Are you living with a socialised psychopath ?

Over the years, I’ve had many requests for copies of the articles I've written for various
publications about socialised psychopaths – people with Antisocial Personality Disorder
who have found a niche in ordinary society in which they can thrive.

Given the level of interest, I’ve decided to post the raw text of the articles here. If you do
reproduce them, please be aware of (a) the fact that these articles are now over a decade
old, and may well need updating; (b) the need to recognise copyright.


Article 1: Focus Magazine, May 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychopath: the very word is unsettling, conjuring up visions of axe-wielding
maniacs. But such tabloid imagery conceals a far more disturbing reality.
Somewhere, at some time in your life, you will have met, worked - perhaps slept
with - a psychopath.
The chances are you won't have forgotten it, either. True to their media image,
psychopaths frequently ruin the lives of those around them. Yet they wreak
such misery not with knives or guns but with shallow charm, bare-faced lies
and a total lack of guilt.
Psychiatrists now accept that psychopaths are lurking well beyond the
confines of our maximum security prisons. Many have never been in trouble
with the law, and have made apparent successes of their lives.
They can be found in executive boardrooms and school classrooms, surgeries
and lecture rooms. Ironically, the traits that are the hallmark of psychopaths -
ruthlessness, risk-taking, deceit - are increasingly valued in today's
"aggressive" world of commerce and industry.
Recognised or not, the corrosive presence of psychopaths is to blame for
countless broken marriages and ruined careers. The resulting cost to society
makes psychopathic behaviour - or anti-social personality disorder, as
psychiatrists call it - one of the greatest challenges facing psychiatrists.
Incredibly, however, we still know very little about the cause or treatment of
psychopaths. One reason is simply that the characteristics of psychopaths are
so repellant that few researchers have been able to stay the course long enough
to reach reliable conclusions.
The typical psychopath is belligerent - making dealings with them a trial of
strength. They do not hesitate to lie through their teeth - making assessments
of their condition a nightmare. And they are manipulative - and quite capable
of fooling the naive into thinking that they have mended their ways.
The experience of an American pioneer of psychopath research, Professor
Hervey Cleckley of the Medical College of Georgia, is typical. After studying
and working with hundreds of psychopaths over thirty years, he concluded that
he had failed to make progress with any of them.
Contrary to popular belief, the typical psychopath is not psychotic - or "mad",
to use the common term. Unlike schizophrenics - who often have feeling of
persecution and hear voices - psychopaths are quite capable of reasoning
clearly and logically.
This lack of obvious insanity raises questions about what is really wrong with
them. The few who end up behind bars are often passed from prison to mental
hospital and back again, with prison officers saying that they somehow sense
there is something mentally wrong with the offender, but the psychiatrists
insisting there isn't.
A hundred years ago, researchers were using labels like "moral insanity" to
describe the condition. Psychiatrists today dislike such judgmental terms, but
admit that terms like "amoral" and "evil" often seems to sum them up most
simply.
Take Michael, for example. Until recently he was a department head of a major
London-based company, and well-known for his "hard-headed" attitude
towards colleagues, and his ruthless ability to fire those he deemed ineffectual.
But his aggressive attitude seemed to go beyond just professional matters.
He appeared to take a delight in publically humiliating colleagues, especially
those regarded as "quiet" by others. When things went wrong, he would not
hesitate to blame others - often brazenly embellishing his story to back his
argument.
Outside the office Michael's sense of humour often seemed cruel, and his
laughter curiously hollow. Some of his colleagues found themselves inwardly
tensing whenever he walked into the bar. Outwardly charming and successful,
however, he maintained both a marriage and an affair with his secretary.
Following a office shake-out Michael was given a payoff - much to the relief of
his colleagues. To them Michael was simply an office bully. To psychiatrists,
however, Michael is plainly psychopathic.
Research suggests that many people will have had similar experiences - as
psychopaths are far from rare. In 1985, a team of British psychiatrists made a
disturbing discovery while carrying out research into the prevalence of
personality disorders in the general population.
They took a random sample of 200 people from in and around Nottingham - a
demographically normal location - and assessed the pyschological profile of
each by direct interviews.
As expected, only a small proportion - about 10 per cent - appeared to have any
sort of personality disorder. But of these, half emerged as psychopathic. In
other words, as many as one in 20 people in the general population may be
have psychopathic tendencies.
The finding came as a shock to the researchers. But it has been confirmed by
much larger studies in America, Canada and New Zealand. These all suggest
that 3 to 5 per cent of the population have psychopathic tendencies, with the
rate being about seven times higher among men than women.
What can be wrong with all these millions of outwardly normal, yet undeniably
harmful personalities ? In the search for answers, researchers have used every
technique known to psychiatric science: personality profiling, psychoanalysis,
electro-encephalograms, behavioural therapy, brain scanners, drugs and
surgery. The results have given little more than glimpses into a fearsomely
complex problem.
Like many conditions, the cause of psychopathy appears to be partly
biological, and partly environmental.
Studies of the behaviour of the adopted children taken from psychopathic
parents suggest that both genes may have some role to play in creating a
psychopath. This hints at the possibility that there is something wrong with
the mental "hardware" of psychopaths.
There is some tentative support for this. According to Professor Robert Hare at
the University of British Columbia, the brain wave patterns of psychopaths
have similarities to those of children - as if their brains are somehow
"immature". Intriguingly, many of the traits of psychopaths are like those of a
spoilt, egocentric child who refuses to grow up.
Tests by Professor Hare have also revealed that psychopaths process
information about the world differently from us. Given three words like
"warm", "loving" and "cold", psychopaths will tend to put together "warm" and
"cold", while the rest of us will link "warm" and "loving". Psychopaths simply
don't understand why an emotive phrase like "loving" should have anything to
do with "warmth".
But it is events in very early childhood that may be the real key to the
psychopath. In trying to understand the underlying cause of the psychopath's
many traits, some psychiatrists have focused on one: aggression. Whether they
are violent criminals or malevolent bosses, all psychopaths appear to be waging
a war with the rest of us.
The cause of this aggression often seems to be be fear - a deep-seated fear
triggered by parental rejection. The rejection may have followed a difficult
birth or early post-natal problems that prevented genuine emotional bonding
between the parent and the child. It may be simply that the child was
unwanted, a burden on an already hard-pressed family.
Whatever the cause, such an infant quickly gains an impression of the world as
a harsh, unforgiving, even vicious place. In time it comes to believe that it can
trust no-one, and must learn to outwit those that would do it harm.
As the child develops, its drive for self-preservation leads it to develop
unattractive traits: a belligerent, bullying manner, a growing resentment of
authority. And this sets in motion a disastrous - and literal - "vicious circle".
Increasingly appalled by the child's behaviour, parents, siblings and the child's
own peer group all start to reject it. The child then simply becomes more
convinced that the world really is against him. Gradually, a psychopath starts
to emerge.
Although lack of affection may be the root cause of much psychopathic
behaviour, there is some evidence that smothering indulgence may have a
similar effect, this time because the child comes to see the rest of the world as
intrinsically less important than itself.
The importance of early emotional bonding in understanding psychopaths was
highlighted in a major study by American researchers of almost 700 children
born in Hawaii in the early 1970s. These children were followed right through
to early adulthood to see what factors affect their psychological well-being.
The researchers discovered that children that later developed psychopathic
tendencies tended to have a number of factors in common. They included a
difficult birth, prolonged separation from mother during the first year, parental
illness and chronic family discord - all factors likely to cause bonding problems.
The researchers also found that it is possible to spot a potential psychopath by
the age of two. Given the problems that adult pyschopaths cause society - and
themselves - in later life, some researchers now believe that infants should be
checked for their risk of becoming psychopathic.
Such a proposal may seem extraordinary, but it is based on the idea that
prevention is better than cure - and with psychopaths, that maxim takes on
particular significance. For, despite decades of effort, researchers have yet to
find a proven, reliable way to cure a psychopath.
In the 1950s, researchers believed that violent psychopaths could be treated by
removing parts of their brain. Although lobotomies and amygdalotomies did
seem to make the psychopaths less violent, the research was ambiguous and
never followed up. By the 1970s, it had been abandoned.
Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT), where the brains of psychopaths are given
jolts of electricity,drugs, psycho-analysis, even wrapping in cold , wet sheets
have all been tried. In every case, the results have been, at best, inconclusive.
Unlike schizophrenics or depressives, they do not seem to benefit from being
treated as if there are problems with their mental "hardware". Unlike those
suffering from phobias, no amount of counselling seems to change them, either.
Whatever the ultimate cause of psychopathic behaviour, it is clearly extremely
deep-seated. If, as many researchers believe, psychopathic behaviour stems
from viewing the world as hostile, then one explanation for the failure to find a
cure may be that psychopaths simply do not want to change.
Much of the research into treatments has been carried out in prisons, where
almost 9 in 10 inmates regarded as "troublemakers" are thought to be
psychopathic. Some researchers point out that prison is an environment where
aggression is both widespread and admired - which hardly gives much
motivation for giving it up.
Even outside prison, psychopaths can find many excuses to avoid changing
their ways. Why should the aggressive boss stop making his employees lives
hell ? The company's balance sheets are very healthy, and for every whingeing
employee that can't take the heat, there are 10 others eager to take their place.
Similarly, why should the bullying, unfaithful lover settle down ? His macho
attitudes alway seem to attract some types of women, perhaps with
psychological problems of their own. To him, they are all fair game - as far as he
can tell, "there's one born every minute".
Many people unwittingly try to change the behaviour of the psychopaths in
their lives. Some even seem to win them over, even to produce some
improvements.
Yet, as many psychiatrists have learned, it's almost invariably temporary. The
psychopath's promise to mend his ways is usually just another pack of lies.
Within a few months, the same traits will be back as strongly as before.
The sad truth is that, if there is a psychopath in your office, your home or your
bed, it will be you that has to change.
END

Article 2: Sunday Telegraph Review April 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret had no way of knowing what she was letting herself in for when she
fell for James. But that is one of the most disturbing traits of people like him -
they know exactly how to get to you.
Certainly James knew exactly how to get to Margaret, pursuing her gently but
relentlessly, meeting her after work, taking an interest in her life, her work and
her desires no-one had shown before.
"He'd targeted me, there's no question of that", recalls Margaret. "He wined
and dined me like mad, and if ever I showed signs of losing interest, he'd just
look at me with his big blue eyes and that would be that". Just months after
their first meeting they were married.
And then the real James started to emerge.
"The charm got turned off pretty soon", says Margaret. "It rapidly became
clear that he was totally self-centred, and was quite incapable of seeing my way
of thinking". It was meals when he wanted, shirts how he liked them, bed when
he felt like it.
Like many women of her generation, Margaret took his egocentricity, coldness
and insistence on subservience to be simply a characteristic of his sex. After all,
wasn't a wife supposed to put meals on tables, shirts on hangers and themselves
on beds?
But Margaret found that James wasn't conforming to the social conventions on
the mid-1960s. It just happened that social conventions just happened to
match his own view of the world.
How many other middle-class husbands did she know who would decide on a
whim to sell their wife's car or family silver to someone in a pub ? How many
men would be quite unfazed when their wife found conclusive proof of an affair
with a colleague, cheerfully stringing both wife and mistress along for months ?
And how many men, when faced with a wife delivering a "Her or me"
ultimatum, would walk over to the phone and call his mistress to check she'd
got the wine he'd asked for before calmly walking out ?
Perhaps it was the sure and certain knowledge that he would be able to do it
all over again with many others: friends, relations, business associates - and the
three other wives whose lives he has ruined over the last 30 years.
The English language has a number of terms for people like James: "bastards"
is perhaps the most polite. But psychiatrists know that this malapropism
masks a conundrum of the human mind their profession has singularly failed to
solve. In a field that prides itself on describing the ineffable, psychiatry doesn't
even have a decent bit of jargon that captures the subtlety of what has gone
wrong in the minds of people like James.
They are certainly not psychotic - "mad" in the classic sense of hearing voices,
or believing they are Napoleon. That's almost of the worst of it : these people
seem all too clearly in touch with reality. They know how to woo and how to
wound with mental weapons aimed with exquisite accuracy.
What does seem clear is that there is something wrong with their sense of self.
Their egocentricity and insouciant selfishness hints a connection with
narcissism, a personality disorder characterised by an overweening sense of self-
worth and obsession with weilding power over others.
But this fails to do justice to the host of other characteristics of these people:
their deceitfulness, their coldness, irritability and implusiveness, their
inability to sustain relationships, and perhaps most damaging of all, their total
lack of remorse.
There is a psychiatric disorder that has all of these characteristics: anti-social
personality disorder. Those with APD have an altogether more evocative
moniker: psychopath.
Yet while the label of narcissism fails to capture the essence of the "bastard",
that of psychopath is too rich. In 1991, Professor Robert Hare of the University
of British Columbia, doyen of APD researchers, drew up a set of criteria now
widely used by psychiatrists to identify psychopathic patients.
But reflecting its origins in studies of criminal psychopaths, Hare's 20 criteria
include a number that are totally inappropriate for James and his like: a
history of petty criminality when young, criminal versatility, breach of parole
conditions.
Even so, enough of Hare's criteria apply to suggest that the bastard can ithe
likes of prompt the that the "bastard" is really a psychopaths

BOX: Is there a socialised psychopath in your life ?
While personality disorders such as psychopathy, paranoia and
obsession/compulsion all have strictly defined criteria, psychiatrists are still
struggling to decide precisely what constitutes a socialised psychopath.
One of the more obvious characteristics of socialised psychopaths is that they
do not so much talk to you as "at" you, leaving you with a sense that you are
not really making any impression on them.
Prof Jeremy Coid describes it as like being regarded as a cardboard cut-out - a
figure there simply to be moved or ignored as the psychopath sees fit. "Even if
you are in a sexual relationship with them, you are still just an object for their
personal gratification", he says.
With their casual attitude towards deceit, socialised psychopaths are beyond
the reach of self-diagnostic tests widely used in psychiatry. Discussions with
leading researchers and interviews with victims of socialised psychopaths does
lead to a consistent picture, and the following questionnaire is based on this.
Anyone who scores highly on this would be regarded by most psychiatrists to
be, at the very least, borderline psychopathic.

For each trait, decide if it applies fully (2 points), partially (1) or not at all (0
points).
1. Do they have trouble sustaining stable relationships, both personally and in
business?
2. Do they frequently manipulate others to achieve selfish goals, with no
consideration of the effects on those manipulated ?
3. Are they cavalier about the truth, and capable of telling lies to your face ?
4. Do they have an air of self-importance, regardless of their true standing in
society ?
5. Have they no apparent sense of remorse, shame or guilt ?
6. Is their charm superficial, and capable of being switched on to suit
immediate ends ?
7. Are they easily bored, and seem to demand constant stimulation ?
8. Are their displays of human emotion shallow and unconvincing ?
9. Do they enjoy taking risks, and acting on reckless impulse ?
10. Are they quick to blame others for their mistakes ?
11. As teenagers, did they resent authority, play truant and/or steal ?
12. Do they have no qualms about parasitically sponging off others ?
13. Are they quick to lose their temper ?
14. Are they sexually promiscuous ?
15. Do they come across as belligerent ?
16. Are they unrealistic about their long-term aims ?
17. Do they lack any ability to empathise with others - to see themselves in the
same situation ?
18. Would you regard them as essentially rash and irresponsible ?


Article 3: For Sunday Telegraph Review, June 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you married to a psychopath ? It is a question of almost comical
portentousness, like those B-movie titles declaring "I was kidnapped by
Martians". But over the six weeks since the appearance of my article under this
headline, I have been inundated with letters and phone calls from people whose
experiences leave no doubt that they are indeed sharing their lives with
socialised psychopaths.
Unlike the raving mad-axemen usually associated with the term, socialised
psychopaths are apparently normal people with a profound personality
disorder that makes them a serious psychological threat to anyone they
encounter. These people are not "mad" in the sense of being detached from
reality. Indeed, a recurrent theme in the responses I received is the uncanny
sense socialised psychopaths have for what makes the rest of us tick - allowing
them to home in on our vulnerabilities to attract or attack as they see fit.
Their coldness, egocentricity and deceitfulness corrodes every relationship that
they touch, from marriage to business partnership, while their superficial
charm, moral flexibility and lack of remorse often allows them to become very
successful in today's devil-take-the-hindmost society.
As my article explained, there is a growing realisation among psychiatrists that
socialised psychopaths are to blame for a great deal of misery in society. From
the office bully to the arrogant, philandering husband, they appear to be
causing countless blameless people to quit jobs and relationships, at untold
cost.
Yet none of my research or interviews prepared me for the scale and nature of
the damage revealed by those who contacted me after the article appeared.
Cynics might argue that the article simply provided an excuse for every
paranoiac and hysteric to bleat on about their soured relationships. Certainly,
some of the responses I received smacked of parents keen to condemn an
unsuitable boyfriend or an employee bitter about being ditched just short of
retirement.
Most were, however, entirely rational and coherent accounts of how readers
had concluded that they were dealing with a social psychopath, followed by
often harrowing descriptions of the impact this had had on their lives.
For many, the simple recognition that they had been suffering at the hands of
someone with a genuine personality disorder seems to have been cathartic:
"Your article hit me like a bolt through my heart", wrote Vanessa from Surrey.
"I've kept brave all these years, but cried like never before at relief on reading
your article. I could have written the article myself - it was a picture of my ex-
husband".
Vanessa's husband showed the many characteristics of the socialised
psychopath. While outwardly charming and apparently highly successful in a
job that frequently took him abroad, at home he was cold and egocentric,
showing no interest in the lives of his wife or children. Despite a generous
salary, his ludicrously expensive tastes frequently led to massive debts - which
on one occasion he helped recover by raiding his children's own savings
account. An insouciant womaniser, he cheerfully explained the contraceptives
in his briefcase by saying that "I never know who I am going to meet during
the day".
Like many others, Vanessa endured the coldness, contempt and abuse for many
years before giving in, and filing for divorce. Even now, a decade later, she is
still scarred by the experience: "I have a recurring dream where I hear his voice
with a particular intonation saying 'I'm here to torment you".
Some of the most disturbing accounts came from former spouses and colleagues
of prominent public figures. They give a chilling insight of what lies behind the
facade of success projected by some very highly regarded individuals.
I heard from the ex-wife of a highly successful and well-known businessman
who kept her a virtual prisoner at home, subjecting her to constant mental and
physical abuse. Eventually she escaped, taking her two children with her - only
to have him pursue her with private detectives and death-threats.
I learned of a distinguished professor of medicine who wrecked the careers of
many scientists before having his psychopathy recognised by colleagues, who
succeeded in having him removed from all positions of influence. Then there is
the senior figure at a leading public school whose aggression and deceit has
forced many colleagues to quit, and whose recklessness now threatens the
financial future of the historic school.
Many of those who contacted me were anxious to learn more about the
personality disorder whose effects had so blighted their lives. Frustratingly,
there was very little more I could say beyond the research detailed in the
original article: both the cause and cure for social psychopathy remains a
mystery.
Some readers tried to cast more light on the origin of the disorder by detailing
what they knew about the background of the social psychopath in their lives:
poor maternal bonding was a common feature. Medically-qualified readers who
had themselves been in relationships with social psychopaths offered their own
insights into its causes. A number drew parallels with autism, the
neurobiological disorder which affects social and emotional skills. Autistics
have difficulty forming relationships, and appear indifferent to affection. They
may also have problems assessing risk - all of which is broadly consistent with
the behaviour of social psychopaths. Unfortunately, the parallels do not end
there: like psychopathy,both the origin and cure for autism remain unknown.
For most of those who responded, however, such issues are academic. They were
either recovering from or still fighting battles with socialised psychopaths, and
simply needed to know to whom they could turn for help and advice. This is
one front on which, happily, there has been some progress since the article
appeared.
Earlier this month, a national charity to combat corporate bullying was
unveiled at Staffordshire University. Known as the Andrea Adams Trust -
after the late author of a ground-breaking book on the subject in 1992 - the
charity's primary aim is to give those targeted by corporate bullies access to
psychologists, lawyers and arbitrators.
Lyn Witheridge, chief executive of the trust, says she is convinced that many of
the cases are the result of socialised psychopaths being given a free rein in
"aggressive" companies. "But following the article in the Sunday Telegraph, we
are going to broaden our remit to help those affected by these people outside
work as well".
This will be welcome news for all those who until now had no idea that their
lives had been blighted by people with a personality disorder. Many
respondents expressed their bewilderment at the sheer level of unprovoked
mental violence that had been unleashed upon them, which left many with a
feeling of guilt that they must have somehow been to blame. "Having read the
articles", wrote one young mother from the Midlands, "I felt with a sense of
relief as though the pieces of a puzzle had been put together".
But the most important task for the new charity must be to persuade the legal
and psychiatric professions to get to grips with this extremely destructive
element within society. Many respondents described their attempts to bring
socialised psychopaths to book for their actions through the courts - only to see
the characteristic superficial charm and barefaced dishonesty triumph yet
again. Maintenance payments, child support orders, bankruptcy rulings - all
are ignored, or dodged by deception.
Among the most distressing accounts centred on child custody battles, where
loving parents find themselves trying to counter a barrage of lies and
deceptions created by their all-too-plausible former spouses. "Our case would
be so much stronger if we could convince the court that this man really does
have a personality disorder", said one parent currently fighting for a child
residence order against her ex-husband.
The legal difficulties raised by psychopaths were highlighted earlier this
month by the official report into the case of Darren Carr, the live-in babysitter
who set fire to the Oxfordshire home of Susan Hearmon, killing her and her two
children, last summer.
Carr had lied to Mrs Hearmon about his background, which included admission
to a mental hospital, where he had been diagnosed as a psychopath. Duly
released as being beyond treatment in 1993, Carr gradually dropped out of
supervision by social services, and set about beginning his avowed career as the
"best serial killer ever".
Even for Carr, a criminally violent psychopath, it took the deaths of three
people before the law could curtail his actions. For socialised psychopaths, who
are usually smart enough to stay on the right side of the law, there is no legal
restraint at all.
"The problem is that the mental health framework is not able to cope with
psychopaths", says Genevra Richardson, professor of law at Queen Mary
Westfield College, London, and chairman of the inquiry panel. "The
justification for imposing loss of liberty is based on the notion of compulsory
treatment, and if you have no treatment to offer, that justification becomes
very slender".
Simply getting a diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder is hard
enough, says Prof Richardson: "It is difficult to get them to consent to
psychiatric examination, and then of course there is matter of their
deceitfulness".
Whatever the difficulties, it is clearly to the psychiatric profession that society
must turn for a strategy for dealing with socialised psychopaths. Only they
have the experience in defining and dealing with the subtle defects of mind that
lead to personality disorders.
Yet as a field of research, the study of psychopathy is currently at an impasse,
with the persistent failure to find either causes or treatments for psychopathy
understandably deterring many psychiatrists from entering the field - thus
ensuring that progress remains virtually non-existent.
What little research is done focuses almost exclusively on criminal psychopaths
- again for the perfectly understandable reason that prisons provide ready
access to the large numbers of subjects needed for research. How is one to
persuade an egocentric, glacially unfeeling and often highly successful
socialised psychopath to help scientists find out what is "wrong" with them ?
While psychiatrists and lawyers wrestle with such paradoxes, those who fall
prey to socialised psychopaths are forced to find solutions within themselves.
And as many readers found, this rarely comes without a heavy cost.
"Your article said these cold-hearted predators are incurable - so what are we
victims supposed to do ?", asked one reader, currently trying to free herself
from the corrosive influence of a psychopathic in-law. "Slam the door in their
faces and turn our backs on them ? I find that very hard. In the end I will have
to abandon her to her fate, but not without much soul-searching and guilt for
me".
And there, in a nutshell, is the essence of relationships with socialised
psychopaths: they may not always win, but we always lose.

O Certain details have been changed to protect readers' identities.
To contact the Andrea Adams Trust, send an A4 envelope with 2 first-class
stamps to Shalimar House, 24 Derek Avenue, Hove, East Sussex BN3 4PF.

Article for Sunday Telegraph, June 1997
Almost 1 in 6 men in managerial positions with large British corporations show
symptoms of psychopathic behaviour, according to a scientific study
commissioned by the Sunday Telegraph.
The results of the study, based on psychometric testing of 1,200 managers at all
levels carried out by Oxford Psychologists Press (CORRECT), confirms the
growing suspicion of psychiatrists that many people classed as "aggressive go-
getters" in business and commerce are psychopaths.
Contrary to the familiar image of the psychopath as a knife-wielding maniac,
these people appear outwardly normal, but exhibit characteristics of
belligerence, deceit and a complete lack of remorse typical of anti-social
personality disorder (APD), the scientific term for psychopathy.
With their aggressive attitude and love of risk, those with APD are often
highly successful and well-regarded by their bosses. However, they are often
considered to be "office bullies" by underlings, who are often the targets of
routine humiliation and abuse.
The results of the study - believed to be the first ever to gauge the extent of
APD in the corporate world - suggests that the working lives of tens of
thousands of people are being made intolerable by managers with a personality
disorder notorious for its destructive effect on others.
According to Dr Robert McHenry, chairman of OPP, the psychometric tests on
many managers revealed characteristics such as a history of truancy and a
cold disregard for the feelings of others that are classic traits of psychopaths.
However, special countermeasures had to be built into the study to combat
their deceitfulness and ability to present whatever characteristics best suit
their purpose Dr McHenry said: "For example, those with psychopathic
tendencies will agree with statements like 'I would do just about anything for a
dare', but they would also claim to agree with statements such as 'I think I am
stricter about right and wrong than most people'".
To combat this, the OPP team compared the self-assessment answers with
confidential assessments by both senior managers and their peer-group. "When
it came to their attitude towards relationships, the results were particularly
striking", said Dr McHenry. "We found that senior managers consistently rated
these people even higher than they did themselves, while the peer group gave
an entirely different picture".
Part of the reason, said Dr McHenry, is that senior managers were out of touch
with the day-to-day behaviour of their own staff. "But our research also
suggests that we're seeing the effect of the psychopaths' ability to show two
personas: effective and obedient as far as their bosses are concerned, but
bullying, reckless and manipulative towards their underlings".
This two-faced attitude, and the fact that these people are often highly
effective in terms of getting results "should be a warning to anyone thinking of
complaining about office bullies to more senior managers", said Dr McHenry.
Tony Renton of The Institute of Directors said that the aggressive corporate
style of the 1980s may have contributed to the rise of psychopathic managers
in the past. "But the emphasis today is very much on the efficiency gains that
come from teamwork. A growing number of academic case-studies show that a
happy ship is an efficient ship".
Mr Renton admitted, however, that there was very little that junior staff could
do if they find themselves working with a psychopathic manager: "You just
have to resign - because they won't change".

END

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

• • Mark Lynas
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009 19.54 GMT
  • Article history

A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

The moment is coming when it will be too late

HE Patriarca Bartholomeu

Observing the leaders of our world as they gather in Copenhagen, we pray and hope that they realise just how late we have left it to restore our earthly home to health.

There will come a point, and it may be very soon, when it is simply too late.

Our scientists talk of ‘tipping points’ and ‘abrupt climate change’. Our political leaders talk of the challenges ahead. The Bible speaks of God’s grace in giving us many, many chances. But it makes it clear the time will come for all of us when we have to face the consequences of our wrongdoing.
The well-fed rich man in his fine robes, who ignored the beggar Lazarus at his gate in the Gospel of St Luke, was terribly punished after his death for his indifference and inaction. When he begged to be released from torment, he was told that it was too late.

According to the Gospel of St Matthew, the questions that will be asked of us all at the Last Judgment will not be about our religious observance. We will be asked if we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, clothed the naked and comforted the sick and the captives.

We must make the sacredness of life our priority.
It is life on Earth, which is threatened, not just a certain way of living.
This is the very same Earth which we are commanded not just to ‘till’, but also to ‘preserve’.
Our reckless consumption of resources –fuel, water, forests… threatens us with a climate Apocalypse. Burning more fuel than we need in a busy city, we may be contributing to a drought or flood in a place thousands of miles away. Scientists estimate that those most hurt by global warming in the years to come, are those who can least afford it.
In our understanding there can be no distinction between concern for human welfare and concern for ecological preservation.
To restore the planet we need Spirituality which brings humility and respect, leads us to inquire more deeply and leads us to think of the impact of our actions on all of Creation.

We have been privileged in recent years to lead our Religion, Science and the Environment Symposia to meet many individuals whose lives are threatened by distant forces that they can neither understand nor control. We have stood on the banks of the Amazon and witnessed the destruction of the rainforest in the name of providing cheap food for the well-fed. We have stood and watched a great glacier of Greenland decay as its world was warmed by greenhouse gasses. A month ago in New Orleans we heard evidence of how hubris turned a natural event into a human catastrophe.

We must direct our focus away from what we want to what the planet needs. We must choose to care for Creation; otherwise we do not really care at all.
Nature unites us and although we may differ in our conception of the origins of our world, we all agree on the necessity to protect its future, our future. Let us offer the earth an opportunity to heal and continue to nurture us.

We can no longer afford to wait, indecision and inaction are not options

We are all living within the Mercy and Grace of God
Our faith makes clear that we have a choice. The time to choose is now.

His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

Biographical Note: His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, spiritual leader of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians, is 270^th successor of St. Andrew the apostle, who founded the 2000-year-old church of Constantinople. He has worked for reconciliation among Christian Churches and for religious understanding among the faith communities. His efforts to promote human rights and religious tolerance, together with his pioneering work for international peace and environmental protection, have placed him at the forefront of global visionaries and earned him the title “Green Patriarch.” He was named by Time magazine as one of the world’s 100 most influential people and has been honoured with the US Congressional Gold Medal. He is the author of Encountering the Mystery (Doubleday) and In the World, Yet Not of the World (Fordham)

Nazca were responsible for environmental collapse

12 October 2009, by Sara Coelho

The Nazca people of ancient Peru were partly responsible for the collapse of their environment and the downfall of their own civilization as they cleared old forests for agricultural use. Without the trees, the valley they lived in was exposed to dry winds and catastrophic flooding.

The river valleys of southern Peru are an arid landscape, swept by some of the strongest winds on Earth. Water flows in the river beds only a few months per year and vegetation is sparse. But until 600 AD, the valleys were covered with trees and agricultural fields and were home to the ancient Peruvian civilization that built the world-famous Nazca lines.

'We have found very obvious evidences of changes in land use in the lower Ica Valley,' says Dr David Beresford-Jones, an archaeologist from the University of Cambridge. 'This land was once very productive and is now a desert - we wanted to know why.' Given the global interest in the Nazca lines, 'it's surprising how little we know about how this people actually lived,' he adds.

'By understanding past mistakes we can learn how to manage our present resources better.'
David Beresford-Jones,
University of Cambridge

Beresford-Jones and colleagues surveyed the lower Ica Valley, about 200 km south of Peru's capital Lima, searching for signs of human occupation. They were looking for the archaeological remains of the Nazca people, including pottery and ancient rubbish heaps that provide information about daily routine.

The team also looked for physical traces of environmental change. Microscopic pollen grains, preserved by the area's dry climate, revealed that the Nazca people grew maize, cotton and other domesticated plants in the floodplains of the river Ica in a landscape dominated by the huarango, a large, slow-growing hardwood tree of the genus Prosopis.

An ancient Prosopsis Usaca tree.

'The huarango was an important source of food, firewood and building materials,' says Beresford-Jones. The tree is well adapted for life in an arid environment, with a huge root system reaching up to 50 metres deep. The huarango was not only useful for the Nazca: 'the tree was the ecological keystone that kept the soil fertile, protected the valley against the wind and held the floodplain together with its roots,' explains Beresford-Jones.

Beresford-Jones and colleagues found over 60 huarango tree stumps preserved in the arid climate of the Samaca Basin and evidence that the forests were progressively replaced by agricultural fields. 'They removed the big trees to clear land for agriculture,' he says. 'After a while, they must have crossed a tipping point without realising it.'

For without the protection afforded by the huarango, the lands of the lower Ica Valley became exposed to strong winds from the Pacific. The valley sediments also tell a tale of a severe flood around 600 AD, probably the result of a strong El Niño climatic event.

'In normal circumstances, the floods would have been welcome for the agriculture,' says Beresford-Jones. But without the trees to hold the floodplain in place, the flood cut the valley open leaving their irrigation system high and dry, according to the paper published in the journal Catena.

To Beresford-Jones, these findings contradict the popular view that Native Americans always lived in harmony with their environment. 'What happened in the past is an important lesson for today,' he says. 'By understanding past mistakes we can learn how to manage our present resources better.'

---

David Beresford-Jones, Helen Lewis, Steve Boreham. Linking cultural and environmental change in Peruvian prehistory: Geomorphological survey of the Samaca Basin, Lower Ica Valley, Peru. Catena, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2008.12.010.

Source http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=558

A Lakota Indian voice

The only possible opening for a statement of this kind is that I detest writing. The process itself epitomizes the European concept of "legitimate" thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken.

My culture, the Lakota culture, has an oral tradition, so I ordinarily reject writing. It is one of the white world's ways of destroying the cultures of non-European peoples, the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.So what you read here is not what I have written. It is what I have said and someone else has written down.

I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don't really care whether my words reach whites or not. They have already demonstrated through their history that they cannot hear, cannot see; they can only read (of course, there are exceptions, but the exceptions only prove the rule).

I'm more concerned with the American Indian people, students and others, who have begun to be absorbed into the white world through universities and other institutions. But even then it's a marginal sort of concern. It's very possible to grow into a red face with a white mind; and if that's a person's individual choice, so be it, but I have no use for them. This is part of the process of cultural genocide being waged by Europeans against American Indian peoples' today. My concern is with those American Indians who choose to resist this genocide, but may be confused as to how to proceed.

(You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people.) There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point, I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin - which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota - or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc - and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.

(There is also some confusion about the word Indian, a mistaken belief that it refers somehow to the country, India. When Columbus washed up on the beach in the Caribbean, he was not looking for a country called India. Europeans were calling that country Hindustan in 1492. Look it up on the old maps. Columbus called the tribal people he met "Indio," from the Italian in dio, meaning "in God.")

It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized. The strength for this effort can only come from the traditional ways, the traditional values that our elders retain. It must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books.

No European can ever teach a Lakota to be Lakota, a Hopi to be Hopi. A master's degree in "Indian Studies" or in "education" or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into the traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.

I should be clear about something here, because there seems to be some confusion about it. When I speak of Europeans or mental Europeans, I'm not allowing for false distinctions. I'm not saying that on the one hand there are the by-products of a few thousand years of genocidal, reactionary European intellectual development which is bad; and on the other hand there is some new revolutionary intellectual development which is good. I'm referring here to the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and "leftism" in general. I don't believe these theories can be separated from the rest of the European intellectual tradition. It's really just the same old song.

The process began much earlier. Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural science by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation.

Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into a code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say - and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture.

Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer! This is what has come to be termed "efficiency" in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment - that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one - is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive.

Hegel and Marx were heirs to the thinking of Newton, Descartes, Locke and Smith. Hegel finished the process of secularizing theology - and that is put in his own terms - he secularized the religious thinking through which Europe understood the universe.

Then Marx put Hegel's philosophy in terms of "materialism," which is to say that Marx despiritualized Hegel's work altogether. Again, this is in Marx' own terms. And this is now seen as the future revolutionary potential of Europe. Europeans may see this as revolutionary, But American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. The intellectual roots of a new Marxist form of European imperialism lie in Marx' - and his followers' - links to the tradition of Newton, Hegel, and the others.

Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans. Clearly, there are two completely opposing views at issue here, and Marxism is very far over to the other side from the American Indian view. But lets look at a major implication of this; it is not merely an intellectual debate.

The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person. And who seems most expert at dehumanizing other people? And why? Soldiers who have seen a lot of combat learn to do this to the enemy before going back into combat. Murderers do it before going out to commit murder. Nazi SS guards did it to concentration camp inmates. Cops do it. Corporation leaders do it to the workers they send into uranium mines and steel mills. Politicians do it to everyone in sight. And what the process has in common for each group doing the dehumanizing is that it makes it all right to kill and otherwise destroy other people. One of the Christian commandments says, "Thou shalt not kill," at least not humans, so the trick is to mentally convert the victims into nonhumans. Then you can proclaim violation of your own commandment as a virtue.

In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that it become virtuous to destroy the planet. Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here, the way victory and freedom are used to justify butchery in the dehumanization process. For example, a real-estate speculator may refer to "developing" a parcel of ground by opening a gravel quarry; development here means total, permanent destruction, with the earth itself removed. But European logic has gained a few tons of gravel with which more land can be "developed" through the construction of road beds. Ultimately, the whole universe is open - in the European view - to this sort of insanity.

Most important here, perhaps, is the fact that Europeans feel no sense of loss in this. After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality, so there is no satisfaction (for them) to be gained in simply observing the wonder of a mountain or a lake or a people in being. No, satisfaction is measured in terms of gaining material. So the mountain becomes gravel, and the lake becomes coolant for a factory, and the people are rounded up for processing through the indoctrination mills Europeans like to call schools. But each new piece of that "progress" ups the ante out in the real world. Take fuel for the industrial machine as an example.

Little more than two centuries ago, nearly everyone used wood -a replenishable, natural item- as fuel for the very human needs of cooking and staying warm. Along came the Industrial Revolution and coal became the dominant fuel, as production became the social imperative for Europe. Pollution began to become a problem in the cities, and the earth was ripped open to provide coal, whereas wood had simply been gathered or harvested at no great expense to the environment. Later, oil became the major fuel, as the technology of production was perfected through a series of scientific "revolutions." Pollution increased dramatically, and nobody yet knows what the environmental costs of pumping all that oil out of the ground will really be in the long run. Now there's an "energy crisis," and uranium is becoming the dominant fuel.

Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate at which they can show a good profit. That's their ethic, and maybe that will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it's the most "efficient" production fuel available. That's their ethic, and I fail to see where it's preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of the European tradition. It's the same old song.

There's a rule of thumb that can be applied here. You cannot judge the real nature of a revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposed to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effect it will have on non-European peoples. This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe's tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. I defy anyone to point out an example where this is not true.

So now we, as American Indian people, are asked to believe that a "new" European revolutionary doctrine such as Marxism will reverse the negative effect of European history on us. European power relations are to be adjusted once again, and that's supposed to make things better for all of us. But what does this really mean?

Right now, today, we who live on the Pine Ridge Reservation are living in what white society has designated a "National Sacrifice Area." What this means is that we have a lot of uranium deposits here, and white culture (not us) needs this uranium as energy production material. The cheapest, most efficient way for industry to extract and deal with the processing of this uranium is to dump the waste by-products right here at the digging sites. Right here where we live. This waste is radioactive and will make the entire region uninhabitable forever. This is considered by industry, and by the white society that created this industry, to be an "acceptable" price to pay for energy resource development. Along the way they also plan to drain the water table under this part of South Dakota as part of the industrial process, so the region becomes doubly uninhabitable.

The same sort of thing is happening down in the land of the Navajo and Hopi, up in the land of the Northern Cheyenne and Crow, and elsewhere. Thirty percent of the coal in the West and half of the uranium deposits in the United States have been found to lie under reservation land<http://www.dickshovel.com/HppnHere.html>, so there is no way this can be called a minor issue.

We are resisting being turned into a National Sacrifice Area. We are resisting being turned into a national sacrifice people. The costs of this industrial process are not acceptable to us. It is genocide to dig uranium here and draw the water table - no more, no less.

Now let's suppose that in our resistance to extermination we begin to seek allies (we have). Let's suppose further that we were to take revolutionary Marxism at its word: that it intends nothing less than the complete overthrow of the European capitalist order which has presented this threat to our very existence. This would seem to be a natural alliance for American Indian people to enter into. After all, as the Marxists say, it is the capitalists who set us up to be a national sacrifice. This is true as far as it goes.

But, as I've tried to point out, this very "truth" is deceptive. Revolutionary Marxism is committed to even further perpetuation and perfection of the very industrial process which is destroying us all. It offers only to "redistribute" the results - the money, maybe - of this industrialization to a wider section of the population. It offers to take wealth from the capitalists and pass it around; but in order to do so, Marxism must maintain the industrial system.

Once again, the power relations with European society will have to be altered, but once again the effects upon American Indian peoples here and non-Europeans elsewhere will remain the same. This is much the same as when power was redistributed from the church to private business during the so-called bourgeois revolution. European society changed a bit, at least superficially, but its conduct toward non-Europeans continued as before. You can see what the American Revolution of 1776 did for American Indians. It's the same old song.

Revolutionary Marxism, like industrial society in other forms, seeks to "rationalize" all people in relation to industry - maximum industry, maximum production. It is a materialist doctrine that despises the American Indian spiritual tradition, our cultures, our lifeways. Marx himself called up "precapitalists" and "primitive." Precapitalist simply means that, in his view, we would eventually discover capitalism and become capitalists; we have always been economically retarded in Marxist terms. The only manner in which American Indian people could participate in a Marxist revolution would be to join the industrial system, to become factory workers, or "proletarians," as Marx called them. The man was very clear about the fact that his revolution could occur only through the struggle of the proletariat, that the existence of a massive industrial system is a precondition of a successful Marxist society.

I think there is a problem with language here. Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is a continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs.

So, in order for us to really join forces with Marxism, we American Indians would have to accept the national sacrifice of our homeland; we would have to commit cultural suicide and become industrialized and Europeanized.

At this point, I've got to stop and ask myself whether I'm being too harsh. Marxism has something of a history. Does this history bear out my observations? I look to the process of industrialization in the Soviet Union since 1920 and I see that these Marxists have done what it took the English Industrial Revolution 300 years to do; and the Marxists did it in 60 years. I see that the territory of the USSR used to contain a number of tribal peoples and they have been crushed to make way for the factories. The Soviets refer to this as "the National Question," the question of whether the tribal peoples had a right to exist as people; and they decided the tribal peoples were an acceptable sacrifice to industrial needs. I look to China and I see the same thing. I look to Vietnam and I see Marxists imposing an industrial order and rooting out the indigenous tribal mountain people.

I hear a leading Soviet scientist saying that when the uranium is exhausted, then alternatives will be found. I see the Vietnamese taking over a nuclear power plant abandoned by the U.S. military. Have they dismantled and destroyed it? No, they are using it. I see China exploding nuclear bombs, developing nuclear reactors, and preparing a space program in order to colonize and exploit the planets the same as the Europeans colonized and exploited this hemisphere. It's the same old song, but maybe with a faster tempo this time.

The statement of the Soviet scientists is very interesting. Does he know what this alternative energy source will be? No, he simply has faith. Science will find a way. I hear revolutionary Marxists saying that the destruction of the environment, pollution, and radiation will be controlled. And I see them act on their words. Do they know how these things will be controlled? No, they simply have faith. Science will find a way. Industrialization is fine and necessary. How do they know this? Faith. Science will find a way. Faith of this sort has always been known in Europe as religion. Science has become the new European religion for both capitalists and Marxists; they are truly inseparable; they are part and parcel of the same culture. So, in both theory and practice, Marxism demands that non-European peoples give up their values, their traditions, their cultural experience altogether. We will all be industrialized science addicts in a Marxist society.

I do not believe that capitalism itself is really responsible for the situation in which American Indians have been declared a national sacrifice. No, it is the European tradition; European culture itself is responsible. Marxism is just the latest continuation of this tradition, not a solution to it. To ally with Marxism is to ally with the very same forces that declare us an acceptable cost.

There is another way. There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the other American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. A lopsided emphasis on humans by humans - the European's arrogance of acting as though they were beyond the nature of all related things - can only result in a total disharmony and a readjustment which cuts arrogant humans down to size, gives them a taste of that reality beyond their grasp or control, and restores the harmony. There is no need for a revolutionary theory to bring this about; it's beyond human control. The nature peoples of this planet know this and so they do not theorize about it. Theory is an abstract; our knowledge is real.

Distilled to it's basic terms, European faith - including the new faith in science - equals a belief that man is God. Europe has always sought a Messiah, whether that be the man Jesus Christ or the man Karl Marx or the man Albert Einstein. American Indians know this to be truly absurd. Humans are the weakest of all creatures, so weak that other creatures are willing to give up their flesh that we may live. Humans are able to survive only though the exercise of rationality since they lack the abilities of other creatures to gain food through the use of fang and claw.

But rationality is a curse since it can cause human beings to forget the natural order of things in ways other creatures do not. A wolf never forgets his or her place in the natural order. American Indians can. Europeans almost always do. We pray our thanks to the deer, our relations, for allowing us their flesh to eat; Europeans simply take the flesh for granted and consider the deer inferior. After all, Europeans consider themselves godlike in their rationalism and science. God is the Supreme Being; all else must be inferior.

All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things will come full circle, back to where they started. That's revolution. And that's a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other indigenous peoples.

American Indians have been trying to explain this to Europeans for centuries. But, as I said earlier, Europeans have proven themselves unable to hear. The natural order will win out, and the offenders will die out, the way deer die when they offend the harmony by over-populating a given region. It's only a matter of time until what Europeans call "a major catastrophe of global proportions" will occur. It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don't want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That's revolution.

American Indians are still in touch with these realities - the prophecies, the traditions of our ancestors. We learn from the elders, from nature, from the powers. And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian people will survive; harmony will be reestablished. That's revolution.

At this point, perhaps I should be very clear about another matter, one which should already be clear as a result of what I've said. But confusion breeds easily these days, so I want to hammer home this point. When I use the term European, I'm not referring to a skin color or a particular genetic structure. What I'm referring to is a mind-set, a worldview that is a product of the development of European culture. Peoples are not genetically encoded to hold this outlook, they are acculturated to hold it. The same is true for American Indians or for the members of any other culture.

It is possible for an American Indian to share European values, a European worldview. We have a term for these people; we call them "apples" - red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Black have their "oreos;" Hispanos have "coconuts" and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I'm not sure what term should be applied to them other than "human beings."

What I'm putting out here is not a racial proposition but a cultural proposition. Those who ultimately advocate and defend the realities of European culture and its industrialism are my enemies. Those who resist it, who struggle against it, are my allies, the allies of American Indian people. And I don't give a damn what their skin color happens to be. Caucasian is the white term for the white race: European is an outlook I oppose.

The Vietnamese Communists are not exactly what you might consider genetic Caucasians, but they are now functioning as mental Europeans. The same holds true for the Chinese Communists, for Japanese capitalists or Bantu Catholics or Peter "MacDollar" down at the Navajo reservation or Dickie Wilson<http://www.dickshovel.com/Aim.Pine.html> up here at Pine Ridge. There is no racism involved in this, just an acknowledgment of the mind and spirit that make up culture.

In Marxist terms I suppose I'm a "cultural nationalist." I work first with my people, the traditional Lakota people, because we hold a common worldview and share an immediate struggle. Beyond this, I work with other traditional American Indian peoples, again because of a certain commonality in worldview and form of struggle. Beyond that, I work with anyone who has experience the colonial oppression of Europe and who resists its cultural and industrial totality. Obviously, this includes genetic Caucasians who struggle to resist the dominant norms of European culture. The Irish and the Basques come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

I work primarily with my own people, with my own community. Other people who hold non-European perspectives should do the same. I believe in the slogan, "Trust your brother's vision," although I'd like to add sisters in the bargain. I trust the community and the culturally based vision of all the races that naturally resist industrialization and human extinction. Clearly, individual whites can share in this, given only that they have reached the awareness that continuation of the industrial imperatives of Europe is not a vision, but species suicide. White is one of the sacred colors of the Lakota people - red, yellow, white and black. The four directions. The four seasons. The four period of life and aging. The four races of humanity. Mix red, yellow, white and black together and you get brown, the color of the fifth race. This is the natural order of things. It therefore seems natural to me to work with all races, each with it's own special meaning, identity and message.

But there is a peculiar behavior among most Caucasians. As soon as I become critical of Europe and its impact on other cultures, they become defensive. They begin to defend themselves. But I am not attacking them personally; I'm attacking Europe. In personalizing my observations on Europe they are personalizing European culture, identifying themselves with it. By defending themselves in this context, they are ultimately defending the death culture. This is a confusion which must be overcome, and it must be overcome in a hurry. None of us has energy to waste in such false struggles.

Caucasians have a more positive vision to offer humanity than European culture. I believe this. But in order to attain this vision it is necessary for Caucasians to step outside European culture - alongside the rest of humanity - to see Europe for what it is and what it does.

To cling to capitalism and Marxism and all the other "isms" is simply to remain within European culture. There is no avoiding this basic fact. As a fact, this constitutes a choice. Understand that the choice is based on culture, not race. Understand that to choose European culture and industrialism is to choose to be my enemy. And understand that the choice is yours, not mine. This leads me back to address those American Indians who are drifting through the universities, the city slums, and other European institutions. If you are there to learn to resist the oppressor in accordance with your traditional ways, so be it. I don't know how you manage to combine the two, but perhaps you will succeed. But retain your sense of reality. Beware of coming to believe the white world now offers solutions to the problems it confronts us with. Beware, too, of allowing the words of native people to be twisted to the advantage of our enemies. Europe invented the practice of turning words around on themselves. You need only look to the treaties between American Indian peoples and various European governments to know that this is true. Draw your strength from who you are.

A culture which regularly confuses revolution with continuation, which confuses science and religion, which confuses revolt with resistance, has nothing helpful to teach you and nothing to offer you as a way of life. Europeans have long since lost all touch with reality, if they ever were in touch with it. Feel sorry for them if you need to, but be comfortable with who you are as American Indians.

So, I suppose to conclude this, I would state clearly that leading anyone toward Marxism is the last thing on my mind. Marxism is as alien to my culture as capitalism and Christianity are. In fact, I can say I don't think I'm trying to lead anyone toward anything. To some extent I tried to be a "leader," in the sense that white media like to use that term, when the American Indian Movement was a young organization. This was a result of a confusion that I no longer have. You cannot be everything to everyone. I do not propose to be used in such a fashion by my enemies. I am not a leader. I am an Oglala Lakota patriot. This is all I want and all I need to be. And I am very comfortable with who I am.


[from Russell Means' rercent autobigraphy]