etc..."
Five years later, I think I have a better idea that explains this discrepancy: the development of compassion and empathy are the next steps on the evolutionary ladder for humankind, and some small portion of humanity--three to five percent, mostly males--are lagging behind in their evolutionary development. They still exist at all because of humanity's sick need to settle problems with threats of violence, but in the end, they will join the Neanderthal on Mother Nature's trash heap. (See David Loye's book Darwin's Lost Theory of Love: A Healing Vision for the New Century, published in 2000, for more on this subject.)
By November 2009, I was in full-throated roar about the sociopaths who run our nation, as I wrote "Social Capitalism," decrying the evils of laissez-faire capitalism, taking the first of many shots at Ayn Rand's Objectivism ("She is a philosopher for the lazy and those who like simplistic answers, who are seeking justification for their narcissism and selfishness, rather than philosophy's true purpose: discovering the deeper meaning of ourselves"); and stating for the world to read, what in my mind had become--with few exceptions--a truism in our modern society and its economy [corrections and amplifications in brackets]:
"The secret to success is to [either be or] become a sociopath, a person lacking human feelings and needs other than the material aggrandizement of oneself. Compassion has no place in the life of this person, or pity, or mercy, or justice or love. They are perfect examples of applied social Darwinism, and piss poor examples of human beings."
I am quite happy that such disparate individuals as Rob Kall, Professor Thomas Farrell, Chris Hedges, Paul Craig Roberts, and Professor Robert Reich--among others--are saying the same thing now that I have been trying to say--albeit at times clumsily--for the last seven years about the sociopaths running things in this country, and all of the problems that they are causing. I wish I could claim to be the first to realize that madmen and women are running the world to suit their own sick and twisted vision of reality, but I can't: that honor belongs to John Lennon of the Beatles, in a BBC-TV Interview on 22 June 1968: