New psycho-political post by Ruddy Adam. Enjoy!
I’ve learned from the questions and comments I’m receiving regarding psychopaths that the question/answer format is a good way for all of us to learn more about psychopaths, because you all keep bringing up good subjects to discuss. That’s why I’m going to elaborate more than might seem necessary with the answers.
Along the way I will be entwining examples of public people who have a lot of psychopathic traits for you to observe and/or study, if you like. Their traits will be clear—and plainly visible. And I hope they will add to our understanding of parasitic psychopaths.
Thank you for being patient with your questions! I’ll get back to you on each and every one. The answers I’m sending out to everyone I’m letting the Criminologist read over first, to see if she wants to add or change anything. Returns may seem slow because of that, but alas, I am not being slothful.
Love to all: Ruddy
“Do psychopaths hate animals? I’ve heard that they torture them when they are just young children. How high would you rate that trait for a reason to ‘run and dump’ if you knew someone who tortured animals when they were young?” G&G, NC
It’s not that psychopaths hate animals. It’s that they cannot relate to having a relationship with animals. They don’t understand normal humans who do. To them, they’re at best trouble. At worst varmints that ought to be in far off jungles—and not anywhere around people.
Besides, animals might get some of the attention from humans that they could be getting. Or, they may be a little extra household expense and trouble—too much at least for a self-centered psychopath.
Remember, psychopaths are deeply buried into appeasing their lusts. Neither animals nor plants/trees/flowers can help them in that fanatical quest. They are therefore useless to them, if not burdensome.
As far as rating that trait, no one psychopathic trait means you can tag someone as a psychopath. But this horrible trait, if I knew someone had tortured animals—at any time in their lives—I would never go around those people again, unless it was absolutely necessary! I would never trust them in any circumstance.
The type of psychopath we’re studying will definitely not care about animals. Or the plant kingdom. That does not mean they hate them, however. Neither does it mean they necessarily tortured them when they were young—but they might have.
Psychopaths might use an animal in their quest for power or to make themselves look normal, and I will point out some examples below, but careful observation of them with animals shows that their true feelings about animals always come flooding forth.
Unless a psychopath knows about the fact that the rest of their kind don’t like animals, and you ask them what their favorite animal is, they’re not going to have one. You’re liable to get a “Screw animals!” answer. They’re not going to be watching any animal shows. I can promise you that.
If they do know about other psychopaths not caring for animals, you may get a general answer, such as “I like all animals.” But if they are genuine psychopaths—they will not!
Neither will they have a favorite tree or flower. If they get anywhere near flowers, it may be to give them to their prey to soften their demeanor—so that they can more easily manipulate them out of what they want.
A relationship with animals or plants never enters their minds, unless they notice that normal humans like animals or plants, and they decide it would help them blend in as normal humans to mimic those people.
Let me mention this again. The first psychopath that got me, Tomcat, used to follow me around—and if he possibly could he copied every darn thing I did. As a vast majority of psychopaths are, he was very non-athletic. I played all sports, especially football, baseball, and golf. He could not. He could not learn to ride a bicycle.
I had dogs from the time I was six. I was a few years older than he was, and he said he was going to get himself a dog just like mine when he was old enough.
When he was seven his dad bought him a little beagle and gave it to him in a box one morning. That afternoon when his dad came home from work, he caught Tomcat beating the puppy with a long cane poll. He was supposed to feed the dog, but he had not, and the dog’s ears were bleeding. His dad took it away from him and never gave him another one, though he didn’t want one after that.
Years after we were grown and I had gotten rid of this parasite, I learned that he had put cherry bombs in the ears of several cats, lit them, and put them in mailboxes—then died laughing when the bombs went off.
Now, that is somewhat abnormal for a parasitic psychopath (which Tomcat was), but for very violent psychopaths, they do often torture animals when they are young. But not all of them do. It’s the sadism in them; they enjoy seeing anything suffer, and that includes helpless animals.
After receiving a five-year federal sentence in the mid-`70s, Denny was sent to the Federal Penitentiary for the Criminally Insane in Springfield, MO, for further testing, because his initial testing upon entering the federal prison system and his prior record as a juvenile offender all flagged as suspicious in respect to his being, as they called psychopaths then, “criminally insane” or “continuing criminals.”
According to Denny and his family, they found him to be a “continuing criminal with a tendency toward violence.” They kept him there and gave him shock treatments—and he came out so
meek that if someone slapped him, he would say, “Excuse me.” The shock treatments worked, but he had to take medicine the rest of his life to remain passive and non-violent. I suppose that’s why they quit doing shock treatments—they work!
If you recall Denny was mine and El’s best friend’s cousin, and that’s how we were always having contact with him. When he was a kid, he poured gasoline on dogs and cats and set them on fire. When they ran he would chase after them to watch them burn. That’s not all he did—but our subject is torturing animals.
The second psychopath to get me, Hornet, if you recall, was at our house when “Silence of the Lambs” was on at theaters, and he went to see it with us. The serial killer in that film had a dog named Precious. That week Hornet got himself a dog that looked a lot like the dog in the film, and named it—yes!—Precious.
Hornet was in sales at the time and carried the dog with him on the road, but we noticed, as his wife did, that he showed no real love for the dog. Hornet eventually dumped the dog off at home, and when it died he was watching TV and fell asleep as if nothing had happened. His wife buried the dog.
The Criminologist told me that not one of the 62 she tagged as psychopaths “had any kind of feeling for dogs or cats or trees. They were totally indifferent when it came to the subject of plants and animals, although several of them voiced a very negative view of animals. One owned a monkey that he used as a prop to help him pick up women.”
The one that owned the monkey said when women would see him with the monkey they would flock to him and that it was like “being in a candy store of women having your pick of the vulnerable ones.” This psychopath parasited off women, took them for all he could under the ruse that he was a genius real estate investor—and then dumped them as soon as he broke them or got all he could out of them.
Aside from the woman (now in her early fifties) I mentioned earlier who is in the federal penitentiary at this time, the only other one we personally know, Browny, who is still alive, is living in Florida at this time and is 82-years old. He’s still going strong, though, out every day hunting prey that he can con and rob. He was found at Springfield to be a “continuing criminal with no violent tendencies,” and they let him go after he served his time.
The last of the fellows who used to play golf with a bunch of us back in the 1960s, Johnny T, who is also 82, in wonderful shape, and a good friend, lived beside Browny when they were kids. He said Browny was the only kid on their block who didn’t pick up a stray dog and keep it for a pet, and everybody used to talk about how dogs did not like him—and how he couldn’t stand them. (Back then there were stray dogs running around everywhere. Still were when I as a kid.)
Browny is a degenerate gambler and his current favorite con is to convince people that he can make millions gambling, if he just had a little backing. He bragged to Johnny T recently that “the suckers are dumber today than anytime in his life.” This one’s always been difficult for me to believe, but people go for it—and have been since Browny was a teenager.
Browny will also fake having a lot of money to get credit to gamble with. Then when he loses—as he always does—he sneaks away without paying. As I noted in an earlier article, Browny at one time bragged about owing every casino on the Las Vegas strip.
The same was true of Tomcat. My dogs never liked him. He upset them just coming around. He did not have to do anything. Neither Miss Buck nor one of my other tutors, the Colonel (and his whole family), liked Tomcat. When he wanted to study music as I was doing and under Miss Buck, she refused, because she didn’t think he cared a thing about learning music. She was correct.
Her dislike of him came from watching him when we were playing ball in a yard across from hers. He couldn’t play—but there he’d be sitting in a swing watching. Then he’d be gone. She said she saw him wandering into her neighbors’ outdoor sheds and staying in them for a long time. She figured back then he was stealing. That did not absorb into my brain at the time. But that’s exactly what he was doing, rummaging through people’s outdoor tools looking for something to steal.
The Colonel and his family’s dislike of him came about because when he would go to their house their dogs would get upset, and he was always wandering around their back yard. When you went to the Colonel’s house, whether formally to study or informally to visit, it was all about learning. They were interested in everything. They knew the names of every plant. They knew the stars, etc., etc. Tomcat was not interested in any of those things. He wanted attention for himself—or something to steal.
Over the last century several politicians who have a lot of psychopathic markings have used animals as props, as the Clintons did Socks the cat and Buddy the dog when they were in the presidency back in the 1990s.
But those types will never have the same type of relationship with an animal that normal humans will have—because they are not capable of such, and over time that always becomes apparent, because they don’t even understand how humans should treat animals. To them, they are nothing more than props.
The Clintons had never owned a pet, yet knowing that the American people expect their main leader to have a pet, upon getting ready for their run for the White House they chose a cat in the early `90s while they were still in Arkansas—because neither one cared a lick for dogs. Or cats for that matter. It was really for Chelsea, and the Clintons stayed away from it except for prop shots. But she didn’t care for it—either. That would be natural. Genes are powerful.
When Bill Clinton got in trouble later in his presidency during his second term, they got a dog named Buddy. The reason we know it was all fake, aside from reports in biographies, is that when they left the WH, they left the cat and the dog—cold. A secretary named Betty Currie took the cat, and another couple adopted the dog, a beautiful red Lab. The Clintons have take care to doctor the story over the years, but that is what happened. These two don’t miss a tick covering their tracks—and are sharp enough to realize the American people’s memories are short.
People forget that when they left the WH, they stood in a state of disgrace, and Bill’s popularity numbers were far lower than Nixon’s were when he resigned. What was left of the Clinton Machine (you know rats jump ship first in bad weather; George Stephanopoulos had already written a huge tome spilling the beans on the two) was in full-blown Red Alert, trying to repair the damage. Sweet Billy got himself a dog. I suppose they learned this from Nixon and LBJ, who used dogs as props, neither one caring one thing about them.
When they were going or coming to their helicopter, someone would bring Buddy out on a leash, and Bill would walk the fellow to the copter—looking at him as though he were tugging along a crocodile. Same thing when they returned, and as soon as the cameras were gone, someone would take him away. He was purely a prop, to make them look normal.
Now, every one of you reading this knows that an animal lover is not going to give up their pets for anything unless those animal lovers are sick and can’t take care of their animals or something like that—and especially if they have the money and servants the Clintons did to take care of them for you.
The American people had no idea they had dumped their “pets,” until it was reported that Buddy had gotten run over, and the Clintons did not have him. Then the whole story broke, and the Clintons—as always have a first story—which didn’t work. So they had another one.
The first story was that the house where they were moving was too small. It is a mansion. The next story was that Buddy didn’t get along with Socks, but then we discovered they had left Socks, and Betty Currie had it. Two stories! Two lies!
After all that turmoil, they immediately ran out and got another dog and, of course, had pictures of it taken with them—all smiling and lovingly looking at the new pup. End of story! The media moved right along—never mentioning it again, too busy helping put Hillary into the US Senate.
These people are very slick, though. They’re ready to defend any charges that their pets were mere props. Hillary has a book on Socks and Buddy, and after receiving a lot of heat for not helping protect animals around the world, she signed on with several groups before making her run for the US Senate in NY.
Richard Nixon used a dog as a prop in a famous 1952 speech—the “Checkers speech”—when he was in trouble for taking illegal gifts (read: bribes). He got out of it and continued taking money under the table up into the 1970s. Howard Hughes admitted giving his bagman a million dollars in cash in a briefcase. Nixon had never had a pet, and never liked animals.
A Perfect Description of a Parasitic Psychopath, by Hunter S. Thompson (1994)
“Richard Nixon is gone now, and I am poorer for it. He was the real thing—a political monster straight out of Grendel and a very dangerous enemy. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. He lied to his friends and betrayed the trust of his family.
Not even Gerald Ford, the unhappy ex-president who pardoned Nixon and kept him out of prison, was immune to the evil fallout. Ford, who believes strongly in Heaven and Hell, has told more than one of his celebrity golf partners that ‘I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon.’
Nixon had the fighting instincts of a badger trapped by hounds. The badger will roll over on its back and emit a smell of death, which confuses the dogs and lures them in for the traditional ripping and tearing. But it is the badger who does the ripping and tearing. It is a beast that fights best on its back: rolling under the throat of the enemy and seizing it by the head with all four claws.
Nixon was a swine of a man. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin.”
Thompson was a left-leaning political satirist, but he was no liar—at least in this case. I know that for sure. Nixon was worse than he describes. Nobody was safe in his company. A fellow traveler in that sense, Bill Clinton calmly eulogized him, as if he were a prince of a person. It’s my view the Clintons recognized the kinship, and learned from Nixon and others like him.
As I’ve told all of you, as the rats who keep scrambling to get back onto the ship, the Clintons remind me very much of Richard
Nixon—except that Nixon did not have the media or a cadre of hitmen to protect and enable him.
Oh, Nixon had hitmen—but they could not protect him from the media. That—and his supreme disloyalty—got him in the end, and I’m glad it did, though what they charged him with was small peas compared to his lies to the American people, from how he got elected to what he did in office.
You couldn’t shame him; you can’t shame the Clintons. You think they’re gone, and there they are again—just as he was. The three of them have a lust for power that outdoes hundreds of other leaders combined. The Clintons keep their attacks on their opponents personal—and well below the belt, just as Nixon did.
Nixon left office in disgrace, but he made a comeback years later, as an elder statesmen. Pat Buchanan defended his “old boss” for years, and then when Pat ran for president, Nixon promptly came out of seclusion and excoriated him. Typical Nixon. No friends, no person would he not betray. Look at the list of lost souls the Clintons have left on their trail to power and out of power and back in. It’s “Nixonian,” as they used to say. Bill is now looked at just as the media said about Nixon on his last return to the public before his death; he’s an “elder statesman.”
Nixon could memorize long pieces of text, even when he was in his eighties, just as Hillary can. Get him talking off the cuff and you get things like David Frost got out of him, after stating that, those things Mr. President are not conservative values: “Well, yes,” Nixon admitted, “I believe in a steep progressive income tax, and I am pro-choice, and I believe in strict gun-control, but I am very conservative.” Tell that to someone who calls himself conservative and see what you hear back.
Nobody exploited Richard Nixon, except for Henry Kissinger, who is even slicker and more evil than Nixon was. Nobody exploits Bill Clinton, except for Hillary, yet she is not nearly as slippery as he is, and cannot carry the ball alone in a public talk off the cuff as Billy could. With a memorized script, she puts Bill to bed early.
Nixon was the leader of a pack of heartless scoundrels, many of whom went down with the ship, yet he walked away as he always had—free as a rambling breeze, much as the Clintons have done over and over. They’ve eased away from ten times the number of scandals Nixon ever dreamed of getting into.
Add in the dislike of animals and the cold treatment of them, as if they have no feelings and don’t matter because they are unable to fight back, and you have a set of triplets when you place the three together. It is astonishing the similarities between the pair and him.
When LBJ was running for president in 1964, he got himself a couple of beagles that he used as props throughout the election. He was so cold he couldn’t find a decent name for them, so he called them Him and Her. Every time the polls moved against him, he pulled out those beagles. But one time in a private moment, a cameraman pictured the damned idiot picking one up by its ears he knew so little about dogs. Anybody who knows dogs knows their ears and tails are the most sensitive things on them. You don’t mess with them!
One beagle died early on, but he used the other one as a prop when he got heat for lying about Vietnam and especially after he escalated the war. He used horses early on when he was running for office in Texas.
LBJ and Nixon could have been twins, at least in their character traits—with LBJ the more aggressive of the two. When LBJ had a heart attack in 1955, Nixon was the first politician to see him. They promptly called the cameras in for a photo opt. They were closer than anyone realized—and their likeness is not mentioned today.
Both were ruthless power lusters, and would say or do anything to obtain that power. LBJ gained massive power while in the Congress by bribing and browbeating fellow congressmen—and anyone else—into doing what he wanted them to do. That was democracy to LBJ.
In the end, though it is not as well known, LBJ was far more ruthless than Nixon. His favorite sadistic trait was to seduce his associates’ wives—and later make sure they knew about it. For years after he left office he was rated least trustworthy among presidents well behind Nixon. People have forgotten that today, because Nixon has been the caricature of all the nation’s scorn.
Mass. Governor Mitt Romney’s children wanted a dog, and he thought it proper that an eventual presidential candidate have one. That didn’t stop him from driving 650-miles from Massachusetts to Ontario with his dog in a carrier tied to the roof of the car. That’s about as cold as you can get. Knowing how sensitive a dog’s ears are that would have to have been torturous to the dog—cruel and beyond insensitive. Who would do that? Certainly not anyone who knew anything about dogs!
I simply throw this one in to note another politician who used a pet as a prop, although none of us has studied Romney to check how many other pathological traits he may have. Other than being the typical political narcissist, memorizing long texts well, the inability to speak well off script, pathological lying, and showing no care for animals, I don’t know of any more—or much about his history. He could have more. Had he been elected president we would have studied him to see. He’s too boring otherwise.
So no, psychopaths don’t hate animals. They are indifferent toward them, and don’t understand the relationship that normal humans have with them. Some parasitic psychopaths have tortured animals—but it seems rare. Others have used them as props to manipulate people, but showed no feeling or care for them—whatever.
Any person who tortures animals—and enjoys doing it—is a sadist. Although it is true that all psychopaths are sadists to some degree, it is more likely that creatures who carry out sadistic acts on animals would be serial killers. Not even all of them have done that—but I do believe a majority of them have.
Again, the type of psychopath we are studying would not normally torture an animal, though neither would they care about them in the least. As an almost finite rule, parasitic psychopaths are worlds apart from serial killers. They are also different from the emotional psychopath, though they all have some of the same traits, such as atheism, narcissism, pathological lying, the inability to love and understand love and sympathy, and the inability to relate to the animal or plant kingdoms.
Thanks G. and G. for the question, because it is one that definitely needed clearing up—and enabled us to take a look at a few other creatures who have a lot of psychopathic traits.
Note: If you have a friend who was bitten by a dog or scratched by a cat when they were young, and they don’t want to have a relationship with one when they are grown, that would not be a psychopathic trait. Now, if they have the same view of the plant kingdom, you might give them a second look! Otherwise, make sure you’re not dealing with someone who was traumatized early in life by an animal.
Note Two: Just like everything with psychopaths, there are degrees of how well they can relate to the animal and plant kingdoms. The important point to remember when checking a suspicious creature out is this: They must have a record of some type of wrongdoing, of parasiting off others, of using and manipulating others, and they must have a good many of the traits we’ll be putting out before the end of November before we can begin to tag someone a psychopath.