James Dobson RIC Quack Dies

Also proof that your ex is an empty cipher– aka, what is known as “psychopathic” in popular culture– is the sudden ideological switcheroo.

I’ve spent years untangling the “cipher” skein because, like your lawyer, I just don’t understand how they think and that makes me feel precariously unprepared to see them coming and ward them off.

I do understand that people can change their minds according to new information though. I’ve pretty much been the same person since I was tot but I had to learn like everyone else that institutions and causes can be flawed because they’re made up of fallible humans. Consequently, I’ve mistakenly supported organizations, candidates or pundits that maybe later turned out to be corrupt or effed up and I’ve withdrawn my support. Nevertheless, the principles and beliefs I thought I was supporting never change.

Meanwhile I’ve seen several criminally violent or generally dangerous Cluster B types try on and drop various ideologies and religious beliefs and it might seem like a similar process of changing one’s mind according to new information. But the big difference is that their process of believing and then disavowing does not seem to be based on any definable principle at all. Furthermore, even if their support or disavowal in favor of some other ideology, group, belief (or Schmoopie) is obviously blowing with the wind and opportunistic in some way, many seem to fanatically invest in whatever direction they’re veering at any given moment (born again one day, total atheist the next, etc.). So I suspect people like that don’t necessarily know they’re lying and opportunistically giving lip service to something they don’t deeply believe in.

Instead, I think they approach God or ideology or politics (or “wuv” for that matter) very much the way they once groveled for amnesty from (mirrored) whatever dangerous role model they internalized from childhood. It’s basically like a toxic, purposeful and almost willful form of Stockholm syndrome/captor bonding where they can only find equilibrium if they attach themselves to someone or some group representing power.

These types seem to prefer cuddling up to dangerous and abusive power though not always. I’ve worked for legitimate advocacy organizations that still drew in the occasional disordered dabbler but, when it turned out that the organization wasn’t hierarchical or cult-like enough (meaning there was no promise of being able to rise in rank and eventually attain absolute and abusive power over others), the dabblers would suddenly “unbelieve” in the cause and disavow themselves.

When I worked for an eco-watchdog organization that was heavily targeted by corporate villains like Monsanto, these unstable types could be very handy traitors and turncoats because, one day, they’d be twu believers and the next they’d be taking favors or cash under the table from industry and talking to the press about how the watchdog organization or the entire eco movement was anti-science or corrupt, etc.

But only some of these types were conscious “moles” who knew all along they were going to infiltrate and betray. The rest were just disturbingly “changeable.” And I think they’re like this because, growing up, the only safe position to be in was in the good graces of the scariest monkey in the room. And all abusive scary monkeys demand absolute and fanatical loyalty. Until another even scarier monkey comes along and the ciphers switch allegiance.

So if the political zeitgeist makes it seem advantageous to sound all groovy and egalitarian (and simultaneously disadvantageous not to sound that way), the Cluster B ciphers will throw themselves into that ideology with real commitment. But if the ideological and political climate suddenly shift, so too will they.

There was a name for the political form of flip-flopping in the 1930s and 40s: the “God that failed transition” for people who rejected Marxism and veered in the opposite direction.The disenchantment was probably largely organic at the start because of the horrible news coming out about Stalinist purges and gulags. But with McCarthyism, the transition from radical left to radical right became a lot more opportunistic.

Most political analysts assume this switcheroo was conscious and cynical but a lot of abuse survivors can probably attest how abusive personalities have this bizarre ability to make themselves believe or “unbelieve” almost anything and also seem immune to recognizing what the pattern of behavior means– which is that there could never have been any “there” there to begin with if they’re able to flop around that radically.

This seems very relevant to chumps because it puts the ILYBINILWY or “I never really loved you” transition into perspective. Not to make a case for political sides but it’s kind of like how the spineless former lefties who testified against friends and colleagues for McCarthy’s HUAC to save themselves would often claim to have been “tricked” or “coerced” into going to Marxist meetings or signing petitions even when this wasn’t true. Some of them might have been straight up cowards but I think many were disordered ideological hermit crabs who just fully invest in every new allegiance and belief and pretend they never invested in the conflicting former belief.

The way you know these people never really believed in any principle and never really loved anyone or anything was that, push came to shove, they were willing to betray others, which is FWittery in a nutshell.

Anyway, untangle, untangle, blah blah. I probably sound like I’m overcomplicating everything. But I’m convinced that if it were better understood that many abusers aren’t consciously “faking” love or commitment but simply fanatically invested in something until suddenly they aren’t, it would help exonerate victims who fell for the act. It’s not always that victims “ignored red flags” but the fact that the best lies are ones that are believed by the liar and that abusive personalities are pathologically “changeable” and can radically invest in conflicting beliefs with little warning or logic.

I’m also interested in the reasons why abusive personalities choose partners with integrity. I assume that it’s because, after being repeatedly burned by their own kind and seeing how other abusive freaks often come to bad ends, they’re experimenting with a different direction and seeking safe harbor among the “squares” for a change.

They may not be dirt common but I’ve known quite a few genuine male “allies,” including my dad which always makes the idea that it’s “man hating” to point out predatory and violent male behavior seem like total nonsense. My dad would probably even argue that it’s effectively “man-hating” to oppose feminism.

My dad would be considered a radical feminist even today because, long before Andrea Dworkin began agitating, he believed porn was a gateway to rape and domestic violence. He gave presentations for the NOW organization about misogynistic violence in school curriculum. A lot of it was pretty “SM” to be honest, like one primary reader he reviewed that featured the story of two boys playing pirate who kidnap a girl and tie her up.

As a “recovering Catholic,” this wasn’t about sin or religious concepts of women’s “purity” for my dad but just logical because porn is dehumanizing and the first step towards destroying another person is dehumanizing them. He also thought most men were missing the point that gender equality would benefit men more than anyone else. This is because his combat experience and growing up as a tough kid in urban gangland convinced him that there would be less war and less societal violence (which claims 8-fold more male victims than female) if women held equal power across all sectors of society.

He basically observed that it’s mostly boys being killed by domestic abuse, violent crime and war so that disempowering mothers weakens the main protection for children. Years later, there’s actual research backing up all my dad’s anecdotal impressions, including the fact that more egalitarian societies tend to be less violent and less warring. I don’t think the latter is based on women being always morally superior to men but that equality itself within any system or organization tends to promote more egalitarian types of both men and women and discourage domineering and self-serving behavior.