As We Feared: Trumpies Are Hopeless Brain-jacked Zombots- But WHY?

In the wake of Trump's ascension to power, many academics and others have been working overtime to try to explain how so many could fall for this character's codswallop to the extent of allowing him entry  to the most powerful position in the world. The race to understand has ramped up as Trumpies - as we call them - merely shrug their shoulders at multiple outrages, including: Trump's absurd cabinet picks, and especially the release of the declassified intelligence report on the hacking of the recent  election.

Many of us in the reality-based community feared that too many on the other side would yet again shrug shoulders, yelp 'sour grapes' or express contempt. We feared, and it now seems we are proven right, that this country truly is divided across perception lines which bodes ill for its future. Because a house divided against itself - certainly in terms of common perceptions - cannot stand.

A NY Times article from Sunday, exposed the mental, perceptual fault lines clearly, and showed Trump voters exist in a bubble of their own, devoid of historical or political insight.  One is also led to contemplate that their bubble excludes rational thought, though that may not mean they are of low IQ.

Work by Dr. Robert Altemeyer, for example, discloses a subset of humans he calls "right wing authoritarians" whose choices are largely driven by fear. Thus, they are largely immune to rational exchange and any digression from an authority template is violently rebuked, or dismissed. It is not lack of intellect that governs this but fear. Fear of the unknown, of the "liberal" (or Muslim) "other",  As one commentator on this blog has put it: "At heart, these people are afraid to the extent of cowardice and they will accept anything buttressing their conception of safety...no matter how ridiculous or absurd the prophylactic / remedial measure may be."

In a way this also dovetails with work by Erich Fromm on the  "Necrophilous personality".  Harvey Hornstein's profile of the necrotic personality (p. 41) is especially chilling ( 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression'):

"(These) intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are ill at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

The upshot from this is that their perceptions and political choices are skewed and distorted in much the same way Robert Altemeyer attributes to "right wing authoritarians". That is, they view the outside world  - economic and political - as "a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized" but also rejected if it doesn't comport with their Zeitgeist.

All of this is necessary to grasp the examples illustrated in the Times' piece. Let's look at a few of them, dealing with reaction to the declassified intelligence report (which I have also read and found compelling to the extent we have a national emergency on our hands):

"From the parts of the report I’ve seen,” said Rob Maness, a retired Air Force colonel who twice ran for Senate here as Tea Party favorite, “it seems silly.”

Silly? Really? That a foreign entity is intruding into our elections, something that would have elicited at least overt alarm in 95 percent of citizens even thirty years ago. But his remark shows the extent to which brains -minds have  evidently been twisted toward the authoritarian mindset, likely by decades of PR and propaganda that render them numb to reason, objectivity.

"There are genuine concerns about Russia’s cyberoperations", Maness said, but ""the notion that they changed the outcome of the election was absurd". (The report made no determination on how they affected the election, but this is not the same as Trump's claim that no affect on outcome was concluded.)

Of the comments he had seen from fellow Trump supporters on Facebook and in emails, he added, “90 percent of them are like, ‘What’s the big deal?’”

The Russians may have very well gotten involved, several people said. They added that kind of interference should be combatted. But many assumed that foreign actors had long tried to play favorites in American elections (NOT true) and that the United States had done the same in other countries’ elections (true, as with Chile in the 1970s, and Mossadegh in Iran, overthrown in 1953). 

A most disturbing theme that recurs is "Even if the Russians did do it what difference did it make?" 

And typically, many Trump voters did not need the Russians to make up their minds about Mrs. Clinton.  Hence, blaming her loss on the Russians was, as one Trump supporter said, “ just being sore losers.”

No reference (from the report) that the Russians had ALSO hacked the Republicans, but they simply didn't use what they found against that party.

Incredibly, even among those who were troubled by the hacks, few felt that Russia was a serious threat. That country was “a basket case,” (not true)  or not the powerful foe it once was (false, as they still have nearly 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S.), Others said that North Korea, the Islamic State and China were the real threats   A claim difficult to reconcile with the fact that Russia has more than five times the nuclear warheads and missiles as all these other entities combined.

That those on the political right seemed to be warming to Russia was not seen as a particularly unusual development to the Trumpies interviewed, though some joked about the incongruity of the left putting such faith in the Central Intelligence Agency..  This, of course, is a variant of the post hoc fallacy, that because the political left may have earlier had issues with the CIA (e.g. during the Church Committee (FISA) hearings of the 1970s) they must have issues in all later years.

Another form of dismissal pivots on Trump's personality, or what Trumpies are confident is his personality.

Thus, one woman insisted “Trump is Trump,” adding “Do I think he’s going to become more of a friend to Russia because of this? No I don’t. I think — I hope — his focus will be on making America great again.”

Again, this reflects the clouded judgment of a right wing authoritarian who is prepared to dismiss obvious character  faults (e.g. lack of impulse control)  in the interest of embracing a faint hope of national betterment ('making America great').

Perhaps the most disturbing reaction of all was this, in response to the issue of the Russians hacking actually affecting the electoral outcome:

“If that’s what it took, I’m glad they did it.”  In the words of one guy from Louisiana.

Sadly, his remark says all we need to know about how our nation is now in the grip of unreasoning authoritarian zombots, inhabiting their own bubble, to the detriment of the nation.

More On The Necrophilous Personality

The ultimate necrophilous personality: Adolf Hitler. His "mama's boy" complex made him necrotic.

We continue now to explore more of what Erich Fromm called the "Necrophilous personality" to try to understand what makes it tick. We owe it to Harvey Hornstein in his book 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Altruism and Aggression' for elaborating the internal dynamics of this personality and also tying it inextricably to conservative and authoritarian tendencies. For example, noting on page 40 that "conservatives have much greater social responsibility to others of their own kind, than to those different from themselves."


This aspect of negative social exclusivity  is also why you can immediately recognize the necrotic person by his putdowns of all those he considers inferior or weaker than himself.  In most cases he will assert his type is invariably "stronger", "tougher", "more moral", more "law abiding",  "more patriotic" than those "hippies", "libtards", "black apes", "homos", "c*nts", "ragheads", "gooks"  etc.  Look for the model necrotic in Adolf Hitler, who - when Operation Barbarossa began to falter  (because the supply lines were over extended during the Russian winter), resorted to insulting the manhood of his generals,  ordering them not to retreat under any circumstances. Hitler, as Hornstein noted, was actually a "muttersohnchen" ("mama's boy")  though he postured a tough, authoritarian, no nonsense bravado. But he could afford to because it wasn't his life on the line, like those of the Wehrmacht troops starving while on the march in the Soviet Union.


 But where does the hatred present in the present day necrotics'  blogs and images come from? What sort of interior viper's nest hatches them? Hornstein cites (p. 41) Gordon Allport:

"Hate results from the mishandling of frustration and deprivation that have been allowed to disintegrate the very core of the ego. If this view is correct, the development of mature democratic personalities is largely a matter of building inner security. "

  Note what he is getting at here: that there is in this person's life a certain amount of frustration (maybe he's waiting for S.S. disability or something - but hasn't received it) and considers this like a personal deprivation, limiting him maybe to a tight budget and food stamps - when he'd prefer not to go that route. This ongoing deprivation and frustration then triggers an inner rage manifested say in his putdowns and hate scribblings, but which really represents a disintegration of the ego.

 In other words, his self-identity, who he thinks he is. In this light - when ego disintegrates- it's also interesting to see that past behaviors become undone and are no longer practiced, while more virulent ones are. Thus, for example, prior to the ego disintegration he may have been a more or less a religious person: quoting the Bible,  invoking Jesus, God or whatever, but now no longer does so. Indeed, his sermonizing is now replaced by steady hate and more f-bombs and insults per paragraph than Dennis Leary could deliver in a one night monologue. Most unusual, he isn't aware himself of how his persona has toxically mutated - but on reading Hornstein and Fromm we understand that the "worm" was hidden in the core of the apple, rotting it from the inside, all along.  Most of it stemming from an unresolved Oedipus complex.

Hornstein's profile of the necrotic personality (p. 41) is especially chilling:

"(These) intolerant, prejudiced, authoritarian people are ill at ease. The baggage of their youth is filled with inescapable hates and fears. Mistrusting their own impulses, they are wary of others and the impulses they might possess. Their world becomes a jungle which must be carefully scrutinized because it is filled with human beings who harbor the 'evil' that they painfully learned to deny in themselves."

He goes on to note that "socially inclusive people are different". For example, they are more likely to join the Peace Corps for the edification of their fellow man in a constructive social environment, than to  join the military, say to learn the black arts of assassination, at Ft. Bragg, NC or the US Army's 'School of the Americas' (assassin) school in Ft. Benning, Georgia.

The hardened necrotics are also more likely to put down the socially inclusive persons as "fairies", "sissies", or some other  masculine denigrating epithet when they - more than likely (from the psych profiles Hornstein notes) can't get it up, period, so have to use guns as penis substitutes. As comedian George Carlin once put it, in a 1992 appearance at NYC Beacon Theater: "What's a war anyway other than two nations trying to see who has the bigger dick, by firing dick-shaped objects at each other!"

Why are socially inclusive people more likely to join Peace Corps? Well, as Hornstein puts it (ibid.) they are: "more tolerant of differences, so bonds of WE are more prevalent than barriers of THEY." I mean think of it. The fact the PC volunteer is going to another country - much less developed and with people that likely look much different, including skin color- means one must fit this sort of tolerant profile in order to make it, whether in Barbados, the Phillippines or Africa. Hornstein solidifies this case by observing that:

"A steady stream of evidence has tied persoality traits associated with this behavior (tolerance- open to 'WE' bonds) and social orientation to selfless behavior."

On the other hand, a necrotic, who has to look over his shoulder every ten seconds because he distrusts everyone and isn't secure in his own person - is lost without his  substitute penis Glock-  would never make it. He'd wash out the first week, or first day. The socially exclusive  necrotic is just too aggressive, ready to punch someone out at the slightest provocation, to be of use either in socially constructive volunteering (soup kitchens, Peace Corps, Teach for America, Homeless shelters) or fulfilling the duty of democratically mature citizens, and hence improving the country by making it a more tolerant place.

But this is where the  "democratic maturity" of citizens noted by Allport comes in. If we have only necrophilous personalities then we will have immature and aggressive societies and nations.  We will also have immature politicians and leaders more inclined to solve difficult problems by military response than mature state craft.  We have to be prepared to pull more people into our orbits than the necrotics can get into theirs. Unless we prefer a nation replete with serial killers, war mongers and psychotics.

Are Some People Destined to Be HATERS? It Seems So!

Image put up on a hater's blog some time after Obama was re-elected.

The issue of people who compulsively hate, everything and virtually everyone (including family members, siblings, relatives) is a puzzle that has confounded psychology for many decades. Why is it some people are loving and nurturing almost from birth, and others are terrifyingly hateful - spewing venom and invective with almost every communication?

It appears Scientists believe they've discovered the answer to one of the questions that has plagued societies for millenia: Are haters gonna hate? Researchers have shown that indeed some people have a disposition to hate everything.

But this isn't really that novel, and Harvey A. Hornstein in his monograph: 'Cruelty & Kindness: A New Look At Aggression and Altruism' revealed the psychological basis for compulsive hatred more than three decades ago. He actually tied it to a very specific character profile.

Hornstein' research exposed what he called the "necrophilious character" - basically a lover of death, war, fighting and mayhem. He relishes death, dead bodies, broken limbs and worships any act that engenders them from war to mass shootings. He prides himself on a false machismo and often may have had military service, but oddly not on any front lines, more in the back - say as a cook or supply person. But that doesn't seem to matter. He proudly declares himself a "real man" (not any "sissy") because he has been near to death and isn't afraid. By his narrative he'd have you believe he'd have slaughtered all the Viet Cong single-handedly if he'd had the chance.

In truth, he loves the necrotic. As Hornstein put it (p. 34):

"They are passionately attracted to all that is harsh, dead, and decaying - and have a desire to transform that which is alive to that which is not alive."

They also detest with a passion anyone who is "biophilous" (a lover of life and service, volunteering etc) because they are seen to be "weaker" compared to the sort of people they admire: the cruel, the merciless, the heartless, the racially bigoted, and  the overall intolerant  (of "ragheads", "gooks", "apes", "homos", women - dissed as "c*nts" - and anyone else too different from themselves. This led Erich Fromm, for example, to classify humans into two groups: the biophils and necrophils. The former would tend to a constructive bent and go into professions that are life affirming, including teaching, medicine and the like. If they serve they'd choose a non-militaristic form such as Peace Corps. The latter would go into forms of work that often demean or demean others: prison guards, military and the like or sign on as torturers, say to waterboard prisoners or rendition them.

The most hateful and necrophilous characters chose to destroy only for the sake of destruction and became like the recently convicted Sgt. Robert Bales -  who massacred innocent Afghan women and children - or a mass killer like Andrew Brevik, or a serial killer, say like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

Hornstein went on to point out (ibid.) that these necrophilious people - since they detested altruism, benevolence and concern for others - would never volunteer for anything life affirming  -whether Peace Corps, or even helping out at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen. In fact, because of their hatred, they'd rather see anyone they regarded as inferior or non-human as dead.  More likely, they'd volunteer to drop bombs on hapless civilians in foreign lands, or as Bill Maher once put it: "blow up any country with too many brown, black or yellow people". Then, on coming home, they'd pound their chests and declare themselves "patriots".

Early childhood experience, according to Hornstein, often also imprints its permanent necrophil character mark. For example,  if as a child the vulnerable little person was battered, paddled or strapped, he'd likely absorb the hatred perceived in the authoritarian disciplinarian and begin to adopt the authoritarian bearing himself. This bearing and attitude would then  be displayed as hatred toward anyone viewed to "need discipline" such as: free thinkers, hippies, women's liberation proponents,  civic protestors, MJ smokers (or just MJ law proponents) or anyone prepared to use their own minds as opposed to merely following orders.

The worst case would be for the more formative necrophil to find himself in a situation where either he was subjected to constant abuse (say in a military boot camp) or he assumed authority to mete it out on others.

Hornstein, alas, saw no way out for these haters because in the end  their only putative solution, love, was also denied to them. They saw everyone only as an enemy, except maybe their closest family members.  According to both Hornstein and Fromm, until love and tolerance entered the lives of haters, human hatred would remain an inescapable part of human life.