Politics in America
Part 7: A Psychotic Social Psychology, Continued
by Robert L. Kocher

Today, the American population is more vulnerable to psychological consensus because psychological consensus has become the dominant proportion of their lives. We have become a psychological society from several standpoints.

First, the typical American now lives a life psychologically distant from any correction by unyielding physical reality. The environment Americans now live in is primarily a hazy world of psychological interaction and theorizing rather than an environment characterized by interaction with the real physical world. In the academic world the life is one of semi-isolation, with very little direct real-world interaction. Many people in the non-academic world work in social bureaucracies with emphasis on social interaction rather than in the concrete world of bricks, agriculture, or machines which by their unyielding physical lawfulness teach an intellectual realism and impose an intellectual and personal discipline. Not enough people hit their fingers with hammers to promote the realization there are consequences which are real and cannot be argued out of existence. Married or unmarried couples have abstract relationships where the primary form of activity, other than sex, is psychoanalyzing each other. For a night out, they go to movies with convoluted psychological plots.

An example is a group of people similar to many others I’ve seen. The woman in one of the marriages is a well-known clinical psychologist in the New York area, married to a professional man. She, herself, has been in long-term psychotherapy three times and is presently dependent upon several antidepressant and mood altering medications to control her depression and anxiety. Her husband is entering long-term therapy for the third time. She’s in a combined practice with five other psychologists and psychiatrists. One of her professional associates in practice is severely depressed. Another member of her associates in practice, a woman who has been living with a man in an unfulfilling and psychologically twisted five- year long “relationship,” has been in long-term psychotherapy twice, with no positive consequences. A fourth member of the practice is a man married to a woman who also has a Ph.D. Their oldest son recently committed suicide and their twelve-year-old may need to be institutionalized for psychological problems.

This group is, in turn, loosely associated professionally and socially with others in similar conditions, many of whom are in the mental health professions. They’ve all been, or are, in psychotherapy. For practical purposes they take turns treating each other as psychotherapy patients—giving each other appropriate deferential professional courtesy during the therapeutic process. (At this point I’ll probably get threatened by 2,000 law suits by people claiming I’ve written accurate intimate details of their personal lives.)

In uninvolved observation of these people, it’s possible to step back and take an overview. This is an extended group of people whose primary life consists of psychologically analyzing each other. They are basically passive and isolated, sitting around analyzing each other’s problems, analyzing each other’s analysis of each other’s problems, analyzing each other’s analysis of each other’s analysis of each other. They have no other life and there is little additional input into their lives or into the room they are sitting in. Living lives of triviality and emptiness, they have run out of problems and run out of psychological interpretations to their problems and run out of psychological interpretations to their psychological interpretations of their situations. Occasionally they will attend further schooling, clinics or seminars on new psychological theories, then come back to re-analyze themselves and each other with that new school of thought.

Invariably, the psychological analyses they devise have a general element of evading the fundamental source of the problem. Their analyses avoid the real issues in their lives, and play well with other social and professional group members or play well with the latest psychological fad rather than dealing with the truth.

Development Without Content

Self-development, the psychology of self-development and psychotherapy all bear something in common with the teaching profession. It’s possible to learn the techniques and methodology of teaching, or to learn the process of learning, without learning material content to be taught. There are people who graduate as teachers and who teach, but without involvement in or depth of knowledge of the subjects to be taught. They can talk about how to teach and their commitment to learning how to teach, but they have nothing of substance to teach their students.

In the same way, there is a difference between the process of self-improvement or self-development versus real self-development, or content of self-improvement. Talk about, or the process of, self-development is not the same as growth or self-development. There are people who become continually involved in the process of self-development while substituting a posturing showy process for actual self-development. They are dishonest, superficial self-development and psychotherapy dilettantes who never develop any depth or engage in real life. They use psychology to escape from life.

The above group is a group of people who are playing at life and have not particularly developed in any way. They are fundamentally narrow and ignorant. They are fundamentally shallow and immature. They are not particularly wise or experienced in terms of life. However, they are always studying the process of self-development, studying the process of psychotherapy, and are forever therapeutically processing themselves and each other, without content. (Parenthetically, there are people for whom psychoanalysis or psychotherapy is a waste because there is not enough substance to them to analyze. There are also mental health professionals of so little substance and depth that, while academically qualified, they are incapable of practicing psychoanalysis or psychotherapy and provoke a destructive sense of isolation in many patients, particularly in patients of any depth.)

In the above group of adults, there is not enough content in their lives, or in their mentality, to subject to psychological analysis. But, they synthesize an illusion of depth by elevating development of personal problems and psychological analysis of each other into a social art form. It’s the only thing they have and the only way they have to interact—or to look as though they are interacting, because they are basically hiding behind a facade of psychological theorizing which provides the appearance of depth. There is no real content to their life or their relationships. Without psychological problems, you don’t fit in with these people and they consider you shallow or boring. In their conversations, it’s as if they are grading or certifying each other on the number of psychological processes about which they have knowledge or have experienced. They have substituted evasive psychological analysis of life for life to such an extent that they have run out of life to analyze. One of the reasons they have been through therapy so many times and so unsuccessfully is that their psychological dialogue is all they have, and if they were to get cured of it there would be nothing left of them. They wouldn’t know what to do with their lives or how to have any other types of relationships. They would be forced to participate in real life, which they fundamentally can’t do. As it is, they have a problem with a subtle boredom and isolation in their existence.

Psychobabble Substituting for Values

What occurs to me as I read this is that they lack wise sound day-to-day values in their life. They are attempting to substitute a values-free psychotherapizing for values and it isn’t working.

Their children are in a state of destruction because they don’t give them any sound values of substance or much of anything else but some dishonest distant psychobabbling during “quality time.” What little they do give them is so distorted and empty that it’s debilitating. They can not share honesty and integrity with their children. They are unable to give their children anything that can be trusted. (The present world’s authority in this area of knowledge on the broader level is Chelsea Clinton. However, her insights into the field are not likely to see formal publication for some time. Rather, it is becoming apparent that she is destined to be desperately needed in national politics and direct her energies there rather than becoming sidetracked in mundane efforts. However, there should be no doubt that the political atmosphere and the country will still have opportunity to receive the impact of her learning experience.)

The sanest of the above lot is the psychologist’s hen-pecked and over-analyzed husband who is going into therapy for the third time. The reason he’s being pushed into therapy, with a therapist approved by his wife, is because he doesn’t have enough problems for other people to become involved with and is a consequent outcast. Basically, one of his main problems is that he needs a woman and a wife, but he doesn’t have one. Instead, he has a psychological gad-fly hiding her shallowness, fear, and emptiness behind the pseudo-depth of constant psychological interpretation and theorizing. His wife complains he is withdrawing from her. In fact, withdrawal is the only method he has of escaping the constant nagging psychologizing she substitutes for development of a mature and real relationship of substance.

Although the above group is composed primarily of professionals in psychology and other mental health fields, many other educated people carry on social interactions very similar to those described, interpreting each other according to psychological theorizing. They play the game of constant soap opera and psychologizing the same way people played bridge or canasta 50 years ago. Given a culture that has had a 52 percent divorce rate, they have piles of personal soap opera to psychologize about to relieve their boredom.

The same process often takes political forms. If people can’t analyze their own problems, they relieve their boredom, get attention, and create a form of social interaction by becoming obsessed with interpretations of minority problems or conditions in other countries. To a serious extent, this process often incorporates a projection of their own condition. I recently had a conversation with a liberal woman about the reasons for the 32.4 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate. She described the depressed condition that caused 15 year old girls to have children to contribute a sense of meaning in their life. In fact, what she was doing was describing the condition of her own life and marriage, and attributing the same depressed condition to people she had never met and knew very little about. On a cumulative scale this has produced the concept of confused helpless depressed victims that has become a theological thrust of contemporary liberalism.

The children of liberal culture are often completely empty disasters. One man I was acquainted with in a university department was on the phone four times a week with child psychologists and psychiatrists regarding problems with his son. None of the advice worked. The problem wasn’t with the boy. His son couldn’t trust him for the same reason I couldn’t trust him. He lacked honesty, integrity and sound values. What the boy needed was not more psychologizing, but honest parents with integrity.

The other night there was a PBS segment which showed a group of people in a psychological support group. They sat down and immediately began to talk about their problems the same way other people talk about sports, art, music, hobbies or their children. It had become their social life. These people need to develop a life other than therapy. Many people in America need to develop something other than soap opera lives where their only interaction is their problems. In other cases, obsession with so-called social problems serve the same role as discussion of personal problems.

A very serious difficulty has developed in America. Personal problems, other people’s or group’s problems, and the associated politics have become a national sport or pastime into which people sublimate or symbolize their personal turbulence and dissatisfactions. People need to retreat from this and instead sort out and develop their personal lives.

Sources of Mental Disorder

In further attempting to understand how the psychological society evolved and why it continues, it may be useful to consider the following: There are two broad classifications or sources of conflict-inducing mental disorder. These classifications are differentiated by the elements of emotional depth, values and complexity of personality.

In one general level there are people with very complicated, diverse and strongly-held value systems who may experience almost heroic conflicts between various aspects of these value systems under certain situations. These conflicts are the struggles about which weighty and heroic novels are written. Two men may experience conflict between the strong bonds of friendship for each other versus their competition for the love of the same woman. Two brothers, in agony over the love between them, may nevertheless find themselves fighting in opposing armies because of strongly held political/moral values. A military officer may be torn between the loss of his friends’ lives in battle against the necessity of winning a war or preserving the future of his country and future generations.

These are conflicts which are based in ideals, values, friendship, love, aesthetics, religious values, political values of quality. These types of conflicts suggest complexity of personality, complexity and depth of character, diversity of strongly held values, commitment to those values and emotional depth. While often tragic, such conflict is ennobling, interesting and deserving of respect, if not admiration. This type of conflict and the associated neurosis have given neurosis a good name. As a consequence, many people have attempted to imitate or fabricate a facade of character and depth through development and parading of conflict or neurosis. Other people sometimes seek people who show evidence of conflict, hoping to find someone with depth.

However, conflict is not necessarily a measure of depth or commitment. There is another class of conflicts which is characteristic of emotional shallowness, which shows little evidence of commitment, little evidence of values, and which suggests simplicity. It indicates low level of character development and low level of intellectual development.

This second class of conflict is not so much between various values but collisions between impulses and reality or collisions between impulses and retribution or between impulses and consequences. There are no values involved, or what few there are, are not strong enough to control behavior effectively. These are people who want to sleep with other people, but are afraid their husbands or wives will become angry. Perhaps they would like to steal, but are afraid of getting caught. They want love or some sort of home, but this conflicts with the fact they don’t want to be bothered with the commitments and inconveniences involved.

There is often an attempt to ennoble this level of conflict through verbal manipulation and grandiosity of language. What is seen is fabrication of a synthetic crusade/ cause/ movement or synthetic value system to which people can attempt to claim a defensive ennobling commitment. For instance, trying to get in bed with their friend’s wife or husband can be called “Making a personal statement of commitment to sexual freedom and social change,” or “Taking a step in the process of dismantling the anachronistic constraints of arbitrary traditional social institutions,” or “Making a personal commitment to ending the imprisoning vestiges of Victorian anti-sexuality.” However, it’s still the basic encoded attempt to get the friend’s spouse in bed.

In the recent hyper-verbal generations, it’s safe to say that never before in the history of mankind have so many people invented so many dishonest contrived synthetic crusades and synthetic false moral/value systems with so many high-sounding abstract words attempting to justify engaging in so many crummy activities. People have found it is possible to adopt the tactic of hiding in a fog of evasive abstraction and fabricated grandiose motivation.

When a trendy liberal couple fills the air with abstract high-sounding rhetoric and is on a crusade about alternative humanistic self-actualization and the need for unrestricted freedom of dimensional exploration, it takes six months to break the code and determine he’s in bed with his own daughter while the wife is involved in a lesbian relationship with the next-door neighbor’s pet bulldog.

When someone asks if you are ready to take bold new progressive steps in making personal statements of consciousness self-alternatives, you’re in big trouble. Run for the hills and pack your spouse, children and the family dog with you.

Were anyone to believe the abstract dialogue of the last 30 years, it would force the conclusion that, any more, nobody ever lies to anyone else for the purpose of getting them in bed and leaving them the next day. Instead, the air is mysteriously filled with endless constitutional, social and philosophical issues as matters of feigned social conscience. It will also be found that many practitioners become highly aggressive in accusing people of violating these contorted systems of paramorality.

Perhaps this should be called the “The age of synthesis of abstract nobility.” Urinate on a crucifix and stick it in a quart jar, call it Piss Christ, and it will become transformed from a piece of trash into a work of art if you can but synthesize an abstract word salad reason for having done it. The National Endowment for the Arts will pay you as a functioning genius, as it has indeed done. There is nothing you can’t get away with if you can devise an abstract description or reason for doing it. For some reason, the present intellectual architecture has shown itself completely unable to deal with the mechanics of pathological abstraction.

Crisis As Cure for Boredom

Regardless of any element of abstract window-dressing in an attempt to pass it off as something else, this type of conflict is indicative of emotional shallowness, intellectual shallowness, simple impulsiveness, and an immature value system. In its shallowness and tastelessness, it is essentially boring—boring not in the sense of the turbulence and disastrous consequences associated with living around such a personality system; but the personality system, itself, is shallow and boring. A boring and superficial person can create excitement by setting fire to your house, but still be a shallow and boring person. Many people who are shallow and boring are dependent upon a constant turbulence and crisis in their own lives and the lives of those around them to create interest in themselves or to create a personality for themselves. They have nothing else. They also use contrived synthetic causes/political-social movements so create a theatrical personality for themselves. Within these categories are included many so-called social activists.

Such conflict systems, and the window dressing of contrived synthetic causes and social movements, are characteristic of character deficiencies and immature pathological personality systems. This level of conflict system and the associated personality systems are presently much more common, if not prevalent, than 40 years ago and tend to characterize the generations of people who were teenagers or young adults since the early- to mid-60s.

There are people who either seek out or glory in the association with conflicted and disordered people as a result of incorrectly assuming all conflict to be the result of strong values and complexity rather than insufficient character. Operating under a continuation of the same premise, they also parade what problems they have as badges of inner depth. What often results is a pool of shallow people palming off the conflicts and evasiveness of character disorders and associated synthetic value systems or synthetic crusades upon each other as depth, substituting it for development of mature personalities. They develop a pool of social interaction based on this process as well as on the psychological analyzing they apply to each other. Often times a supposed complex personality is basically a simple person to whom unduly complex psychological theories or interpretations have been incorrectly applied in the way of explanation. Many a group of shallow fops manufactures a facade of depth and complexity through psychological interpretation. They have no other method of creating interest in themselves.

Too many American people are living lives of ultimate deception and nothingness. They have fabricated, and are living, a twisted-up false psychology which ostensibly analyzes synthetic value systems, but whose real purpose is to add a false credence to those synthetic moral/value systems to avoid honest real life-issues.

They are entrapping themselves. Given the choice of either maturing and developing strength versus avoiding the discomfort of maturation or development while hiding their growing weaknesses by employing psychological theorizing to undermine perceptions of themselves by other people, they either chose to hide, are allowed to hide, or both. They grew up in a period when neither parents nor the social environment corrected their choice. Rather, a pool of peers who were also trying to hide and who made up their social environment tended to reinforce their hiding. Parenthetically, it should be mentioned that one of the important roles of parents is to prevent children from hiding from life.

Beginning the avoidance of truth and maturity traps people into further avoidance and hiding. Single painful truths are tolerable if faced bit by bit as they occur and as small corrections are made in a person’s life. But, avoiding or deferring those truths and avoiding the process of maturation builds up a backlog of unpleasantness to be faced and builds a deficit of maturation which develops into a potential intolerable and crushing realization. One lie necessitates a second lie to cover the first and a third lie is employed to cover the first two. Two lies become three, and so on. The eventual facing of accumulated self-deceptions is extremely painful.

Many Americans have applied distorted psychological theorizing in a many aspects of their lives, effectively enabling them to remain in a state of soft immaturity and denial, and they are depending upon psychologizing to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed by realization of the cumulative avoided truths and unfinished maturation of years.

In still other instances of psychologizing and the psychological society, there are people whose marriages are failing—often because of personal deficiencies and the immaturity of one or both people brought into the marriage. Or maybe one or both of them just wants to fool around. One (or maybe both) of the partners has found some different beds and some different people he or she would like to be in those beds with. This brings up a whole series of impediments and issues. What is this going to do to the marriage? Is the other person in the marriage going to be hurt? If someone else is going to be hurt by their actions, is the person committing the act going to be held responsible and blamed within his social environment? It would be nice if there were some way to avoid dealing with these and other issues.

The superficial way to avoid responsibility is either to concoct a psychological theory, or to find a theory somebody else has already concocted, such as the theory of open marriage or something similar, some theories of which suggest sleeping around improves marriages. Thus, being in various beds with various other people is theoretically converted from being a source of pain to the wife or husband, to doing them a favor and stimulating their self-development, something for which he or she should be grateful instead of being hurt or angry. If someone begins to become angry over the situation, the bed-trotting person either concocts or finds another already-proposed additional psychological theory saying there shouldn’t be anger.

The Battle of Rationalizations

To defend his or her self, and often to try to defend his or her sanity, the person who is subjected to the initial dishonest, distorted theorizing must then find alternative psychological or anthropological theories to refute the theories the first person is using as rationalizations. It then becomes a battle of psychological theories with one immature person who wants his or her way without taking responsibility for the consequences concocting psychological theories to justify what he or she wants to do and to immobilize the other person, while the other person must come up with alternate psychological theories in defense or to try to talk sense and save the situation.

There is a further cute twist that can develop. If the first person’s psychological theorizing supposedly proves that the second person is not supposed to be angry or hurt, then the second person should also be able to employ the same or similar psychological theorizing to do the same thing to the first person that the first has been doing to the second. He or she can turn the tables with retaliating behavior against the first person who has already immobilized himself when he declared that behavior as acceptable and noninjurious—and, besides, it supposedly can’t be retaliation because it’s already been established there is no hurt or anger involved. The first person, in his psychological and anthropological theorizing to justify his own actions, entrapped himself because the arguments also give the other person license to do the same thing to him.

On the practical level, if he proposes anthropological theories which allow him to sleep with the pretty young graduate student or the flashy young assistant sales manager, or the White House intern if one happens to be president, then according to the same rules he must sit smiling and gritting his teeth while his wife sweetly takes on the soccer team. That’ll show him. Meanwhile, neither one of the people involved is supposedly hurting the other because as educated intellectuals they are both committed to accept and live by the theories and arguments which they concoct. Those four years at Bennington or Vassar would be for naught if the report of the latest discovery of a new African tribe with different behavioral and social patterns weren’t given enough credence to hold either yourself or someone else in complete misery.

In some cases both people have come to believe their psychological arguments if they have repeated them enough times. The situation is one of escalating dishonesty and denial along with progressive desensitization of conscience regarding dishonesty. The floor is two inches deep in emotional blood as two people cut and slice each other while reciting psychological theories and counter-theories back and forth in rationalization and denial. One hallmark of the last 30 years has been increasing pathological and destructive interaction through poisonous evasive abstraction. With children in the middle.

Since the elevated educational levels of the last several decades combined with the sexual revolution, this has constituted the life of an unfortunate proportion of people, either in marriages or “relationships.”

The life styles and mentality that have been described in the last five pages is part of my hated, feared, and tumult-producing definition of contemporary liberalism.

I recently saw a televised interview of two clinical psychologists who were married to each other. For years he had practiced open marriage and had had numerous extramarital affairs. He urged his wife to engage in extramarital relations as a growth experience and, while she agreed in theory, he was emotionally protected by her reluctance to actually do so. Finally, she engaged in one. When she did, he became unaccountably enraged. Now, they have come to the novel conclusion that sexual liberation doesn’t work. But, this conclusion has come 25 years too late. For years they cut a destructive swath through the culture and through their patients lives with exhortations of casual sexual experimentation. The cultural momentum and damage has been established by them and others—and it’s too late to put on the brakes.

Psychology and psychologizing have become too important and a basis of life styles for far too many of the wrong reasons. America has become a psychological society, primarily to cover up dishonesty, anger, impulsiveness, weakness or plain old-fashioned viciousness. People are reaching for the latest psychological fads in desperation and dependency to cover up their activities, in attempts to manipulate other people, as substitutes for development of mature personalities—and in self-defense. They are living according to psychological theories which abet them in avoiding the truth instead of living according to real life, which they can’t face. These manipulations constitute much of the literature, scientific and otherwise, of the last several decades. Many of the popular magazines make their money by both promoting the demand and satisfying the demand for dishonest theorizing.

Much language and psychological theorizing today is such an attempt to deny simple conflict or impulses. There is a story about Abe Lincoln in a political debate. When his opponent was through with a long and eloquent speech, Abe began his rebuttal with the observation that the man could put the smallest thoughts into the biggest words Abe had ever heard. Abe’s incisive observation brought down the house with laughter and he won the debate. In the same way, people are putting the smallest impulses into the most dishonest grandiose theories imaginable—or they are devising the most grandiose theorizing imaginable to avoid concrete explanations of personal failure, deficiency and callousness.

The Painful Consequences

However, the devising and implementing of distorted psychological theorizing is not bringing down the house in laughter. It is bringing down the nation in pain and confusion by producing a poisonous and debilitating psychological environment. And it is underwriting a society which has run amok and is destroying itself. Younger generations growing up in this environment are highly confused, having never heard anything else. Any needles of truth are so hidden by a continuously building haystack of fabrications and dishonest psychologizing that they’ll never find them. It’s quite reasonable that we have 40 percent of teen-age girls becoming pregnant. Given the psychotic psychological environment in this country, it makes as much sense as anything else they have heard or been told. In effect, they are also being told to get pregnant by the examples being set by various glamorized public figures as well as by the rationalizations and accolades surrounding those public figures.

They have been told everything in the world about sex except not to engage in it unwisely. The women’s magazines bubble over promiscuous sex. Sociologists, anthropologists and sex educators promote the concept of moral relativism and arbitrary cultural values. The entertainment media show people finding immediate casual sexual ecstasy with no consequences. The psychological environment is dominated by a multitude of psychotic theorizing. Any dissenting opinion is like a voice in a hurricane. Most likely, any dissenting voice will be silenced by an ACLU class action suit.

Most importantly, on a deeper level, there is a highly pathological vicious self-centered mentality as the basis of much of this theorizing. It is a mentality that believes it should be able to do what it wants to and that the acting out of any impulse should be possible or permissible. The self-righteous premise this mentality operates under is that other people only think behavior is destructive or painful because of their temporarily-held value systems. As a consequence it’s supposedly only a matter of, or the responsibility of, those other people changing their values to relieve inflicted pain or turmoil. When they are hurt, other people are supposed to adopt whatever value system is convenient at the moment for the person doing the hurting. Various psychological theories and anthropological studies about potentially different behavioral systems or different value systems are quoted to support the assertion that toleration of, or adjustment to, the insane demands of this mentality is possible. It is not possible.

This is one of the most dangerous mentalities that I know of. This mentality has no internal limits and having no limits is intrinsically capable of anything. Since it operates under relativistic premises which assert that it’s the responsibility of other people to change and adopt whatever value systems are necessary to relieve any pain or discomfort, it feels little responsibility or remorse, but, instead, charges other people with fault for being so psychologically rigid as to feel pain or anger over what’s being done to them. What has evolved is a very demanding self-justifying psychopathic mentality which employs anthropological and psychological theorizing to rationalize viewing other people as throwaway conveniences and which not only feels no remorse, but is very self-righteous. Vicious. The word is vicious. They are vicious in their treatment and psychological undermining of other people.

It has also been my observation over the last 35 years that people living this value system live it under the implicit view that it is only other people’s responsibility to undergo change and adaptation. Asking the person espousing the philosophy to change is indignantly declared to be an arbitrary imposition on their value system.

The above has been one of the principal philosophical thrusts of the last 35 years, underwritten by selective anthropological and psychological theorizing.

The political consequences of this social borderline psychosis are catastrophic. The insistence that demands upon others, demands upon life, or demands upon government need not be rational or realistic has produced an extensive population militantly existing at chaotic levels of functioning in their private and public lives. Many of this population are too preoccupied with personal turmoil to participate in economic productivity or are preoccupied with carefree amusement to exclusion of serious economic productivity. We have what is for practical purposes an extensive population of spoiled retards with big vocabularies. While there is demand to make irrational personal decisions, the consequences of those decisions do not remain personal. There is ever-increasing demand that the government pay the cost of repairing the constant destructive consequences. There is both a disinclination and an inability to deal with the root causes. The root causes are argued to be poverty and hopelessness. Poverty and hopelessness are not the cause. Poverty and hopelessness are the result. Somewhere, individuals must conduct their lives with a basic sense of reality, responsibility, and rationality. If that is not done, the result is chaos, poverty and hopelessness. It may not mean poverty for actors, actresses or musicians who can wander on stage at hundreds of thousands of dollars a performance, or for those with inherited wealth. But for most it means poverty.

Many of the people involved were angry with the world when they first couldn’t get their way, and after having obtained their way became even more angry with the world and with life after having messed up their own lives. They direct their anger toward the world in a continual destructive tantrum or sadism and a war against life which takes active political forms. It’s much of what is currently seen in the Clinton White House, and much of the motivation behind the political left and the Democratic party.