From a young age, I've had an interest in psychology, and the way the mind functions as a whole. Psychology, when viewed through the lens of it being a science, attempts to make answers for the question of "why", through the lens of anthropology. Why do people act like they do? Why did the Dahmers, Geins, and Gacys of the world decide to butcher, rape, and consume? Why does the average man live like an automaton? Why did the Hitlers, Stalins, and Lincolns of the world send millions into the arms of their executioner, both in their camps and on the battlefield, and why did they do as they were told to do? These questions, and many more, are among those that the science of psychology attempts to examine and solve. This, on its own, is rather fascinating to research. There's a lot to learn by picking the brain. The knowledge you gain about someone's level of autonomy, their abilities, their personality, and their thought process is of insurmountable importance, after all. To some degree, every person has an implicit understanding of psychology on this level, even if they've never studied the subject; you can always tell apart a retard, or a drunkard, or the other lower forms of vermin, from a relatively functional member of society, and especially from an autonomous man.
However, those who take a more than surface level interest in psychology quickly realize that psychology itself isn't a science. Sure, the study of psychology is a form of science, but there is more to it than just scientific pursuits. The most practical, and useful, application of psychology isn't particularly based upon science at all. Psychology in application is art, and easily the most fascinating form of art, at that. Psychology might very well be the first form of art to ever be conceived; long before cave paintings, long before the first caveman to bang two sticks together in a rhythmic fashion, long before the first caveman slew his first rival (although it was likely utilized to convince his rival to turn his head before receiving his unceremonious fatal crack on the head, splattering his brains all over the club, cave wall, and floor), long before the very first war. Indeed, even the peddlers of abrahamic spiritual pestilence implicitly recognize the power of psychology. After all, it is what caused what they perceive as mankind's "fall" via the consumption of the fruit of knowledge; the story goes that the snake used mental manipulation to convince Eve to consume the fruit, and Eve convinced Adam likewise. And, of course, the craftiest among them, the Joneses, Koreshes, Muhammads, and Christs of the world, partake in the art themselves to convince the fools that follow them slavishly to part with their money and worldly possessions to appease their "god".
People talk about telekinesis and telepathy with awe and wonder, but psychology is a form of manipulation that goes beyond science fiction fantasy or supernatural sensationalism, and one that is unduly ignored despite how powerful of a tool it is. What is more powerful than molding the mind, which is an incredibly volatile thing, of another, into something malleable and useful to you? Is there any act of domination more powerful than brainwashing your foe, and turning him against his own interests, in order to subjugate him, crush his free will, and make him your laborious, mindless slave, to use and abuse accordingly? It is a tool that can be wielded by anybody, from the most lowly laborer to the highest societal dictator, but only be effectively utilized by someone well versed in the art. Too many self-proclaimed "psychologists" simply view it from the perspective of the nonsense their chosen "educational institution" filled their mind with, considering all the ideas of ethics resulting from this "education". That is to say, they view it purely as a science, and not the artform that it is, and thus it chews them up, spits them out, and ensnares them within incompetence and mental frailty, driving them just as mad, if not even more mad, than those facing them from the other side of the desk.
Psychology, in its most practical application, requires being beyond the reach of morality and empathy. In order to be an effective psychologist, you must shun the very idea of ethics, recognizing it as the folly it is, in favor of viewing the world in the way that a "psychopath" would. You must first unshackle your mind if you wish to understand the minds of others, and then manipulate their minds as you see fit. Morality is written by the conqueror in the blood of those they vanquished; it is created for those who serve, by those who are to be served. The myth of morality creates a slave mentality in the weak-willed and complacent, making them easier to rule. In turn, moral codes are then destroyed by the strong-willed; the victor of which is the leader, who creates anew from that which he smashed, and the loser is the "psychopathic rebel", who tends to end up locked in chains or dead.
It is an observable fact that cold blooded psychopathy is one of the most desirable traits that can be had, both in nature and in society. You have to be cold blooded and ruthless to make sure your life, and the lives of your offspring, are of a high quality, and anything else is genetic suicide at best, and free range chattel slavery at worst. The businessman has to be fierce, or his competition will destroy him. The barbarian has to conquer, for through conquest he'll continue his bloodline. The warrior must logically strategize and thusly outwit his enemy, or be crushed. The politician must dominate his opponent or his opponent will do in kind. The hunter must hunt, for when he stops, he himself becomes the hunted. Make no mistake, humanity, at its best, is a race of hunters, a race of conquerors. Cruelty and brute force is but one of the many tools a hunter will find necessary to employ, due to its usefulness against those who would wish to usurp his way of living. The psychopath is a born leader as a result of this; due to their lack of empathy and their shunning of moral/ethical codes, as well as their desire to make themselves leaders, they will even stare into the eyes of death itself and laugh if it'll help put them where they want to be. They will march forwards gleefully, fearlessly. They will be selected favorably by nature itself to continue going onwards, because what they lack in "empathy" and "morality", they more than make up for in their might, wit, and tenacity.
That said, as desirable as this trait may be, the problem with most psychopaths is their lack of discipline. If you take a psychopath and make them disciplined in their craft, you'll have a charismatic ruler, a ruthless strategician, a swift minded businessman, someone who will create prosperity and sire a race of conquerors. Leave them undisciplined and you get a diseased, foolish, rambling, ranting and raving egomaniac who will lead himself to an early grave, or the chains of some form of bondage. All of the greatest psychopaths are in the highest places, or they fell attempting to get there; the failed abortions among their ranks sit in the jails, never putting the blade to their throat when it counted, and pitifully awaiting their inevitable death or "freedom" as a castrated, newly "reformed" slave, who only just remembers his past glories instead of living as he could've with more competence.
Some would argue that this view of society and the world as a whole is tainted with cynicism, that surely the world isn't this "evil". They will argue that a psychopath would, be default, make a bad leader due to their own hubris and selfish tendencies. And theoretically, they would be correct; the downfall of every leader is letting his ego overtake his abilities. But in reality, every born leader shows a modicum of hubris and a host of selfish tendencies; being selfish is required in order to effectively rule, and a balanced hubris is required to neither underestimate yourself, or, on the flip-side, overextend yourself. If you don't oppress, or reward, your subjects as necessary, and clear out corruption whenever it takes root, your nation won't need a foreign threat; it will become ripe for revolution whilst crumbling from within. Likewise, if you don't crush the domestic rebels and seize the lands of your enemies, and do with it, and them, as you see fit, your nation will be destroyed not only by external forces, but by internal sympathizers for the enemy, your future conqueror.
If you have the power, you must wield it wisely, yet ruthlessly, in order to keep that power. And thusly, if you stop cracking down on threats to your power, remaining blind like an ostrich burying its head in the sand when it sees a threat to its life, you leave yourself open to being usurped by them, and deserve whatever comes to you as a result. The only thing worse than a brutal defeat in battle is open cowardice in the face of challenges to your leadership. After all, contrary to the lies that certain asiatic or abrahamic tribes will try to feed to you, there is no honor in being a cowardly welp, nor in "turning the other cheek". All that awaits you if you take this path is shackles and vassalhood, a strong man's own personal hell, and woe to the vanquished, for the conqueror shows no mercy, and by his right never shall and never will show mercy, for the moment he does, he surely will be next on the chopping block.
BACK