Michael Prescott's Blog

One of my paragraphs should read:
Having said this, I am open to the possibility that some of us bring into this life, from past lives, tendencies that might make it especially challenging to become positive, loving, beings in our current lives. And that such people might, in that sense, bear some resemblance to bad seeds.

What I’m saying is that I think bad people are here on purpose and they are just playing their parts. They are necessary for the movie or play to teach the lessons we need to learn. Everything happens for a reason, even the bad stuff. It’s got to emote or evoke enough emotion so that we remember the things we experienced here. Like my mom used to say “life ain’t a bowl of cherries you know kiddo!” And I don’t think it’s supposed to be easy or perfect or fun all the time. Life is supposed to be hard and we are supposed to experience both good and bad.

Michael wrote,
||That’s why I said I don’t know if such children are born that way or develop such tendencies within a year or two after birth. But clearly by age two or three, some children are “bad seeds,” however one accounts for it.||
Yes, I think that this is correct. I also think, per your suggestion, that empirical research *has* been done and tends to support the notion of inborn traits and character. Or traits that can appear when triggered by the environment, and so on. We understand what DNA is; people no longer can be seen as blank slates.
Mark Green wrote,
||Think of Nazi Germany. Were all those people born evil? Seems a massive fluke if this were indeed the case. It is important to bear in mind that it was not logistically possible for organizations such as the Gestapo to operate effectively without considerable help from the general public (by grassing up neighbours/relatives etc). It is historical events such as these that cause one to suspect that wholesale evil behaviour can emerge under the right (or rather wrong) conditions. ||
There were different gradations and shades of evil. Hermann Goering was an amoral opportunist. Heinrich Himmler was principled but could apply those principles to an evil cause and no doubt loved controlling and dominating others. Josef Mengele was an out-and-out sadist. And so on. All really evil guys, however. Adolf Hitler was a master at attracting evil people who were masterful at attracting evil people.
I doubt the average German had more inborn evil than anyone else, but Germany was angry and frustrated in 1933, and the culture had allowed anti-Semitism and other bad stuff to take root. Evil was able to take over the country.
||I think it is ultimately more meaningful to define evil from a strictly utilitarian point of view. Rather than label an individual as evil, it actually makes more sense to label certain acts as evil, namely those which cause harm to others.||
You are explicitly talking about a taking a particular semantic stance on the issue, but I think this somewhat misses the point Eric and I are making, which is that character is largely inborn. Now it may be more prudent in dealing with people of bad character not to label them as “evil.” Indeed, we largely avoid doing so already in a clinical setting, instead talking about “personality disorders.” Perhaps it is more proper for me to speak like this: insofar as evil is a thing that exists, it comes down to bad character.
I’d be fine with that *except* I do think that evil has a virtually or actually mathematical ontology and, even in your scenario 5,000 years hence when we can fiddle with people’s traits and so on, evil will still arise, perhaps in some other form. I think of evil as a kind of disturbing static electricity on Reality that everyone must find his/her own way of dealing with. At least here in the lower dimensions. I don’t think evil exists per se in higher dimensions, as one reason those dimensions are higher is precisely because they have resolved evil (I also have heard few to zero messages that can be interpreted as higher-level beings having to deal with evil, except when they try to help the lower dimensions.)
||I did not choose to have empathy and compassion in the first place. It is no more someone else’s fault that they completely lack these traits than it is of my doing that I possess them.||
I think that this is correct but at the same time ignores why people bother to label others “evil” in the first place. Regardless of fault, some people are dangerous and to be avoided or at least carefully handled. Even though sociopaths did not choose to be sociopaths and, in a very real sense, their condition is not their fault, they are still absolutely despicable people. I think, in an ideal world, the compassionate way of dealing with them would be to put them in a kind of colony where they couldn’t hurt the general population (nor each other, insofar as possible). But I don’t think there is any hope of treating them or changing them without some sort of technology we can barely imagine.
Bruce,
I do think dogs have inborn character to a large extent. They have such vastly different personalities. There is no doubt that abuse can very much alter their personalities, but certain dogs, although treated well from birth, still can be more or less aggressive or even vicious. As a practical matter, people have tended not to label dogs “evil,” since that word implies the kind of thoughts and intentions humans have.

“This may have been the case with Manson, for example. The abuse, in those cases, was a (misguided) response to the kid’s sociopathic tendencies, not the cause. ”
Exactly. I have it too and what I saw started at a very young age too. The fire starting and killing of small animals began by age six. The parents, who were nice as could be, only took to corporal punishment out of desperation when a younger sister became a target.

Eric,
My basic claim on this thread has been that behaviour can be understood in an essentially piecemeal fashion. Identify the key components of personality – compassion, empathy, selfishness/selflessness, conscience (conditioned guilt response), sadism, aggressiveness, etc, etc, then consider the fact that real-life personality types are various amalgamations of these different key components of personality, with differing levels of each component present in individuals. And voila, you end up explaining all human behaviour. Your basic claim (it seems) is that all of this is true but there is something else at play, and it is this something else which explains truly evil behaviour.
In many ways this is an impasse. I do not know for certain whether there isn’t anything more at play any more than you know for certain there is another causative factor. So who’s to say which viewpoint is right or wrong?
The argument I use to explain why it is not obvious that your viewpoint is correct is as follows: Let’s consider an individual who, for whatever reason, has little or no conscience, no real empathy, zero compassion, elements of sadism, is greedy and selfish, and highly manipulative. It is not immediately obvious to me that such a combination of traits would not exhibit the type of person which you describe – a sadistic Machiavellian. Surely it seems at least conceivable that this combination of traits would potentially lead to someone who seems bent on causing harm to others, and when it suits them, concealing their true nature from other people?
There are probably times when the apparent desire to destroy other people is simply an indirect consequence of traits such as selfishness along with a combination of other traits. If another person threatens their ability to get something they want, they will likely have no safeguards in place to constrain their behaviour in a way which will prevent them from ‘taking out the competition’ in some kind of sense. Other times however it might be a more direct consequence of traits such as sadism combined with other negative traits. Either way, it seems quite adequate in explaining the destructive Machiavellian type of person which you describe.
To be clear, this is not the same as saying that this proves there are no other factors at play. It just seems there are no prima facia reasons to suspect anything more is causing the behaviour. And it is here we might be inclined to invoke Occam’s razor – the simplest explanation will usually turned out to be the correct one (although this is admittedly not one of the most powerful arguments ever devised, but nonetheless can have some merit to it). One thing to bear in mind however is the ‘greater than sum of parts’ effect. There are a number of situations where the overall effect of a combination of factors will seem disproportionate when thinking simply in terms of the sum of those individual factors.

Earlier today, a friend suggested that I come and take a look at this discussion; said I might find it interesting. I must say, at first glance, it all feels a tad fascist in outlook from some quarters! Anyway, I was asked if I might offer a thought . . . or two. So, here goes. On with the tin hat and under the table.
My understanding is as follows:
When a child reaches the age of two (or thereabouts) it goes through a developmental stage that is commonly known as ‘the terrible twos’ and most parents will understand exactly how and why that title came about.
During this most difficult phase, the child will usually challenge its parents/caretakers in just about any way that it can. Indeed, the example, given by Michael, of the infant who deliberately wiped her sticky hands on the curtains is typical of such infantile challenge. In fact, it’s a very common sort of example.
At the same stage of development, my grandson, Joseph, defied his grandfather similarly, by continuing to scoot along our newly-renovated wooden floors riding his toy horse that had metal casters on the bottom of its feet. Perhaps you can imagine the effect those casters were having on the surface of the wood. 🙁
Joseph’s grandfather remonstrated with him (in no uncertain terms) and took the toy horse to an area where the flooring is made of slate. As soon as Joseph remounted the horse he scooted off back to the wooden floor and carried on where he’d just left off. It was obvious that Joseph knew that was *exactly* what his grandfather didn’t want him to do and it was equally obvious that he was deriving a great deal of satisfaction from making his grandfather cross and, thereby, getting the better of him. There was a definite, ‘So, what are you going to do about it?’ look on Joseph’s face.
Anyway, getting back to the original point, this two-year-old phase represents a pivotal point in a child’s development. Handled badly, the child remains trapped at the emotional development stage of a two-year-old, solely because s/he hasn’t been correctly guided through that stage.
If the parenting is too weak, then what we have is a child that grows up into a petulant and demanding adult who has never learned the art of give-and-take and will behave like a spoiled infant all its life, i.e: Thin-skinned, low boredom threshold, easily frustrated, defiant and immensely angry if not given its own way. Perhaps one can see how sociopathic tendencies might emerge from such arrested psychological development? Moreover, if the mother has been over indulgent with her male child at this juncture then chances are he will grow up to have little respect for women and regard them as simply a means to an end. If the father is weak then the child has no significant male influence.
If, on the other hand, the parenting is brutal, i.e: the child is handled over harshly and unjustly by wholly unsympathetic parents, then chances are the result will be an adult who, despite harbouring powerful resentment against those who hold the power of authority, will most likely behave aggressively towards underlings. If the seriously abusive parent was female and the child male then we have the making of an angry and potentially violent misogynist – or, taken far enough, a Jack the Ripper/type serial killer.
Young children are easily conditioned. And even parenting that appears to be sweetness and light can produce a monster. Nevertheless, there are individual differences in terms of innate temperament that mitigate the overall effect – or lessen the degree of damage. Moreover, any phase of development that is missed can usually be remedied later on if a suitable environment is presented in which to learn the lessons that were missed. But my understanding is that this pivotal, two-year-old, stage is the hardest to reenact and remedy since it’s such a character-forming phase of early emotional development.
Anyway, since I’m typing one-finger-left-hand due to a broken right arm, I’ll leave it there. But, in case you’re wondering: Grandfather sorted Joseph’s confrontational behaviour on that occasion . . . . . . . . . . he simply took the toy horse off Joseph and left him sitting in a heap on the wooden floor, yelling in protest and, likely as not, pondering the events that led to his woeful predicament. And, I hasten to add, the now nine-year-old Joseph is an absolute delight: kindly natured, popular in school and talented both academically and athletically. 🙂

I’m now getting a sense of déjà vu in that that the discussion was, if I recall correctly, at the same juncture when I last visited here. I feel now, as I did then, that there’s very little to be gained by prolonging this discussion and thus rather regret having commented further. :/

The only thing I will say Julie, is that it goes both ways. Human behavioural affects from socialization are well documented, including parental discipline patterns.
‘Mark’ suggests behaviour is a pattern of continuum, of course it is. And as a prominent lawyer said in New Zealand some years ago, anyone can murder, just inject some emotion into a situation, and viola. Not to say some peoples personalities, or having a low frustration threshold for instance, all these play a part.
But being a psychopath is a known Psychiatric disorder, with both socialization and/or congenital brain defects have been shown to affect their behaviour.
Psycopaths lack guilt/ a conscience, and are highly manipulative. They also have poor interpersonal relationships, and are more likely therefore to commit domestic violence. A study of those in prison for murder, found most had congenital brain abnormalities.
So when it comes to psychiatric disorders, socialisation, genetics, congenital defects,any of these may predispose a person to a disorder. Lyn x.

Juan,
It was not my intention to advocate utilitarianism. All I am really doing here is deconstructing the abstract concept of evil.
I suppose the relevance of referring to utilitarianism was that a person who advocated such a scheme of ethics might go through similar thought processes to what I have done. It can be looked at in two difference ways. Either they have simply redefined the word evil, or perhaps more commonly have dispensed with the notion of evil altogether. I don’t think this necessarily means such a person would make no literal distinction between doing the wrong thing for the right reason and the wrong thing for the wrong reason. It is merely that they have found it more meaningful to define good and bad in terms of behaviour. I would go as far as to say that my line of reasoning makes this kind of thinking more understandable, but no, despite what I have stated I am not a utilitarianist.
I am not even suggesting we should dispense with the word ‘evil’. I commonly use the word evil myself (particularly since Trump took office). It is a convenient expressive word which encapsulates strong emotion. I do not in such instances use the word in any kind of philosophical sense. Also I am not literally saying that there is no meaningful distinction between good people and bad people. I am simply looking critically (and philosophically) at what this means precisely.
It was not my intention that people get too sidetracked with my usage of the word ‘utilitarianism’. What I am really getting back is explained in all the sentences beneath that one.

Michael Prescott
Yes I totally agree with what you said about utilitarianism, and I should probably reiterate that I advocate no such position. I guess my point was that someone who does think along those lines might have been initially motivated to do so because they were uncomfortable with defining evil in terms of innate qualities. The natural inclination would then be to define it in terms of behaviour, and possibly to some people the next logical step was to define good and bad purely in terms of the effects of behaviour. In doing so they have taken it to more of an extreme than I am personally prepared to do so.
I probably should not have mentioned the word ‘utilitarianism’ as it appears to have created the impression that am a utilitarianist. Hopefully I have made clear why I did use that word, but like I stated before, what I am really getting at is described in some detail below that particular sentence.

Matt wrote:
“I doubt the average German had more inborn evil than anyone else…..”
That is precisely my point!!!!!!!!!!
“but Germany was angry and frustrated in 1933, and the culture had allowed anti-Semitism and other bad stuff to take root. Evil was able to take over the country.”
We are totally agreed on this. Like I stated in my post, under the right circumstances apparently normal people can exhibit or condone abhorrent behaviour.

“The argument I use to explain why it is not obvious that your viewpoint is correct is as follows: Let’s consider an individual who, for whatever reason, has little or no conscience, no real empathy, zero compassion, elements of sadism, is greedy and selfish, and highly manipulative. It is not immediately obvious to me that such a combination of traits would not exhibit the type of person which you describe – a sadistic Machiavellian” -Mark
I guess we are at an impasse. I am saying that, while you are now correctly describing the essential elements of psychopathy, you seem to be suggesting that anyone could go that way given the right environment.
Whereas I am saying, at bottom, that I believe that being a full blown psychopath 24/7 – having that be far away the most prominent personality feature – goes against human nature. That, regardless of environment, most humans would not be made into full blown psychopaths. I believe that substantial research supports my perspective.
So I am saying that, yes, there is something fundamentally different about these people. I call that “evil”.
I am not a philosopher and have little use for philosophy. I’m a very practical man. So that shapes my understanding of things. If someone is a Machiavellian manipulator who hungers to extract sadistic glee from duping me and inflicting mental and physical harm, then all I need to know is that such a person cannot be reasoned with nor will my good will or love turn them around. They will only see me as a sucker and be all the more encouraged to do harm. That’s the important take-away from this discussion and it ties back to the original post about pain in the world. That kind of person creates an amount of it disproportionate to their numbers in the population. To the extent that we all have a seed of what in the psychopath is full blown, we are all contributing somewhat to the same problem.
Also, I have strong spiritual beliefs – actually more understanding than belief, IMO – that say that there are multiple layers of heavens and hells in the spiritual realm. This understanding has been achieved by many throughout the ages. It’s in Buddhism and Hinduism. Swedenborg wrote about it. Even Robert Monroe encountered it in his journeys OBE. It’s only the recent development of the NDE cult that denies it. Therefore, it is entirely conceivable to me that a psychopath could be someone who has incarnated (or reincarnated) from one of the layers of hell.

Ps. I would add that there is evidence reported to suggest that the mind can influence the structure of the brain? Chicken and egg?
I fail to see how the causes of psychological/personality traits such as psychopathology can be attributed to congenital defects – at least not with our current limited and conflicting knowledge of how the brain works.

Julie, just wanted to acknowledge the superb quality of your last couple of posts. I am really hoping you continue to participate on this blog, and join me in being the voice of reason here. It pains me to say this but you might actually be (marginally) better than me at making compelling arguments. That is a truly remarkable achievement by any standards.

Eric said:
“Even Robert Monroe encountered [hell] in his journeys OBE.”
You might think twice before using Monroe to support your point of view. From his book, The Ultimate Journey:
“There is no beginning, there is no end,
There is only change.
There is no teacher, there is no student,
There is only remembering.
There is no good, there is no evil,
There is only expression.
There is no union, there is no sharing,
There is only one.
There is no joy, there is no sadness,
There is only love.”
Note, in particular: “there is no evil,” and “There is only love.”
So while Monroe may have encountered hellish environments in his OBE journeys, he saw them as secondary, and understood that the primary reality is love. That’s quite different from what you believe.
Seems to me Monroe qualifies for that “NDE cult” you find so irksome.

Thanks for the kind (and very flattering) words, Mark. Right now I’m struggling to put my thoughts into words for two reasons.
1) The loss of use of my right hand (I’m right-handed) and
2) The fact that using my left hand continuously to type is making me very mich right-brain dominant.
It’s the second time in my life that I’ve broken my right arm and I remember noticing the same effect last time. And while I do understand that the the left-brain/right-brain-dichotomy is regarded as scientifically questionable these days, there’s little doubt in my mind that being obliged to get by with the use of the non-dominant hand causes a shift in one’s power and mode of expression – at least in my case.
The effect is that, while I feel very strongly what I want to say, I struggle to find the grammatical flow by which to say exactly what I mean. The entire content of what I want to say comes forward like a sack of words emptied onto the floor and my job is to sort those words into some semblance of meaningful order, all the while reaching for a grammatical structure in which to arrange them.
Normally, I write very quickly and the sentences form directly from the thoughts behind the words: I don’t think how to put it I just put it. But using only my left hand stops the flow and feels like stumbling around in the dark trying to find the light switch. So, what I’m saying is that I’m astonished that you should perceive a clear argument put forward where I see only a clumsy and faltering sequence of badly-punctuated words.
Also, working slowly makes me feel like the racehorse that is being forced to travel at the speed of the tortoise. Before I’ve finished the first lap, I’m mentally completing my tenth.
But that’s not the most frustrating aspect of my present predicament. The worst is having the sun streaming through the windows on this most delightful spring morning revealing pockets of dust collecting in various corners of the house, corners that I’d never even noticed before, and being unable to do a thing about it without tying my limbs in knots.
Anyway, what I really came here to say is that argument is futile and leads nowhere except to a further digging-in of heels. It doesn’t really matter how well one argues one’s point, a resistant mind will simply continue to resist what it doesn’t want to hear. And the more an opposing argument is laboured the greater the resistance becomes. We use arguments not only to express a point of view but also as a shield against that which we choose not to accept. We all do it when the underlying premise comes from our emotional perspective – which is where most arguments arise.
One can use all the techniques and applications of logic one chooses. But the bottom line is that a sincere argument always comes from the heart. And however well-arranged our words, what we say or write reveals what we are. And no amount of argument is going to change that.
So, let’s not beat about the bush: the question, at least for me, is why do some people here put the worst possible spin on the underlying nature and cause of psychopathy and yet vote an obvious narcissistic psychopath into the role of president of the US? I don’t understand that, really, I don’t. :/
Ps. If the above comes across as rambling and disjointed (an argument that has no beginning, no end and just a sticky-gooey mess in the middle) it’s because of the reasons outlined above. 🙂

Julie,
Despite not seeing anything seriously wrong with the overall structure of your writing, I was perhaps primarily referring to the substance of the arguments as opposed to the presentation of them. You came up with points I would not have thought of (not an easy thing to do!) So I have to give you some well-deserved credit for that at least.
To be clear to anyone who feels my comment was slightly arrogant, there was definitely a tongue-in-cheek element to it. I think most, if not all people on this blog, are capable of backing up their opinions with well thought out and intelligent arguments (even those who watched a couple of Discovery Channel documentaries and thought they understood relativity!) Nonetheless, my reference to Julie’s intelligent comments were genuine, and I hope she continues to give her much valued contribution to this blog, despite her current disillusionment.
Julie, I read your comments just prior to leaving this blog. I relate very well to what you said, with a few caveats.
As I see it there are three basic strategies being used by populist politicians:
i) Mix bullshit with truth. Pure bullshit is far too easy to detect. So camouflage the bullshit with interspersed sprinklings of truth. Goebbels and Hitler were experts at this. They identified a few key (genuine) grievances which were based in reality, such as the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic, and kept ranting on about these things whilst at the same time rattling on about things which were not so much based in reality. The end result was a seemingly homogeneous message where it was hard to tell where the truth ends and the bullshit starts.
ii) Provide convenient scapegoats. A classic for all aspiring fascist dictators! You need a singular culprit for which to blame all the problems on. The trouble with the real world of course is that problems have complex and multi-factorial causes. This implies complex and multi-factorial solutions – not a strong selling point to people who want quick and easy solutions (which includes most people). So suggest a simple cause and at the same time you have implied a simple solution. It works for other reasons too. The corresponding arguments generally tap into the primitive regions of the brain and largely bypass the cerebral cortex; necessary for critical thinking – the No.1 enemy of the populist politician! Invariably the arguments appeal to primal tribalistic tendencies – “Look, it is those people over there who look slightly different to you that are responsible for all your problems.” The flip side of the coin is nationalism – you apparently belong to a race of people who have more human rights, and are basically more superior, than others who are not part of your race (this feeds the ego as well, a double whammy!)
iii) Misdirection. There are many very serious problems not being addressed by politicians, some of which are presenting a serious existential threat to humanity (if indeed humanity is the right word to use!) By drawing attention to side-issues (some of which might admittedly be serious issues but nonetheless secondary to the really difficult and thorny problems) then people become too side-tracked to pay too much heed to the giant metaphorical meteorite which is about to crash into their planet and wipe out all life as we know it. Think this is unreasonable? Let’s consider an alternative reality for a moment, where we suddenly discovered another nation on Earth was poisoning our water, soil, air, and to boot, was pumping billions of gallons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere year after year whilst at the same time compromising the natural ability of the Earth to store carbon by destroying natural carbon sinks such as rain forests. In such a situation we would probably justify the most extreme forms of violence against them imaginable, including nuking them if necessary. We would say to ourselves, “Hey, it might seem a bit harsh to slaughter so many humans, including many innocent women and children, but unless we do something, then not a single soul will survive.” The problem in our reality of course is that it is not (specifically) another nation or group of people who are doing this. It is us! But that of course does not appeal to our primal tribalistic tendencies. Also, consider what is really killing most Americans, far more in fact than terrorist related incidents – guns! The giant elephant in the room! It is a statistical fact that an American is far more likely to be a casualty of gun crime than be slaughtered by a terrorist (in fact one year more people were shot by toddlers than were killed by terrorists!) I am not suggesting by this that terrorism should not be taken seriously, but I think some perspective is needed here.
The answer crying out to be answered of course is – why the heck does all this also work on intelligent people????
All of this appears to rely heavily on people being essentially stupid. But as documented in historical records, Nazi ideology eventually drew in the more intelligent Germans as well as all the thickheads. And so it is today. This is a profound mystery to me!
There are certainly people around who are genuinely not able to apply critical thinking to a situation, at least to any meaningful extent. And I genuinely believe this demographic probably constitutes a reasonable proportion of Trump’s core support. The fact that his support is not strictly confined to this kind of person however is something which I find extremely hard to comprehend. And as noted above, the same phenomenon could be observed in Nazi Germany, where even intelligent German’s ended up buying into all the populist rhetoric. I am not trying to suggest by this that there is an inextricable link to intelligence and ethics. That is certainly not the case. But the connection here is that thick people are clearly more prone to fall prey to the tactics highlighted above. It makes more sense that they will be easily swayed by emotionally-driven arguments which are largely devoid of any real substance. This is of course where people lacking in critical thinking skills will start to go awry. But why is it also working on intelligent people???
There are a class of people who could more reasonably be regarded as Trump apologists. In the cases I am observing at the moment they appear to be very conflicted people. They probably have the sense and insight to realize all is not right with Trump, but are so right-wing and conservative in their views that they cannot quite get to the stage of admitting to themselves that the democratic candidate was the better choice, at least in the sense of being the lesser of two evils. I believe such people might be able to be gently nudged in the right direction with an appropriate series of strong logical arguments. Over time their defence mechanisms (primarily denial) might be gradually eroded away, and they may perhaps see the light. I am quite hopeful of this in fact.
One could alternatively conceptualize this phenomenon as a virus. The next best thing to a cure is quarantine. Well-presented arguments might not sway the people you are directly debating with, but may however prevent others from ‘catching the virus’. So perhaps you should consider your arguments as a form of containment, where you are doing your part to stop the spread of this nasty virus.
You claim that what people write and say reveals what they are. This does of course make sense in a way, but does not alter the fact that at least some of the people falling prey to the current wave of hateful divisive politics are sensible, rational, reasonable, and even otherwise nice decent people. So which is the facade? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing or sheep in wolves clothing? I am not sure I can really answer that question at the moment.

I don’t know why people are arguing. nature and nurture both affect behaviour, some more so and some less.
Brain imaging e.g. an MRI for example can image brain areas. In one study, psychopaths who were jailed for murder for instance, were shown to have smaller grey and white brain matter in areas used for moral reasoning etc.
With regard to police dogs, it is my understanding they are taught to apprehend, bring someone down etc. I think the last thing they want is a vicious police dog. So they choose dogs with sound characters.
My sister in law loved Alsatian dogs. Her dogs always had loving temperaments and came from good breeders known for this. Two of her dogs, the police came forward and asked her if they could have them. The third dog Zed) she had, they also wanted as well but he had hip dysplasia (which the breeder was reprimanded for). Now Zed was so placid, the kids would hold his tail and he would pull them up the hill. One day a friend lifted the gate latch and came into the yard. He had his two year old, Zed went past the child, reached for his arm and pinned him to the ground. The guy quickly called his name and he released him. It was these qualities the police wanted in their dogs. Lyn x.

“You claim that what people write and say reveals what they are. This does of course make sense in a way, but does not alter the fact that at least “some of the people falling prey to the current wave of hateful divisive politics are sensible, rational, reasonable, and even otherwise nice decent people. So which is the facade? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing or sheep in wolves clothing? I am not sure I can really answer that question at the moment.” – Mark
I think they’re both, at the same time: People being human – all too human. But it’s a very dispiriting state of events.
BTW, Didn’t Dawkins postulate his theory of ‘memes’ on exactly that notion of psychological viruses? It’s the second time I’ve known him to get something right – that and his assessment of the Brexit situation. Most people are like the curate’s egg, ‘good in parts’..

“Some of the people falling prey to the current wave of hateful divisive politics are sensible, rational, reasonable, and even otherwise nice decent people. So which is the facade? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing or sheep in wolves clothing?”
I was very dismissive of Trump as a candidate. After his unexpected victory (unexpected by me, anyhow), I looked into why people voted the way they did. I read various analyses, interviews with Trump supporters, and so on. Here’s my takeaway.
Try to put yourself in the position of a middle-aged white man with a high school education who lives in a declining small town in the Midwest. This person – let’s call him Joe – expected to make a decent life for himself and his family, just as his father and grandfather had done. Maybe his folks had worked in a factory, but since the factories have mostly closed, Joe hoped to work in construction, a field that pays well and doesn’t require a college diploma.
But what Joe has found over the last 20 years is that jobs in construction are almost impossible to find, because they’ve all been filled by illegal immigrants willing to work for practically no money. The manual labor jobs that Joe would be suited for, and which previous generations of men like Joe had been able to count on, are now being given to José and Juan instead.
And Joe resents it. Not because he is necessarily anti-Hispanic, but because people who are not American citizens, are not in the country legally, and may not even pay taxes are taking away his already meager opportunities.
He’s living on disability now, even though he isn’t really disabled. It’s the only way he can get any kind of income. Not only does he have no clear future, but he’s very worried about his son Joe Junior. Like him, Joe Junior probably is not college material. What’s going to happen to him?
Joe loses sleep over this stuff. He’s drinking more – getting drunk almost every night. And because he suffers from nervous tension, his doctor has prescribed an opioid sedative, which unfortunately is proving somewhat addictive.
Joe’s life is in a spiral. In the last election he was given a choice between two candidates. One of them said he was “deplorable” – he had to look it up in a dictionary – because he would like to see illegal immigrants evicted from the country so he could get a job again. The other one, though he came across as a blowhard and a jerk, at least claimed to care about Joe, Joe’s family, and Joe’s future. He chose that one.
For having voted that way, Joe is called a racist, a fascist, and a Nazi, as well as words he doesn’t even understand, like xenophobe and homophobe. “Deplorable” almost seems like a compliment compared to what they’re saying about him now. This stream of abuse only makes him more resentful of the coastal elites he already distrusted.
Is Joe a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a sheep in wolf’s clothing? How about … neither? What if he’s just a guy who’s trying to do his best in a world that doesn’t treat him with respect anymore? And what if the people characterizing him as a savage or a monster are only pushing him even further in the direction he’s already gone?
Maybe the “elites,” who are so blissfully self-satisfied all the time, ought to try to put themselves in Joe’s place before they dismiss him as something subhuman. One could perhaps argue that this would be a more “spiritual” approach – judge not lest you be judged, love your neighbor, walk a mile in the other guy’s shoes … you know the drill.
Besides, in terms of cold, calculating political pragmatism, isn’t understanding Joe – rather than vilifying him – more likely to win back his vote in the next election?

Michael Prescott,
There is some merit to what you say. I don’t deny this. And although I admittedly do not always reflect this understanding in what I say, I am nonetheless aware of at least some of the factors which cause someone like Trump to be attractive to certain people. But a few things need to be said here.
The recent Brexit campaign here in the UK is, I believe, a reasonable parallel to what has been going on in America, and helps me to understand it a little better. Although very vocal all throughout this campaign, I was at pains to emphasize that voting in favour of Brexit did not entail that someone was a racist. I stated this over and over in fact, just in case I was misunderstood. But this does not change the fact that the leave campaign executed by UKIP (admittedly not part of the official leave campaign) was overtly racist, as exemplified by the infamous ‘Breaking Point’ poster, which bore a striking resemblance to a former Nazi propaganda poster. It is at this point that my empathy starts to go out of the window a bit. It might perhaps be reasonable to place a great deal of culpability at the feet of the manipulating politicians such as Farage who are exploiting peoples anger for political gain, but I feel that even people with genuine grievances should be able to extricate themselves from these kinds of lowlife racist tactics. I think it is within everyone’s capacity to say “Look I have some genuine grievances here, but I will not tolerate or condone hateful racism.” I do not feel that such an expectation on my part indicates a lack of empathy for the plight of those who are disillusioned and seeking an alternative to the current status quo.
The question is – should the same principle apply in America with Trump. I am at least tempted to feel that, as with UKIP in the UK, people should be able to express their anger without supporting such divisive and hateful figures. Again, I feel it is reasonable to direct a good proportion of the blame at Trump himself for manipulating vulnerable people with hateful and racist politics. He is deliberately feeding into and reinforcing racist attitudes in America. And god knows that is the one thing America certainly does not need, with its track record in this regards. America is, and always has been a racist society. Legal segregation, at least in some Southern states, was legal until as recently as the 60’s. And whilst one can change laws, it is far more difficult to change underlying attitudes (it has to be stressed here that racist attitudes are in no way confined to the deep south). I understand that it is not specifically the African American who is coming under fire here, but it is nonetheless the same underlying mindset of racial discrimination.
I am acutely aware that it is easy for people like me to point fingers, and assert that those who succumb to this kind of hateful politics should know better and be able to rise above it. And perhaps such a view does indicate a lack of empathy to some degree. I don’t know. But even if it is an unreasonable expectation on my part, it is surely true that from a purely pragmatic standpoint it would be far better if people were able to rise above this. That would not in itself prevent people from seeking to address their concerns in more legitimate ways and constructive ways. 
One of the things which you are not quite acknowledging in your post is that whilst the underlying reasons are important in understanding and empathizing with people, it still does not preclude the fact that racist behaviour is racism – by definition. Suppose, by sheer happen-stance, I had some very bad experiences at the hands of a certain race of people, say the Chinese. Perhaps every time I encountered a Chinese person in my life I just happened to be treated badly by them. Would that make by resulting prejudice against the Chinese understandable. Sure it would (I must stress this is hypothetical!) Would it mean that my resulting racist behaviour was not racist. Nope. It is still racism. A good real life example which leaps to mind here is a situation concerning my partner. Several years ago she was attacked by a Polish man. For some time thereafter she became hostile towards Polish people (and to some degree all East Europeans). In short, she became racist for a brief time. I obviously understood the reason why, and my approach to the situation reflected my understanding of this. But although I was compassionate and understanding, I never at any time condoned her newfound prejudice. I simply proceeded to gently and kindly reason with her. And this, I believe, contributed to her coming to terms with what happened without reverting to racism (she even voted remain in the EU referendum a couple of years after this!!!) So it is not like I am completely oblivious to some of the reasons why people can adopt a hateful stance against a certain race of people. And I am more than capable of not being too harshly judgemental of such people. But I will always stop short of condoning racism, and will always speak out against it. And yes, I agree it should be done in an understanding way, and as far as reasonably possible, a non-judgemental manner.
You say that Trump supporters are being unfairly accused of racism, but to the extent they are supporting a racist they are in fact exhibiting racist behaviour. Sorry if you feel this is a bit harsh, but I feel it is hard to deny this simple fact.
Something else which is important. It must be remembered that these upsurges of xenophobia rarely occur in a vacuum. The people of Nazi Germany had plenty of genuine grievances. They were stiffed by the former Allied powers of the First World War, who unreasonably held Germany accountable for the war (and anyone who really knows their history will know how unreasonable this was) and expected them to pay for it all through crippling (and humiliating) reparations. There were undoubtedly problems with the Weimar Republic, so people potentially had genuine grievances there as well. And the final straw happened when the American depression eventually resulted in the collapse of the German economy. In fact it wasn’t until this latter event that the Nazis got the support they needed to gain power. Now consider this – was it reasonable for Germans to support Hitler and the Nazis (we must remember that the Weimar Republic was a democracy and Hitler was essentially voted in). Well it must have been from their point of view, otherwise they would not have done so. If one was able to put their feet into the shoes of the disillusioned, humiliated, and downtrodden German people, then it would have been reasonably understandable. But that does not change the fact that they supported someone who was saying some pretty abhorrent things, and their support was ultimately to have some disastrous consequences, both for them and the rest of the world.
Something else which I believe you overlooked in your post is the role of automation in destroying jobs, particularly manual ones. I cannot verify the exact statistics quoted by opponents of Trump on precisely what proportion of jobs have been lost in this way, but although we can quibble about exact statistics, it must surely be a significant contributing factor? This is partly what I meant in my post by real-world problems being complex and multi-factorial. And this is an important issue, because it is likely that the increasing role of intelligent systems and robotics will displace an even greater proportion of the jobs in the very near future. We can’t continue to blame all this on immigrants. I am not dismissing the fact that immigration has been a factor, but nonetheless we must guard against simplifying things too much, and not recognizing the full range of factors involved. I am not displaying a lack of empathy here. I genuinely understand that it is far easier for people to blame another person for their woes than it is for them to blame a silicon chip.
Whether or not it is reasonable and understandable from their point of view, people who support Trump are overlooking some VERY obvious things. Trump’s track record in business makes the impression he creates of being a saviour of the working class an absolute joke. There have been numerous accusations of him of not paying his workers (people like dishwashers, plumbers etc.) and a number of corresponding lawsuits have been made against him. He enthusiastically supports trickle-down economics, probably one of the most discredited economic theories of all time. And he has stuffed his cabinet full of the wealthy elite. Everything about Trump shows that he only looks after the interests of the corporate elite and consistently shows a disdain and total disregard for the working class. You almost seem to be proposing that desperation can completely obliterate critical thinking skills. Perhaps it does for all I know. But whatever the case, it is incumbent on all those who do see through Trump to communicate to those who don’t, and help them to see that Trump is not a solution to their problems.
We have been talking a lot about pragmatics on this thread, and distinguishing it from the various theories we may use to explain evil. That is relevant here. Whatever our individual views, there is a very clear path here. We should attempt to refrain from being excessively judgemental, and should always seek to empathise as far as possible. But we should also speak out against racism.
Trump is pulling the wool over the eyes of many people. Everyone who sees this should help others to see this fact also. These people are basically being manipulated by someone who is part of the wealthy elite – a person who is, in the relevant sense, very much part of the establishment. People need to see this!!! 

Nice piece of sentimental, uncharacteristically socialist prose, there Michael. But someone should have pointed out to Joe that by supporting Trump he’s selling both himself and his family right down the river.
Moreover, if that’s the kind of judgment Joe possesses then I can see why he’s in the predicament he is.
Here in the UK, Brexiters too claimed that the immigrants are taking all the jobs. Truth is that most immigrants are willing to do jobs that we Brits, with our social benefits mentality, won’t even consider, e.g. starting work outdoors at 3.00am to gather crops and/or perform other farming tasks. Many employers have said the same thing in polls and interviews. The bottom line is that immigrants are more than grateful for the opportunities that the Brits turn their noses up at.
If the problem is illegal immigrants then that obviously needs tackling at source. HUGE fines for greedy capitalists who break the law in this way. But does Joe *really* think Trump is on his side against the greedy capitalists? Poor Joe. 🙁
My greatest fear for Joe is that, if Trump gets his way, Joe soon won’t even be able to afford any kind of healthcare for his family. Well done, Joe. You played a blinder.

Mark,
The problems with employing the term “racist” are several.
First, a lot of “racism” allegedly associated w/ Trump is just leftist information ops. For example, a few weeks ago Jewish centers were receiving threatening calls and some Jewsish grave markers were vandalized. This, of course, got knee jerk blamed on Trump-ism. However, now it turns out that a man with dual US/ Israeli citizenship was arrested for the threats. There is a large industry built up around being the “victim of racism”. There are lots of goodies associated with being a victim. Lots of freebies and a chance to seize power for one’s own in-group. Minority groups do a lot to perpetuate the perception that white racism is a big problem. IMO, white racism is small these days compared to the racism of the supposed victims directed towards whites. Blacks can, and regularly do, produce popular rap songs about killing white men and raping white whores. What if a white said anything even close to that in a song?
Second, is that it is increasingly a subjective and politicized concept. What you define as “racist” I may not.
In my town, a small rural community with a state college, a couple days ago, police stopped a car that was speeding. What they found in the car was a woman and six children. None had their seatbelts on (the law in New York says you must wear a seat belt and, especially, children must be buckled up). None could speak any English. The driver had no license and no insurance. In fact, all the driver had was a Guatemalan passport. The local police called immigration (ICE). The woman and the children were all illegal immigrants. ICE took them and will most likely deport them. There is now investigation into who was harboring the woman. There has been an epidemic of heroin and other hard drugs in the community. Guatemalans illegals are known for their membership in and connections to violent gangs that deal drugs.
The locals are backing the police, but the college students are literally marching on Main Street protesting “racist” police.
Are the police racist? Or just doing their job enforcing the law?
I grew up in a community on the border of Detroit and lived there until leaving home at 19. Detroit at that time was 95% black in demographics. There was a two or three street border area – we called it the “demilitarized zone” – between Detroit and my community. Crossing the demilitarized zone into Detroit was to, literally, put one’s life at risk. The blacks hated whites. They would rob, beat, stab, shoot (rape in the case of a woman) whites just because they were white, if they could get their hands on them. No one ever talks about that racism. I’ve known Hispanics that are incredibly bigoted against Anglos. Blacks I’ve known have a great dislike of Asians and vice versa.
However, all anyone ever wants to talk about is white racism, like only white people can be that way. IMO and in my experience, ALL groups harbor bigotry against other groups. That is human nature.
Way to bring up slavery and segregation. That is tactic. Remind whites of why they should be feeling very guilty. Why they should bow down and stretch out their necks in submission to all the minorities. That’s how your capital city has become over run by muslims. Soon it will be like Detroit, if it isn’t already.
True it isn’t only that immigrants – illegal and legal – are taking jobs from people like Joe. It’s also that they are destroying the national character. They march in the streets carrying the flag of their native country. Their loyalty is not to the US. When you have foreigners carrying a foreign flag and marching past burning cars in the streets, as we did last summer, your country has been invaded. Period. Though I’m sure a wordy philosopher can conjure up all sorts of high brow baloney to avoid confronting that simple truth. Joe ain’t no philosopher, but he knows if it looks like crap, smells like crap, it’s crap. He doesn’t need to take a bite out of it to further explore the nature of the material.
I lived in the South West most of my adult life. I have seen with my own eyes that many Hispanic immigrants are in criminal gangs. There are many very decent Hispanics too, but what Trump said about illegals is also very true. If you actually live in a place like Tucson and go into the South Tucson area, while far safer than Detroit, it isn’t totally Anglo friendly and you will see gang activity, etc. It’s also a poor area. Joe wonders why he has to pay for these people. Why doesn’t their own country take care of them? Why don’t these people help make their own country better instead of mooching off of us? These questions cross Joe’s mind and settle into his outlook on the social situation.
Illegals also cost a lot of money. Joe wonders why he should be paying his hard earned tax dollars to support people that shouldn’t even be here and that are not respecting the country. I’m sure that our local Guatemalan was on all kinds of government assistance (or at least the six children were).
But it’s nice to be lectured by some Brit about what is happening in the US. A Brit whose country has been invaded by Muslims who are carving away sections of it for themselves. Typical though. We kicked Brit ass in the Revolution. Then in WW1 and WW2 we had to come save your sorry little island from destruction. I am seeing a pattern here. A people comprised of appeasers, incapable of defending themselves, but too arrogant to admit it. Keep riding that high horse.

That is a complete non-sequitur, Amos, and, moreover, very patronising to blue collar workers the world over. Everyone who works plays their part in the great scheme of things and no contribution is less valuable than another.
The essential point here, which is being studiously avoided, is that all the Joes out there who voted for Trump, voted like lemmings jumping off the cliff. And all those who were not in such dire straits but voted for Trump anyway, should hang their head in shame right now.
All the flowery, false sentiment in the world isn’t going to change that.

“Truth is that most immigrants are willing to do jobs that we Brits, with our social benefits mentality, won’t even consider, e.g. starting work outdoors at 3.00am to gather crops and/or perform other farming tasks. Many employers have said the same thing in polls and interviews. ”
Further confirming my view of Brits and Western Europeans as well as the impact of socialist policies. All the Joes I know are up bright and early and doing all kinds of tough jobs. Could be standing watch on stinking hillside in Afghanistan, could milking dairy cows, could be patrolling the hiway or repairing the hiway, could be driving a truck across the country, could be tuning up the combine and getting ready to some harvesting, could be working by generator to get a construction job done on time, could be getting the horses ready for training at the track…..
BTW Trump did not make healthcare more expensive for Joe. Obama did that. I know a bunch of Joes that are ticked off that the ACA made their policies increase X 2 or X 3.
They love Trump because he the only one that speaks their language and recognizes what troubles them. They don’t want the freebies that Sanders promised. They don’t Clinton’s high tech cake that she says they will eat (as did her husband and it didn’t materialize then). They know political hot air when they hear it because they’re street smart. They want a chance to make it on their own. They like how Trump will bring back jobs and with the jobs comes the healthcare insurance.