A new analytical post by guest blogger Ruddy Adam.
This is about the umpteenth time I’ve had this question about either Bush or Obama, individually of course. The question about them both at once is a perfect chance to make a few points about psychopaths.
This question will be our introduction back into our studies of psychopaths. Just let me remind you that our group has been studying them for 30-years and our friend the criminologist for over 40-years and, as you’ll see by the answer to this question, there is more to learn about identifying psychopaths than we’ve gotten to in prior studies.
Psychopaths are so sneaky and so manipulative that it’s my view we can’t study them enough, and every tiny tidbit of information about them can help keep us from getting entangled with them. They can and will ruin your life if they get their claws deep enough in you. At best doing business with one or having any type of relationship (casual, familial, love) with one is going to cause you a lot of misery. I like the idea of keeping our Misery Index as low as possible. Toward that end we shall trod ahead with our studies on these horrifying intra-species predators.
With the numbers showing there are about 17-million in the US—roaming around free, out hunting human prey every single day—the odds are you’re going to run into one. You want to have yourself mentally ready for that encounter, so you can follow our staple rule: Dump and Run!!
The older you are the more vulnerable you are. The more you deal with other people the more likely you are to run into one. The older you are the more brazen they are when they try to manipulate you.
Those of us who have been manipulated and taken by psychopaths don’t want it to happen to the rest of you, our friends and fellow-Khristians.
One of the points in the answer to the question regarding Bush and Obama is that there are several other things that can cause people to act like psychopaths. In these answers I’ll address elites and ideologues, both of whom can appear to be psychopaths—and indeed may be.
We’ve already been over the fact that alcoholics, drug addicts, and addicted gamblers have a lot of the same traits as psychopaths, and most definitely some are psychopaths. Truly, anybody who has enough psychopathic traits and is constantly acting out those traits very likely is one.
But in a lot of alcoholics, drug addicts, and addicted gamblers who have traits such as a lack of conscience, chronic lying and stealing, and persistent manipulation, we see those traits go away (at least to some degree) sometime after they stop drinking, drugging, and/or gambling. But they must completely stop, or their traits never go away. Until they do completely stop, they are equal in every way that relates to dealing with other humans as psychopaths are.
Genuine psychopaths never stop! They merely move on to their next prey. If they get caught and go to prison, as soon as they get out they pick up exactly where they left off: lying, conning, stealing, manipulating, and parasiting off of normal humans. No amount of counseling or punishment can cure a psychopath; they are predatory parasites as long as they breathe.
Let me state again that it’s one of the best things we can do studying public people in this respect, because we have so much information about them. We’ll be continuing in that vein as we get back into our studies of psychopaths. Amy
Question: Is Either Bush or Obama a Psychopath?
“Big Daddy, Ellis and I have read about as many books as you have read on George Bush, and we’ve about had it reading about Obama there are so many books on him. Both are such liars! They seem not to have a conscience, especially Bush, but really both of them. The only way we can justify this type of lying is if they are psychopaths. They must be and we conclude that after reading ‘1249 Well Documented Obama Lies,’ that Obama must be a psychopath. Are we correct? Is either one of them?” Thanks for your studies and articles, G. & E., Waco, TX
Answer: Let me give everyone the short answer to both of these, because some of you might not want the details as to why not. But No! and No! Neither one is a psychopath, at least by any measure that I know of judging whether someone is or not. This does not mean, however, that they are good people—by any means.
Let me remind everyone that just because people have a few psychopathic traits by no means tells us they are psychopaths. Lying, whether pathological or not, is only one trait. Pathological lying is not being capable of telling the truth, that is, lying everytime one speaks about a subject. Obama could be a pathological liar, though I do not believe he is. Nor do I believe Bush is.
They are both, however, chronic liars, in that over time they consistently tell lies when they need to. They probably have limited consciences, and I would say you are correct: Bush’s is more limited (if he has one at all) than Obama’s.
There are certainly reasons that both would seem like psychopaths, but neither one has nearly enough traits to receive that dishonorable tag.
I consider our friend, whom we call the Criminologist, that her list of psychopathic traits is the most complete. And she has about thirty traits listed after 25-years of doing interviews with over 300 criminals who had some psychopathic traits, and after 40-years of reading and studying about them.
A person needs at least 12 of those to be considered a psychopath. Then I would warn everyone that a thorough study of their actions and history should be carried on after that, unless they are in prison for a series of serious crimes. Or, unless they have a pattern of committing crimes most of their lives. Psychopaths generally start early in life! Then, you most likely have a heavily weighted decision on the side of their being psychopaths. Remember, too, that there are different types of psychopaths.
In our studies, and we’re about to continue them, we are studying parasitic psychopaths, who are creatures that look at the rest of us as prey to parasite off of. They may murder if they have to, but they are not mass murderers or serial killers. Mass murderers and serial killers may be psychopaths, but they are also psychotic, which means they are mentally sick (Psychopaths are too, but in a different way.) Being extremely paranoid and delusional are signs of psychosis. I personally cannot go much past that, because psychosis is not an area I’ve been interested in.
Parasitic psychopaths are creatures who cannot produce for themselves; they must suck off of society. This is why all life-long politicians must be placed in a permanent state of suspicion. So, G & E, you are correct in suspecting that either Bush or Obama (or both) could be psychopaths, especially because of some of their actions. But I can easily state that they are not.
Let’s take Obama first.
I will agree that Obama lies with an amazing amount of aplomb. He attempts to deceive with a great amount of ease. I don’t see Obama as a manipulator, however. Rather, I see him as having been manipulated, as you’ll see below in a cursory study of his history. Psychopaths are relentless at attempting to manipulate people, and the more successful ones are master manipulators.
It’s more difficult for me to tell about Obama’s conscience, partly because I’ve watched very little of him and not kept up with him since 2012. About some things he does, he surely has no conscience. But it’s more than likely not because his frontal lobes are deformed, though they may be, but I don’t think it’s likely.
So what is he? Why would he lie as he does? How could he do the things he does without it bothering him?
Obama is an ideologue. Ideologues justify doing just about anything in the name of their cause, which in Obama’s case has been missed by many and hidden by his enablers, because the site with that information on it came down just as he announced his candidacy for president in 2008.
If you all remember I was doing studies on black supremacy ideology when I ran upon Jeremiah Wright’s website, in which it clearly explained, and let me paraphrase to make it a succinct explanation: Wright’s church was not a traditional Khristian church, though he called it Khristian. It was a black supremacist church. I had no idea at the time who Obama was or that he attended the church, but a few years later when Wright’s name popped up in the 2008 presidential campaign as Obama’s preacher I remembered it.
Obama was a wandering soul when Wright found him in the late 1980s. He was born to two radicals, one white and American Indian, the other Black. His mother’s second husband was a Muslim, as were his grandparents. His best friends in college were Muslims. But at no time did Obama take up that religion or any other. He clearly rejected and showed no sign of having accepted any type of religion.
Obama’s central mentor in life before Wright was Frank Marshall Davis, whose nickname was “The Communist.” Obama’s maternal grandparents were radicals, and they introduced him to Davis. Davis was indeed a proud and admitted Communist, whom Obama called “Pop,” and about whom he wrote poems, following in Davis’ path of considering himself a poet.
In college Obama clearly and absolutely espoused Marxist views. He argued for them, and debated on their behalf. He could not pass and did not finish, but was fascinated so with the Soviet Union that he started a course in Russian languages. Davis propounded that Communists had freed Africa and Cuba of White capitalists.
That had to be a foundation for accepting Wright’s more vicious views of the White race. For Marxism and Black Supremacy fit perfectly together, because both are revolutionary. To put Blacks in the main power positions in the US requires a revolution, and Marxism is revolution—religious, political, cultural, racial, educational, economical, and all else involving society.
As mother said, “The proof is always in the pudding, Sugar.” As Nixon said when promising a media group that he was going to govern to the left after getting elected in 1968 campaigning to the right, “Don’t listen to what I say. Watch what I do.”
When the Pritzker family found Obama (they are a family of radical billionaires who founded the Hyatt Hotels), the Obamas were satisfied sitting at a small office in South Chicago lawyering for various Community Organizing Groups. Community Organizing is certainly revolutionary, having been invented by Saul Alinsky. But the groups the way Alinsky designed them were small and spread out, but they work toward the same goals. I don’t think Obama had the slightest intention of going anywhere from there, and I will explain why below.
The Pritzkers picked him up, showed him a lot of attention, and fed his ego to the point that he began to believe he should move on up. They sent Michelle and him to Hollywood (and brought HW to Chicago) to show him how to act and use gestures that would make people like him. They got him speech lessons and promoted him around town. Obama devoured the attention, and definitely fed on the accolades as any narcissist would, but I think he’s miserable where he is now. His former narcissistic character has disappeared, and a hangdog look has taken over. I know Michelle is miserable, because there have been numerous articles to that effect. Neither one had any idea what they were getting into.
No matter how miserable he is; Obama’s still an ideologue and his actions and words promoting Blacks show it.
The Pritzkers turned him over to David Axelrod to teach him politics on a national scale. Axelrod is a master manipulator. The LA Times has called Axelrod “the man behind Obama’s message that got him elected.’ The man behind the slogan “hope and change,” and the man who “invented and protects Obama’s image.” The NY Times has stated that Axelrod is “Obama’s Narrator.” (In other words, Axelrod invented Obama, so that he could pass as an acceptable citizen and candidate. His radicalism was totally hidden.) The Times continued, “Axelrod is the president’s protector, ever close at hand.”
The mission of Wright’s Church was/is to promote Blacks first, Browns second, and Whites, who are devils, never. His congregants call themselves Khristians, but do not believe in a personal God, or that a Savior came and died on the Cross. They believe that the struggle for Black Supremacy is the faith, that the sacrifice you do for the cause is equal to going to the Cross to save your people. Sacrificing to promote Blacks is how you receive salvation. Sacrifice is equal to faith in Khrist. That is why the Obamas were perfectly content to sit in a small office in South Chicago doing mostly pro bono lawyering for Community Organizing Groups, sacrificing themselves to the cause, taught to them by Jeremiah Wright.
A lot of Obama’s psychopathic actions since he’s become president have been brought on by the master manipulator who controls him: David Axelrod. Axelrod has a long line of far-left connections from his mother to his central mentor, David Cantor.
This is very similar to what happened to Woodrow Wilson in the teens of the last century. Edward Mandel House was a master manipulator who controlled Wilson, and came up with every idea—that Woodrow Wilson espoused—and how to initiate them. House was called back in that day, Wilson’s Alter Ego. You could easily say that about David Axelrod today.
Obama has been further manipulated by Hillary Clinton, whose plans to start nation-building in the Middle East stand exactly opposite when juxtaposed with Obama’s campaign promise to get out of the Middle East wars. Not that he meant it when he said it. It simply fed his reddest comrades who want all nations to join hands in order to create one, big secular Beast.
The only reason he would go for this, other than Hillary’s coarse manipulation tactics, was that perhaps another radical US-hater told him the results would put the US in worse condition than ever, by stirring up hell’s deepest pit even moreso by overthrowing more Muslimic nations. After leaving him holding a huge batch of Clinton afterbirth (something the Clintons are famous for doing), precious little Hillary then resigned to go off and run for president, a position which has been in her gunsights for over 50-years.
Now to Bush.
Bush is much like FDR, in that he has an elitist attitude toward most of society, just as Papa Bush did. Peons sit out there in the hinterlands and know not what the hell to do with themselves, and elites like the Bushes and Roosevelts must think for them and tell them what to do. Though Baby Bush was born in Texas and speaks with a mid-western drawl, his thinking is purely Northeastern Ivy League Elitism. Bush fit in at Yale like pig rolling in slop.
Remember that FDR looked at the common people as “the unwashed masses.” Now, that has more meaning than you may imagine, in that it is purely physical. Up until perhaps the 1920s, the majority of Americans did not have running water or soap. I know people who did not have running water in the 1950s!!
These poor souls rarely washed, and well, they stunk like animals. In the Ocean Liners of the day they had to travel in Steerage Class, and were locked in, directly beside the live cattle (Steers!!) that the Liners used to feed the passengers, because there was no refrigeration. On the top floor, two floors above Steerage, were the elites who dressed in tuxedoes, top hats, and $1000 evening gowns while they strutted around with their snouts in the air. No way they wanted to be around a bunch of stinking-ass, lower-class people. Thus, the term “the unwashed masses,” because they could not wash regularly and the majority of the nation was that way.
It’s my view that Bush has no conscience. Neither does Papa Bush. It doesn’t matter whether that is a physical deformity, or from his view that most of us don’t matter, that the only people who matter are the elites that he went to Yale with and that are friends of his and Papa Bush’s.
So Bush doesn’t mind lying to people he sees as having a lesser worth than his. I will say, however, that Bush has a difficult time in getting his lies out. Lying simply does not come as second nature to him, as it does Obama. He stumbles and stammers, and excessive blinking comes about, which is a sign that someone is under severe stress to the point that they cannot take much of it. None of this means that he doesn’t go right ahead and lie, however, because he certainly does.
Bush’s ability to manipulate is practically zero. However, he himself had a master manipulator whispering in his ear: Karl Rove. After Bush questioned oodles of people about whether Iraq had WMD, he was still unsure. I believe he had enough sense to know that it was highly unlikely that Iraq had the type of weapons the neo-cons were claiming he had. Supposedly, Rove told him if you don’t attack Iraq, the neo-cons will turn against you in the upcoming election the way they did his dad (Papa Bush) and you’ll lose. As we know, Baby Bush ordered the attack. The neo-cons turned against Bush because he did not move on into Iraq in 1991 and take Saddam Hussein out. They never forgave him for that and backed Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.
In respect to the Iraq Debacle, I believe Bush was most definitely deceived, but even when he discovered that fact he continued to lie. In respect to his not having a conscience, Bush disappeared after he left office, until he poked his head out to promote his book, fully four-years later. During that promotion tour, he was asked what was his biggest mistake during his presidency. He said coldly and thoughtlessly: “That we did not find WMD.” That dear friends is a definite sign that George “Baby” Bush has no conscience.
What about the thousands dead, the families tormented by their loss, and the 40-thousand or so young soldiers who are now without limbs??!!
For evidence to back my view that Bush was deceived and was upset regarding the WMD scam, the three snakes who fed the WMD lies to the State Department, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, were all fired within a few months of each other in late 2004 and early 2005.
If you noticed not one question ever by the media to anyone in the Bush Administration when they claim they received bad “data” or information about WMD asking, “Who the hell gave you the information?” That, folks, is an off limit question.
As noted above, questions regarding public officials being psychopaths are very good ones, because we can read about them and watch their actions. It’s much better than my telling you about psychopaths I’ve known or the ones who have gotten hold of me.
As we continue studying these creatures, we will be using public officials as examples, and it will not be for political purposes, because everybody receiving our articles have already made up their minds. I’m not one to preach to the choir or to try to convert anyone to anything political.
I remain, Ruddy Adam