Diagnosing The Dogs of War

The novel The Dogs of War became a candidate in my preliminary reading list.

Then I read this Wikipedia paragraph describing some of the factors of the book:

"The mercenary protagonists, like the protagonist in the author's earlier novel The Day of the Jackal (1971), are professional killers — ruthless, violent men, heroic only in the loosest sense of the word. Thus, they are anti-heroes. Initially introduced as simply killers, as the novel progresses they are gradually shown to adhere to a relatively moral mercenary code; however as the mercenary leader Shannon tries to explain at one point, it is difficult for civilians to understand this.

The story details a geologist's mineral discovery, and the preparations for the attack: soldier recruitment, training, reconnaissance, and the logistics of the coup d'état (buying weapons, transport, payment). Like most of Forsyth's work, the novel is more about the protagonists' occupational tradecraft than their characters. The source of the title, The Dogs of War, is Act III, scene 1, line 270 of Julius Caesar (1599), by William Shakespeare: Cry, 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war."

(The Dogs of War). I decided that I wouldn't read it right now, seeing as how it is nothing more than contemporary history of the kind we read about every day in newspapers and on blogs, or see on the TV news.

So, also having become tired for several decades now of John Wayne movies that have country music theme songs, I decided to look into the psychology of the behavior of "the dogs of war" to try to develop a more academic approach to the subject.

I was intrigued when I read this about diagnosing human aggression:

There is no psychiatric diagnosis of ‘aggressive behaviour disorder’. Rather, aggressive behaviour may be a symptom of a number of DSM–IV psychiatric diagnoses, including conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, behaviour disorder not otherwise specified, intermittent explosive disorder, impulse control disorder not otherwise specified and some personality disorders. Thus, aggressive behaviour may be related to a very wide range of diagnoses.

(Treatment Interventions). I was even more intrigued when I compared the human diagnosis to the diagnosis of aggression in canines:

In order to treat the problem effectively, it will first be necessary to determine which type of aggression your dog displays: dominance related, fear, possessive, protective and territorial, parental, play, redirected, pain induced, pathophysiological or medical and learned. In many cases more than one form of aggression may be exhibited.

(Diagnosing Aggression In Dogs). I suppose many of the regular Dredd Blog readers would question why these categories exist as they do, because they seem to be related.

Take for instance the canine categories of aggression: "dominance related", "protective and territorial", or "possessive" aggressions:

One of the most common types of aggression seen by veterinary behaviorists is dominance-related aggression. In order to achieve security and cohesiveness within a group or pack, a hierarchy develops. Once a dog develops a position of leadership with a family member (or other dog), any challenge to that dog's leadership may lead to aggression.
...
Possessive aggression may be directed to humans or other pets that approach the dog when it is in possession of something that is highly desirable such as a favorite chew toy, food, or treat. While protecting
possessions may be necessary if an animal is to survive and thrive in the wild, it is unacceptable when directed toward people or other pets in a household.
...
Protective aggression may be exhibited toward people or other animals that approach the pet's property (territorial aggression). Generally people and other animals that are least familiar to the dog, or most unlike the members of the household are the most likely "targets" of territorial aggression. While most forms of territorial aggression are likely to occur on the property, some dogs may protect family members regardless of the location. Territorial aggression can be prevented or minimized with early socialization and good control. Young dogs should be taught to sit and receive a reward as each new person comes to the door.

(ibid, "Diagnosing Aggression In Dogs", emphasis added). These fit the behavior of the MOMCOM warmongers, so why are those diagnoses not classified as human aggressions?

Especially when one realizes who owns the dogs of war, i.e. the 1% - the pet owners, as well as realizing as Smedley did, the purpose for those pets, i.e. the 99%, and why the dogs of war are MOMCOM's best friends.

Then the nature of the aggression comes more readily out of the fog of war and into the light of analysis, as does the route or direction the 99% are herded into via propaganda.

The hope I have to express in this post is similar to the one related to the expert diagnosis of mania discussed in the Dredd Blog post: When You Are Governed By Psychopaths.

I say that because group mania of that sort can morph into serious aggressive behavior:

Extreme mania can lead to aggressive behavior, potentially dangerous risk-taking behaviors, and homicidal acts.

(eMedicine Health). So, do we believe our lying eyes or do we begin to take careful consideration of the reality of national dementia seriously?

Keep on diagnosing in the free world.

---

---

When You Are Governed By Psychopaths - 2

by David Ho

Preface

In the first post in this series, Dredd Blog complained about the lack of psychological analysis of various widespread, systemic events.

We have noted that these events have consistently been analyzed through the lenses of economic, political, or other realms, which exclude any psychological analysis.

Regular readers will also remember that long ago the Dredd Blog System noted some "criminally insane" aspects of systemic socio-pathological and/or pathological behavior in state power structures (e.g. The Criminally Insane Epoch Arises; State Crimes Against Democracy).

Some Background

Perhaps a more focused discussion of that issue was brought up in another Dredd Blog post:

The Dredd Blog System has consistently maintained that MOMCOM's behavior evinces a mental sickness, and has advocated that it be analyzed in that context.

Those series mentioned above were initiated, then extended, because the great bulk of analysis of MOMCOM is done through either a political, a criminal, or an educational lens, which only touches upon the surface, i.e., the prima facie aspects of the MOMCOM problem.

These somewhat shallow analyses have reached conclusions that have perplexed not only those who write them, but have also perplexed those who read those analyses.

That result happens, not because those analyses are false, but because they don't really, fully explain why anyone "in their right mind" would initiate such a scenario:

It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspan to Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.

(Why the Energy-Industrial Elite Has It In for the Planet, emphasis added). The perplexing result does, however, get to my point, which is that the officials of MOMCOM are not "in their right mind."

Thus, the need for deeper analysis, beyond legal, political, or educational, if any sort of viable solution is to be fashioned:

But should the bosses of polluting companies and the leaders of environmentally-unfriendly states join those responsible for mass murder in the dock. They could if a fifth crime against peace - ecocide - joined that list of human evils? The United Nations is now considering the proposal and the first test of how a prosecution for ecocide would work takes place on Friday, with fossil fuel bosses in the dock at the UK supreme court in London. It is a mock trial of course, but with real top-flight lawyers and judges and a jury made up of members of the public. The corporate CEOs will be played by actors briefed by their legal teams.

(Is 'Insanity' A Valid Defense To Ecocide?, emphasis added). I am not criticizing those analysts as far as their analysis goes, nor arguing that criminal prosecution is in error, I am merely asking them to deepen the scope of their work. so as to include a proper amount of the realm of psychology.

(MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact). Analyzing a mental / behavioral problem with various economic or environmental theories is unproductive.

The Diagnosis of Mania

I recently found a paper that does what needs to be done, it uses psychoanalysis rather that economic or environmental theory to diagnose a certain group's problem.

That is, it analyzes a meme complex (a group which thinks alike), and does it in relevant, applicable part in the same manner that an individual is psychoanalyzed.

That paper should now be seriously considered because it seeks to analyze some of the behavior in the terms that Dredd Blog has advocated for a few years now.

We have been arguing that such analysis would be more likely to lead to revelations of systemic dysfunction, then hopefully lead to remedies:

In this theoretically informed study I explore the broader cultural changes that created the conditions for the credit crisis of 2008. Drawing on psychoanalysis and its application to organizational and social dynamics, I develop a theoretical framework around the notion of a manic culture, comprised of four aspects: denial; omnipotence; triumphalism; and over-activity. I then apply this to the credit crisis and argue that the events of 2008 were preceded by an incubation period lasting for over two decades during which a culture of mania developed. Then, focusing especially on the Japanese and South East Asia/LTCM crises, I argue that a series of major ruptures in capitalism during this incubation period served not as warnings, but as opportunities for a manic response, thereby dramatically increasing the risks involved. I also argue that this mania was triggered and strengthened by triumphant feelings in the West over the collapse of communism. I suggest therefore that this manic culture played a significant role in creating the conditions for the problems that led to the credit crisis.

(A Culture of Mania, by Dr. Mark Stein, 2011, emphasis added). A free PDF of the entire paper is available for download.

Dr. Stein goes through the structural components of mania sequentially applying those components to the cognition and behavior of professionals in a group, an organization, which qualifies as a meme complex.

One of the pillars of the mania which Dr. Stein elucidates during his analysis is systemic denial, leading to systemic ignorance, which Dredd Blog touched upon in the post: Agnotology: The Surge.

The Available Treatments

Since arguing about whether Keynesian economic theory, a bailout, economic stimulation, or austerity would be a better way to solve any financial crisis, when the real problem is mania, instead of that fruitless exercise, let's see what treating the mania that caused the problem would look like.

Many of the subject professionals are licensed by boards or associations which have rules and regulations for the professionals to comply with.

If group and individual therapy was required for membership, perhaps like the Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for lawyers is required, then diagnosis and treatment would be likely to identify and offset the problems before those professionals wreck the economy because they have become manic.

The Right Is Wrong - 2

Judge Runs For Office

Yesterday Dredd Blog featured a post about how most federal judges in oil oriented southern states are well connected to the dirty oil barons.

Some things never seem to go away, so today let's revisit the issue of judicial bias.

On this date in 2009 Dredd Blog talked about how judicial prejudices in the states can be increased.

We noted that when judges are not only elected, in regular political elections, but then when they also have financial or other links to a case they are assigned to decide, it should not be controversial to not have them decide that case.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court was divided on that seemingly simple issue, the right wing of the court thinking it was ok.

The text of that 2009 post follows:

---

The U.S. Supreme Court held to common sense, and used the smell test to decide that it is not constitutional to have a judge with an apparent bias sit on a case being heard in an appeals court.

Most people on the street would say DUH!, but the right wing of the Supreme Court filed dissents.

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas, predictably ganged up to say it is constitutional for a judge to decide a case involving that judge's number one political campaign contributor.

The right wing of the court just did not get the notion that due process of law requires an impartial judge, and that impartiality must appear to be there and must actually be there.

In this case a jury rendered a $50 million dollar verdict in the trial court against a company that contributed to the election campaign of a judge on the court of appeals to which the jury verdict was appealed.

The judge who received the monetary benefit from one of the litigants did not recuse himself from that case, but heard it over protestations.

Professor Turley puts it this way:

A divided court voted 5-4 in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, et al. (08-22) that West Virginia Justice Brent D. Benjmain violated the constitution by sitting on a case involving the major donor in his campaign, A.T. Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship.

This is an enormously important decision in establishing constitutional protections for litigants from judicial bias and abuse. Justice Anthony Kennedy again played his swing vote role.

(Jonathan Turley). Why does a political party, which espouses a certain political persuasion, call themselves "right" when they are increasingly "wrong"?

Hopefully the moderates, like Justice Kennedy who voted with the 5 Justice majority, will hold back the unbalanced federal judiciary which is more to the right than it has been in 7 or 8 decades.

This case is another indicator of the distastefulness of members of the judiciary running for election like politicians.

The federal judiciary has been purged of that problem.

We decried the "politicization" of the U.S. Department of Justice because it is a known moral hazard to politicize the practice of the law.

So what are the states waiting for? Those states that don't already need to have their governors nominate judges, and then have state senates approve or disapprove of those nominees.

---

The Supreme Court is losing respect in the public sector.

The Supremes Are Well Oiled - 3

Are you in good hands with Oil State?

The "supremes" are those who call the shots, the supremes are those who do the governing, but the supremes do their governing from behind the scenes via The Private Empire.

These "big dogs" are international private dirty oil corporations who rule through the power of their vast wealth & the drug of nations: oil.

They are busy expanding the notion of national plutocracies into international dimensions, because they have become international in scope and influence.

They have politicians in their pockets, and have placed them in all the proper places, such as the place where they can appoint judges who are of the same ilk.

They have done this through a slow, ongoing coup, resulting in a judiciary that is the most far-right since the 1937, but they want to break even that record:

More than half of the federal judges in districts where the bulk of Gulf oil spill-related lawsuits are pending have financial connections to the oil and gas industry,

WE wee the people

complicating the task of finding judges without conflicts to hear the cases, an Associated Press analysis of judicial financial disclosure reports shows.

Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean - and others who regularly list receiving royalties from oil and gas production wells, according to the reports judges must file each year. The AP reviewed 2008 disclosure forms, the most recent available.

(The Supremes Are Well Oiled - 2). They have the Supreme Five under their control, who recently did the Citizens United coup, a case that rendered politics the supreme location for the mantra "money talks, everything else shut up now."

Through the oil wars they are fulfilling their vision to have one supreme world plutocracy governing various nations, whose economies have been or will be converted into plutonomies, serving the plutocrats, not the people.

The previous post in this series is here.