Therapists and non-therapists — a guest post from Ymarsakar

The always interesting, sometimes controversial Ymarsakar, who blogs at Sake White, has contributed another post for your consideration.  In it, he tackles using psychology to disarm us, or to help us understand and combat our enemies.

Since Y didn’t provide a little intro, and because it’s a long post, I’m going to take a stab at an intro, because I think he makes an extraordinarily important point, and one that few people understanding.  Here goes:

Both the entirely of the Left and a large number of decent people in America assume that empathy equals goodness and kindness.  In fact, empathy is a huge weapon in the narcissist’s, psychopath’s, or sociopath’s arsenal.  That he can understand and sense your feelings means that he can manipulate them, either for the pleasure of your pain, or to maneuver you into committing an act in which you normally would not engage (such as killing your Jewish neighbors).  This difference between good and evil isn’t empathy, it’s morality and decency.  The most effective bad guy is highly empathic, but he uses this skill to further his own selfish, and often evil, goals.  Did I get that right, Y?


I recently read Neo-neocon’s biographical post “Therapists and liberalism”. It sparked an interesting subject matter for me, but not in the sense that she intended it.

In her post she describes the (fake) liberal bias of most therapists in her profession, as viewed from herself and her voyage in life.

So I’ve been thinking about what it is that accounts for the overwhelming liberality of therapists. It’s true, of course, that those in the social sciences, literature, and the arts generally tend to be of the liberal persuasion more often than those in the hard sciences or business; and therapy–despite assertions to the contrary–resembles an art far more than a science, I’m afraid. (It is also a business, but some therapists are in a certain amount of denial about that fact.)

In addition, there are elements within the training and belief system of most therapists that reinforce liberalism of students already predisposed to it anyway. In general, therapists–particularly those who specialize in treating individuals through talk therapy–are taught that they cannot be effective with clients if they start off with a judgmental approach. So they learn to exercise a certain suspension of judgment, a tolerance that even amounts at times to moral relativism, in order to gain the trust of clients and be able to work effectively with them.

I did not come to psychology or therapy from Neo’s perspective. She, as I have often stated, learned the material to directly help others. I learned the material to directly harm others. Technically, of course, it is more intricate than that, integrating civilian and peace time applications with the justice and expedience of war, but in summary you can look at it in the fashion that I have described.

Thus, it may be safe to say that I am not a Democrat and that I do not ascribe to certain fake liberal, Leftist, or Democrat party platforms. I am not their enemy merely because they seek to heal and I seek to harm. Instead, I am their enemy because the more I learned about the destructive potential of human psychology and how it could be used to manipulate and harm human beings, the more I saw the Democrat party using the exact methods, methodologies, and techniques I had been studying and attempting to grasp and master.

I am their enemy because, just as fake liberals are brought up in a bubble and taught that self-esteem, self-perception, and talk are the kings of conflict resolution, I was brought up under the Aegis of 9/11, Al Qaeda, Nick Berg’s execution, and the Democrat practices of treason, guile, deception, and gross manipulation of the Lives of Others. Just as therapists are liberal because they believe in talk and in resolving the fundamental conflicts of others with sweet reason and passive observation, so am I a believer in resolution through Superior Firepower and the correction of fundamental conflicts through primordial struggle and absolute submission.

Most psychologists never witness what I have witnessed, because few were looking in the same place, at the same time, as I was. And they would not see what I saw, even if they had been told where to look. Psychiatry deals with certain prescribed methods concerning the human mind, heart, and behavior. Whether the standards are rigid or (ostensibly) flexible, all deal primarily with understanding human behavior so as to render it less harmful, less self-destructive, or less personally stressful. That is not the derivation of psychology that I studied. The specific derivation of psychology I learned contained numerous subjects but most notably it was:

1. How to manipulate individuals or groups of individuals to commit suicide, murder, theft, or numerous kinds of military/ideological actions.

2. How to use others’ emotions in order to inculcate specific and primeval reactions so as to bypass rationality or wise due consideration on the part of the subject in question.

3. How to lie and what advantages vs disadvantages dishonesty provides.

4. The difference between the virtues of honesty and the vice of lying.

5. How to cause more destruction with propaganda than has been accomplished with nuclear weapons.

6. And many many more.

As you can see, there are particular differences between my kind of psychology and the kind of therapy as practiced in the US. Particular in the sense of motivations, if not actual methodologies. For example, much of psychological warfare or psychological profiling of a target for future elimination utilizes the same things as Democrat psychologists utilize. Here’s Neo again:

It isn’t always easy to do this, because every person we meet triggers some reaction in us. Therapists try to understand these reactions and be aware of them in themselves (traditionally, these reactions are called “counter-transference”), and to block expressing them in a way that would hinder the therapeutic relationship. Imposing the therapist’s own ideas of what’s right and what’s wrong in the moral sense can be too directive and disruptive, and could easily trigger resistance to therapy in the client. Besides, the task of therapy is not usually seen as guidance towards some objective standard of “right” behavior; it’s seen as guidance towards self-actualization and self-expression.

For example, a propagandist who intends to manipulate people to achieve a goal (most of the time destructive of one nature or another) must be aware that every reaction the propagandist has towards the subject must be carefully purified, filtered, and removed. It does not matter whether you, the propagandist, feel contempt for the subject or not. All that matters is the work.

The reason why propagandists block themselves from expressing their true views is both because it would hinder their ability to achieve their goal and it would disrupt relationships with the subject.  Thus, Democrats cannot let blacks know the contemptuous racism they really hold towards blacks and minorities. It would also overreach in the sense that the mask would fall off and the subject could become aware of and interrupt the propagandist’s efforts at manipulation.

Just as the task of therapy is not usually seen as a guidance towards some objective standard of “right” behavior, propaganda (a specific kind of operation in psychological warfare) also is not intended to make people do things “correctly” or by a moral code. Thus as an example, the Left’s intentions with prosecuting the Haditha Marines were not to reduce atrocities or to reinforce the rule of law.  Instead the entire operation was designed to fulfill certain propaganda goals relating to the United States war effort. This had nothing to do with whether the Haditha Marines shot correctly or incorrectly, except when it came to choosing which viewpoint would most hurt the US war effort. Morality becomes a weapon in the hands of the propagandist, instead of the propagandist becoming a tool or servant of morality.

Let me clarify some aspects here for certain situations that may remain unclear. As professionals, therapists should avoid the folly of dictating, lecturing, and guiding their patients to a path that the therapists themselves believe is the “Right and True” path, since the therapist’s ideas of “right” or “true” may damage the patient.  The propagandist, however, can guide his subject to a cause that the propagandist knows will destroy the subject, all the while saying “this will be the right path for you.”  The propagandist, after all, is interested in the ultimate societal result, not the subject’s well-being.

Therapists can certainly cause harm or produce unfruitful sessions. But propagandists produce negative results on purpose, at least negative from our perspectives and the perspective of the subject. From the perspective of the propagandist, it was very positive that Americans were convinced that Vietnam was a mistake. Did the propagandist believe that Vietnam was a mistake? Not necessarily. Did Vietnamese Communists truly believe that their enemy’s lives would be better without America?  Not necessarily. propagandists don’t need to believe something to be able to convince you that it is true.

The propagandist, similar to the malignant narcissist, utilizes deception and emotional manipulation, amongst other tools, to make you walk yourself over the cliff.  Once you’ve accomplished this self-destructive task, the propagandist will look over the cliff at your falling body and he will have a proud smile on his face. This isn’t because he thought it was the “correct path” for you to go there. Instead, it’s because he knew you thought it was the correct path, and because he knew it wasn’t. This is different from therapeutic mistakes or transference.

Now that we have covered the particular differences between therapy and propaganda, we can go on to Neo’s more specific and concrete details:

So therapists are specifically taught to practice non-judgmental openmindedness, as well as to exercise the obviously necessary skill of putting themselves imaginatively into the heart and mind of another person. This emphasis on empathy further extends the idea of openminded and nonjudgmental acceptance of the other person’s point of view.

One particular subject here concerns empathy. Many people believe, I dare say, that sociopaths or sadists lack empathy: that the reason they can hurt others is because they don’t feel the pain of others. I don’t believe that is exactly correct. Empathy does not make you a good person guaranteed nor does it make you more “sensitive” in the meaning of the Democrat propaganda messages we see so often. In fact, narcissists, sociopaths, serial killers, and sadists have very highly defined empathic abilities and sensitivities.

Now, obviously, this may seem a bit counter-intuitive. But it is only counter-intuitive if you see things as if you, a healthy socialized person, were transplanted into a serial killer’s mind. But a serial killer’s mind is not that of a healthy socialized member of society. These killers understand that they cause pain, but that’s their goal.  Faced with two approaches to a situation, the sadist will choose the methods that causes the most fear and panic.  The sadist, of course, can do this only if he has a twisted empathy, and can understand what his prospective victim will feel.

This explains why it is that, so often, serial killers are later described as “good neighbors.” If the serial killer lacked empathy, he would not know how to act in a way that would placate his neighbors.  This, just as he understands someone’s fear and pain perception, so too does he understand how to behave so that people trust him.

The same applies to narcissists and malignant narcissists. For all that they don’t particularly care about your wants and needs, that are actually extraordinarily sensitive to others’ emotions.  That’s how they can so easily manipulate you. And that’s why they are so much in need of attention and of adulation. They can’t feed off others’ approval if they aren’t sensitive to their emotions.  Bill Clinton could control a crowd only because he understand the individual crowd member’s feelings.

It is only the byproduct of Leftist illusion which convinces people that, simply because somebody has “empathy” or is able to “feel your pain,” this means that understanding is going to cause peace on earth or some other Leftist claptrap mantra. The truth is that it isn’t so. If a narcissist or serial killer does see you as a human being, but just as some meat to be butchered, tenderized, and cooked for their gustatory pleasure, then it doesn’t matter if the bad guy can “feel your pain.” Indeed, it helps him carry out his objective if he can feel your pain.

Thus, psychological warfare and therapy both utilize empathy, but not necessarily for the same end goal. And it certainly doesn’t reinforce the Leftist mantra that peace on earth will be had through “understanding eachother’s differences.” They always keep on telling us that war is a result of “misunderstandings” or of one group exploiting the resources of another group and that so long as you “understand” this fact, you can stop the exploitation. Obviously, you don’t want the Left to be your sole protection against killers, sadists, terrorists, and cultists.

And now back to Neo:

In addition, in order to do the work they do, therapists have to maintain certain general beliefs. They need to maintain an attitude of hopefulness about the human condition, an ability to believe that there is good in almost everyone and that it is not so hard to create the proper conditions to activate that goodness. Once again, it’s not the attitude itself that is at fault, or its application to the therapeutic relationship; it’s the overgeneralizing that causes problems. Sometimes people are too far gone to be helped by such an approach; life, and the world, does not mimic the conditions of the therapeutic hour.

Depending on the school of therapy, some therapists (so-called “insight therapists,” for example) believe that human behavior and feelings can be understood, and, once understood, can be changed for the better by dint of that understanding. So “understanding” can be elevated to much more than an exercise in intellectual curiosity–it is sometimes considered a solution in and of itself, even to something as multifaceted and political as terrorism.

It is an interesting description dear Neo has provided us. For example, much of what she has written about therapists here concerning their general beliefs would also apply to propaganda agents and operators. For example, therapists must maintain an attitude of hopefulness about the human condition and just so propagandists also have to maintain an attitude of hopefulness about the human condition. Therapists believe that the human nature is amenable to changes in behavior through therapy. Propagandists strongly believe that human nature is amenable to a modification of its behaviors through propaganda. Therapists believe that with enough analysis, talk, and sessions they can “activate” the “proper conditions.” Propagandists also believe that with enough propaganda operations that certain “proper conditions” can also be activated.

The difference, as you may have already guessed by now, is that propagandists are hopeful that human nature will remain consistent so that they will be able to reliably manipulate human fears and hopes. Propagandists believe human nature is amenable to manipulation by changes in behaviors, beliefs, and emotions. Propagandists believe that with enough ground work, you can activate the proper conditions to make a complete zombie out of an individual or collective group of individuals.

An obvious question at this point in time may be, “Well, if propaganda is so bad, aren’t you worried that you will slip into worse and worse moral slides by studying it?”

My answer is, perhaps, very simple and to the point: just because Nick Berg got his throat slowly sawed off does not mean I must remain ignorant of the exact anatomical failure induced in the human body by Zarqawi’s knife so that when faced with another similar situation, they will always be the ones doing it and I will always be the one that had it done upon.  In other words, learning the skills doesn’t mean I have to practice them.  It does mean I can prevent myself from becoming a victim.

For those familiar with the philosophy behind armaments, you may have already reached the conclusion that weapons are tools and tools are neither inherently evil nor intrinsically good. They do what they do based upon the skill and intention of the user, along with a good dose of moral luck. This is no more different for propaganda or psychological warfare than it is for the fission bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just because the Russians wanted to use it on Japan to carve up another piece of territory for Global Communism, does not mean their use would have been moral on the basis that our use of it was ethical.

This concludes the subject matter which I most wanted to address. As for secondary issues, you may look upon the key levers used to manipulate people. I will give you two levers, the strongest two in my view: Fear and Hope.

Some of you may wonder if, by “fear,” I refer to Bush’s alleged “fear mongering.”  I’m don’t.  Instead, I’m talking about a very specific mechanism for creating fear. For example, people will believe what they fear to be true. Thus, Neo got scammed by the “desert tire racket” based upon the fear that her tires will explode in the middle of the desert, thus stranding her and causing her death by dehydration. She didn’t know that it was true. She only feared the possibility of the consequence being true. That was enough to modify her behavior so as to be conned.

This type of fear is natural and part of human instincts. After all, whenever humanity was faced with the possibility of a calamity, we could use our brains to think up solutions to this “future calamity.” Some of those solutions worked, some didn’t. Inevitably, though, this resulted in more humans surviving rather than less, simply because humans had an idea of the “future” and could think obsessively over potential disasters and pitfalls and how to avoid them. This is why the human mind dwells more on negative experiences than positive experiences. The positives are not something we need to think about for survival. The negatives? Whole different story. That’s why the fear of possible bad events is one of the most powerful levers that can be used to manipulate a person’s beliefs or emotions — it bypasses most “rationality” through knee jerk survival instincts. You can’t beat survival instincts, people; that’s some strong stuff.

Now, the other thing is Hope. What is this Hope? It is hope that something is true. People believe things to be true because they want them to be true; or, in other words, because they “hope” they are true. False hope, real hope, it doesn’t matter. People will believe, because the alternative is to believe what they fear to be true. And that’s not a good thing to dwell on.

With these definitions in mind, here’s a short description of the Leftist propaganda campaign in America and its ultimate results: People were convinced that everything they feared about Bush’s power grabs was true. People were convinced that everything they hoped about Al Qaeda’s weaknesses, was true. Thus, people wished that Saddam and AQ did not have connections, because it was safer to believe AQ was isolated than to believe AQ had the help of other nation states. People feared that Bush was endangering them personally by taking on AQ and Saddam, so they believed Bush was making things up with connections in the absence of any concrete evidence. People were convinced that Obama had the right stuff to lead, because they hoped it was true in light of all that they feared and knew to be true. Or thought they knew to be true.

Of course, in reality, things are much more complex, just as the human mind is a much more complex place than two sentences or even 200 pages of text could adequately describe in all its variations. But on the fundamentals, I believe this has adequately covered the subject, for now.

For a full read of Neo’s article, click here. And consider the many many ways of Obama and our nation in crisis and Manufactured Emergency Decree mode.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    For a case study, read and follow the links in one of Neo’s recent posts. Study and consider the example of Obama and his charismatic impact upon the masses. Isolate and correlate techniques with intended and actual consequences and then compare with people’s “stated perceptions” of Obama. You will see, I forward, that much of it operates from the premises and methodologies that I have described here in. The more people are able to comprehend propaganda and reproduce that manipulation of emotions, the more people will become resistant to mass delusion, denial, or external manipulation. But, propaganda is powerful precisely because while an atom bomb is scary enough to trigger people’s self-defense mechanisms and make them more motivated in defending themselves against being obliterated, the same is not true of propaganda. People do not fear it enough. Thus they fall prey to it, because they do not take the necessary precautions on the basis and justification there is no need to take any precautions: that they are too smart or too well traveled to fall prey to the con. As we have seen, whether Americans or Third World Nigerians, it does not matter. People are easily manipulated by those with the talent, skill, and motivation.

    But Obama’s formidable people skills were also on display, and he provided enough reassurance, vague though it might have been, that many of the families were hopeful:

    “I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him,” said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. “[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he’s going to get this done right.”

    “This isn’t goodbye,” said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, “this is hello.” His national security staff would have an open-door policy.


    But of course, throughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn’t believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers.

    But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left.-Forewarning prophecy

    The special and rare historical moment of what the Founding Fathers accomplished is that they created a system not in the absence of character corruption, danger, and the delusional greed of the many, but because of it. They used man’s inhumanity to create the best of humanity. Used greed to create charity. Used self-interest and selfishness to place shackles upon the mighty and the megalomaniacal. We cannot say as an excuse that we failed here today because something new came on the scene that unmanned us. Nothing new came on the scene. It has all been done before. May God save the Republic, for we have certainly not ensured that the enemies of the Republic have been eliminated from existence. And there are no good enemies to have, except dead enemies. Psychology can provide the tools for this consequence, not by the obvious bombs and brute force methodologies employed by police states, but through directing the hate and the energies of your enemies against your chosen targets. They no longer are your enemies when you control them. They are no longer individuals. Allies at best, or if not allies, certainly tools. As mentioned on Bookworm’s blog before, whenever societal upheaval results, scapegoats will be required. And it is still now our choice whether the sacrificial victims will be us and the belief we have for the strengths of America, or whether it will be those who engendered the problem in the first place. I far prefer it to be the latter than the former.

  • Ymarsakar

    Book, I didn’t have an introduction in mind since all I knew at the time was that I wanted to discuss the correlation between Neo’s post on psychology and my own parallel thoughts on the same subject.

    But in so far as the topics I had covered, certainly your abstract is an accurate one.

    The Left believes that they are smart enough to be able to understand everyone, and thus this makes them wise, enlightened, and superior to the rest of us non-ideological cult members.

    But they are not smart enough. They are not even wise enough to figure out that wisdom is not the same as intelligence or calculation speed or amount of knowledge acquired. For one thing, they do not understand all cultures or even our culture. How are they then able to tout themselves as smart because they understand Middle East and other multicultural climates? They don’t even get our culture, let alone anybody else’s. This is not an indication of intelligence and it certainly is not an indication of wisdom or enlightenment. Then again, when you have Democrats in power for life like Robert KKK Byrd and Ted Splash Kennedy, that gets kind of obvious.

  • Ymarsakar

    So therapists are specifically taught to practice non-judgmental openmindedness, as well as to exercise the obviously necessary skill of putting themselves imaginatively into the heart and mind of another person. This emphasis on empathy further extends the idea of openminded and nonjudgmental acceptance of the other person’s point of view.

    One particular subject here concerns empathy. Many people believe, I dare say, that sociopaths or sadists lack empathy: that the reason they can hurt others is because they don’t feel the pain of others. I don’t believe that is exactly correct. Empathy does not make you a good person guaranteed nor does it make you more “sensitive” in the meaning of the Democrat propaganda messages we see so often. In fact, narcissists, sociopaths, serial killers, and sadists have very highly defined empathic abilities and sensitivities.

    A request for an edit.

    The first paragraph is Neo’s, but the second paragraph is my own and should not be block quoted along with hers.

    2. How to use others’ emotions in order to inculcate specific and primeval reactions so as to bypass rationality or wise due consideration on the part of the subject in question.

    That should, of course, be “How to use the emotions of others in order to inculcate specific and primeval reactions in order to bypass rationality or otherwise due consideration on the part of the subject in question”.

  • Pingback: Psychological Warfare « Sake White()