The Virginia Tech Killer: Who Does It Sound Like? Edition

"It would be a gross deception to admit power intoxication only for the individual psyche. The mass also is guided by this goal and the effect of this is the more devastating as in the mass psyche the feeling of personal responsibility is essentially reduced."
-- Alfred Adler, "The Psychology of Power," 1928.

"The close relationship between politics and power has always been recognized. In the world of politics, Lassalles' expression still has currency: 'Constitutional struggles are struggles for power.' ..... Masaryk's expression, 'There will be no peace in the world as long as individual ethics do not also apply to the state,' is as much a criticism of the present as a challenge for the future."
-- Alexander Mueller, "The Principles of Individual Psychology."

April 19, 2007 -- On MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, the subject, as it has been on most of the cable news shows recently, was once again the Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung-Hui.

Keith's been better at plowing this gutted field for new information than most of the news media, but what caught my attention were the words and phrases uttered by his guest experts.

Former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary described Cho Seung-Hui as full of "paranoid delusions," addicted to his own "grandiosity,"and someone who wanted to gain "power through violence."

Later in the show Keith welcomed Dr. Susan Lipkins, a psychologist, who gave her professional perspective on the crazed murderer, depicting him as "operating outside of reality" and exhibiting "extreme behavior" as a result. She added that, typically, psychotic killers "think that they are god" at which time they should be "removed from society" when they are "found to be incompetent."

This morning Melissa Segrest had an article up at MSN, "Getting Inside the Mind of a Killer." She also consulted experts who rendered their opinions on the Virginia Tech maniac.

Dr. James Alan Fox, a professor of criminal justice at Boston's Northeastern University who has spent 25 years studying mass murderers, said, "Typically you have someone who has a long history of frustration and failure..." and "They have a diminished capacity to cope with disappointment." He added, "they are people who blame others for those failures, they externalize blame, they never see themselves as responsible, ... and they're angry, they're full of blame and resentment."

Dr. Robert R. Butterworth, a Los Angeles psychologist who works with violent criminals and heads International Trauma Associates, told Segrest, "A lot of times these people are somewhat aloof from people. They're very sensitive to slights," and summed up, "They're not friendly, they're usually socially inept, they have problems a lot of times with females and sometimes they have a fascination with guns."

Dr. Stanton Samenow, a clinical psychologist who has been has been studying killers since 1970 and wrote the book "Inside the Criminal Mind," added, "These men interpret any affront or adversity very personally. It threatens their very sense of who they are. They think in extremes... They are constantly angry at a world that, from their perspective, does not give them what they are due."

Samenow also said, "These are people who know right from wrong. They also know the potential consequences to themselves if they are caught .... When they commit the crime, they are certain about their course of action. They are deliberate and purposeful. They may have planned the crime well in advance. At the time they commit the crime, they are calm -- having shut off all fear."

Dr. Butterworth put in, "We're developing a narcissistic, angry culture that, when crossed, are prone to attack."

And Dr. Fox concluded, "We've become much more of a competitive society. We admire the winners and we pity the losers. We have no tolerance for them. We ridicule them and vote them off the island." Later, he said, "The more people they kill, the greater the level of satisfaction they feel and derive from the crime."

Read through these quotes and what picture emerges -- who does it sound like?

"[P]aranoid delusions," "grandiosity" gaining "power through violence."
"operating outside of reality" "extreme behavior" "think that they are god."

Just look at the history of the Bush Administration; paranoid delusions about the power of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; obvious grandiosity and god-like thinking in Bush believing he was installed as president by the Creator of the Universe; gaining power through violence is in progress in the Middle East, if not in this country; some might consider invading another country on false pretenses and killing innocent civilians was extreme behavior; and operating outside of reality is the modus operandi of the Bushies and their neocon supporters.

"[They have] a long history of frustration and failure...They have a diminished capacity to cope with disappointment. [T]hey are people who blame others for those failures, they externalize blame, they never see themselves as responsible, ... and they're angry, they're full of blame and resentment."

The Bush neocon 'experiment' has been one long trail of frustration and failure, and the Bush neocons pathologically evade responsibility and blame others for their failures. The media neocons -- O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, et al -- are hair-triggers seething with anger, blame and resentment and appeal to an audience similarly ill-disposed.

"These men interpret any affront or adversity very personally. It threatens their very sense of who they are. They think in extremes ... They are constantly angry at a world that, from their perspective, does not give them what they are due."

Both the neocons and the Bushies are prime examples of this: political disagreements are always personal, and they can't deal with adversity maturely. Every slight or failure is a challenge to their manhood. Thinking in extremes and angry at the world? Read Ann Coulter, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweilers, Little Green Footballs, Charles Krauthammer or listen to Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz or Rush Limbaugh.

"These are people who know right from wrong. They also know the potential consequences to themselves if they are caught.... When they commit the crime, they are certain about their course of action. They are deliberate and purposeful. They may have planned the crime well in advance."

Isn't this a pretty good description of the Bush Administration? From using false intelligence to invade Iraq, to leaking Valerie Plame's name, to Alberto Gonzales' blatant lies, to the current fiasco over Rove's emails, ad nauseum, they knew what they were doing was wrong, but were deliberate and purposeful in their planning to accomplish their treacherous and illegal goals.

"They're very sensitive to slights,...They're not friendly, they're usually socially inept, they have problems a lot of times with females and sometimes they have a fascination with guns."

Check out who advertises on neocon websites, and the fascination with guns, general unfriendliness, problems with females and social ineptitude should be clear. Sensitivity to slights -- have you ever known anyone as thin-skinned as a neocon?

"We're developing a narcissistic, angry culture that, when crossed, are prone to attack."

Read the neocon blogs -- it doesn't get more angry, narcissistic and prone to attack than that.

"We've become much more of a competitive society. We admire the winners and we pity the losers. We have no tolerance for them. We ridicule them and vote them off the island. ... The more people they kill, the greater the level of satisfaction they feel and derive from the crime."

The entire greedy, demented consumer culture, the one advertised and promoted every day by the six big US media conglomerates and global corporations, and wallowed in by the Bush neocons, has no tolerance or pity for losers. "The good calls are for winners." Losers -- usually defined as minorities, Democrats, women and liberals -- are mercilessly derided by right-wing sites, who, steeped in their fervid delusions and contrary to harsh reality, think they are winners with all the answers. They don't realize the only winners are the corporations and their political and media shills making a buck off them and conning them for votes. At some point, they will have a rude awakening as they are 'voted off the island' by those they idolized when they lose their job, their pension or their house. (It's happening every day.) Then, they might be enlightened by reality but, more likely, they'll just crawl further back in the cave, alternately bellowing and whimpering. And, yes, they do seem to derive great satisfaction from the deaths of those they've deemed the enemy -- Iraqi insurgents, Afghanis, Muslims in general, Spanish-speaking immigrants, poor blacks and, of course, the Devil's minions who are the fount of all the world's problems, liberals and Democrats.

They should be "removed from society [when they are] "found to be incompetent."

I don't think this government's monumental incompetence is even an issue for reasonable debate any longer. In the case of the Bushies, impeachment is the obvious answer to remove them from doing further harm. In the case of the neocons, they have, and should have, freedom of speech, so they can say or write whatever they want, but I'd keep them away from the Glock 9mm's just in case.

Most of them are only courageous when hiding behind a screen name or a microphone -- hence the paltry number of neocon frothers who've signed up to fight in Bush's Global War on Terror -- but you never know when one of them might take some Viagra and go off half-cocked.

"To prevail through violence appears to many as an obvious thought. And we admit: the simplest way to attain everything that is good and promises happiness, or even only what is in the line of a continuous evolution seems to be by means of power. But where in the life of men or in the history of mankind has such an attempt ever succeeded? As far as we can see, even the use of mild violence awakens opposition everywhere, even where the welfare of the subjugated is obviously intended."
-- Alfred Adler, "The Psychology of Power," 1928.