Tag Archives: psychopath

The Psychology of the UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is made up of five permanent members. The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain. These five countries are the most powerful countries in the world, in terms of economic might, military strength, including the fact that they are all nuclear powers, and geopolitical influence. Two of these countries – Britain and France – are former colonial powers, with vast empires that spanned large areas of the globe. The United States is the world’s richest country, followed closely by China. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and was, until the 90s, part of the Soviet Union. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, these five countries have immense powers, which include intervening militarily in any part of the world and vetoing anything they don’t agree with. You could say that these countries run the world. It is, therefore, in my opinion, imperative that we look at the psychology of these countries, because of the powerful place they hold in the running of planetary affairs. The rest of the world is held captive by the actions of these five countries, including their so-called ‘great power competition’ and their ability to veto all other countries of the world combined.

What do I mean when I talk about the psychology of these countries? It is an observable fact that countries have a national character, the same way human beings have an individual character. People who live in a country tend to behave in a certain way that is unique to that country. That is why whenever someone visits a country, they usually come out with an impression of how the people of that country are. The people themselves may or may not be aware of their national character, but visitors to the country often leave with an impression about the character of the inhabitants of the country. We often hear people comment that Kenyans are like this, Americans are like that, the French are like this, etc. Due to similarities in culture, language, education systems, beliefs, religion, etc, a country will have a national character that is observable by others. This is what I am referring to when I talk about the psychology of the UN Security Council. These are my impressions of the countries that make up the UN Security Council and how their psychology affects how they run the world.

The world is currently in chaos, and has been in chaos for a very long time. The UN Security Council seems to either be unable or unwilling to bring about the peace that most people on earth aspire to, even though this is supposed to be their core mandate. I think it is fair to say that the Security Council is exhibiting dark triad traits. Any rational person observing how the most powerful nations behave on the world stage will conclude that these countries are not mentally sound. Whether it’s through the exercise of their veto powers to oppose any attempts at peace-making, their military interventions that invariably make matters worse or their endless debates about the wording of some statement while the situation spirals out of control, the UN Security Council keeps proving time and time again that its members are of the dark triad.

For those who do not know what the dark triad is, it is a combination of three dark personality types – narcissism, psychopathy/sociopathy and Machiavellianism – in an individual or institution. I am expanding the definition to include an institution, in this case, the UN Security Council. These three personality disorders make up the dark triad, which is one of the most dangerous disorders a person can have. Each of these disorders on its own is bad enough. The combination of all three disorders in one individual or institution is a dangerous, destructive, and scary phenomenon that no one should ever have the misfortune to encounter in their lifetime. Unfortunately, all of us on the planet are subject to a dark triad institution in the form of the UN Security Council. This explains why, despite so much effort by so many institutions, including regional bodies, NGOs, humanitarian organisations, religious institutions, and the UN General Assembly, we never seem to achieve world peace. We always seem to default to war and chaos. The UN Security Council, the very institution that has the power to immediately end all wars and bring about the peaceful coexistence we all long for, seems to constantly dig us deeper into confrontations, wars and diplomatic failures.

The Psychopath

Psychopathy is characterised by superficial charm, manipulativeness, lack of empathy or guilt, impulsivity, and a fearless, high-risk-taking disposition. The United States is the psychopath of the UN Security Council. We see it all the time in how the US vetoes resolutions that would bring about peace, for example, in the case of the war in Gaza. We see it in the US’s resolute defense and support of Israel, even while Israel is being accused of genocide and its leaders wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. Clearly, the US believes it is above the law. We see this in the US refusal to be part of the ICC and its sanctioning of the judges who delivered an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We see their psychopathy in the way they keep the world supplied with weapons, even while presenting themselves as a force for good. They have no conscience and no empathy for the people they destroy. We see the US’s psychopathy in how they overthrow democratically elected governments and how they threaten to go to war with countries that refuse to submit, for example, in the recent case where Nigeria was threatened with invasion. We see it in their refusal to participate in global forums that do not bend to their will, for example, the recent COP30 and the G20. The US is so convinced of its superiority that it does not realise how its behaviour on the world stage comes across as embarrassing for a country that claims to be a superpower. Even the notion of a country being a superpower is an embarrassing, egotistical claim that a mature, rational country would never claim to be. The US’s psychopathy is also clear from its history of slavery and the racism that persists to this day. The Americans seem completely incapable of accepting that black people are equal to white people, the same way they are unable to accept that the US is equal to other countries.

The Sociopath

Sociopathy is characterised by a pervasive disregard for the rights of others, lack of empathy, and persistent rule-breaking. The condition is associated with a profound lack of conscience and can lead to difficulties in relationships, employment, and legal issues. The sociopath of the group is France. Unlike psychopathy, which is a genetic and biological disorder, sociopathy is a product of nurture. This means they are more likely to display antisocial behaviours, such as problems with the law and an inability to fit into society, whereas the psychopath is more adept at wearing a mask of sanity. France’s sociopathy can be seen from its history of slavery, its colonial past, and its neo-colonial present. France was known for its extreme brutality towards its enslaved and colonised people. The way France treated Haiti, for example, is particularly horrifying. France was known to be so brutal towards Haiti that new slaves coming to work in the sugar plantations would last a mere ten years before dying from the grim working conditions. When Haitians fought and won their freedom, the French took this with characteristic vengefulness. They forced the Haitians to compensate them for the loss of their ‘property’ (the slaves), a debt burden that has inflicted generational poverty upon Haiti that has persisted to this day. In their West African colonies, France was also known for its brutality, but it is the way they departed from the former colonies at independence that particularly stands out. With the same mafia-like vengefulness they displayed towards Haiti, France forced the West African countries to join Françafrique, which is the political, economic, military, and cultural networks that France has maintained with its former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa since independence, often described as a form of neocolonialism. When Guinea refused to join this grouping, which was supposedly voluntary, it was utterly destroyed and sabotaged by the departing French. For years after independence, France carried out almost non-stop military interventions in the former colonies to keep them in check. This level of lawlessness on the part of France can only be described as sociopathic. To this day, Françafrique has kept several West African countries under the control of France, although these chains are starting to weaken. France is not taking this new development well, with brutal attempts to hold on to this neo-colonial structure on display.

The Machiavellian

Machiavellianism is a personality trait characterised by manipulation, emotional coldness, and a cynical worldview, where individuals prioritise their own self-interest and use deceit or exploitation to achieve personal goals, often at the expense of others. The Machiavellian of the group is Britain. Despite its brutal colonial past spanning centuries and covering vast geographical regions of the planet, Britain still somehow manages to come across today as the paternalistic, benevolent benefactor of its former colonies. The commonwealth is an attempt by Britain to maintain control of its former colonies, without the nasty, neo-colonial overtones of France. It’s an attempt to look fatherly and concerned for the former colonies, a father figure wanting nothing more than the advancement of the former colonies. This is blatant deception, because Britain is only concerned with maintaining its control of the former colonies. Britain’s Machiavellianism can be observed from its monarchy, an institution that pretends to have no power or influence over what happens in the UK or the world, while pulling the strings in the background. It is a well-known fact that the monarchies of Europe started retreating into quasi democratic arrangements after the brutal overthrow of the French monarchy in 1789, out of fear that the same fate would befall them. In these new arrangements, power was supposedly held by democratically elected governments, while the monarchies only held ceremonial power. But we all know that this is not actually the case, but a Machiavellian deception of the masses. The monarchies still pull the strings in the background, and it is naïve of anyone to believe that they simply handed over power and accepted their new roles. The monarchies are, in reality, the puppet masters, while the governments are the puppets being controlled from behind the scenes. Britain has perfected the art of appearing to be one thing in public, while being something else entirely in the background. Let’s not forget that when Ukraine was about to arrive at a peace treaty with Russia, a few months after the war began, it was Britain that rushed to Ukraine and stopped the treaty from happening.

The Narcissist

Narcissism is defined as a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a need for excessive admiration, and a lack of empathy. Russia is the Narcissist of the UN Security Council. Russia has been engaged in a great power struggle with the West for as long as anyone can remember, and seems unable to define itself other than in relation to the West. They seem to constantly be trying to prove that they are as good as the West. Russia has been engaged in a passive-aggressive confrontation with the West since the days of the Cold War, which almost resulted in nuclear annihilation of the planet during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The entire war with Ukraine came about because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. While Russia seems to believe that this would be an existential threat, it’s not clear how Ukraine’s joining NATO would affect Russia. The idea that there must be a buffer zone between NATO countries and Russia shows a grandiose self-image on the part of Russia. The truth is, Ukraine joining NATO would be neither here nor there. But for a country steeped in grandiosity, this feels like a red line that must never be crossed, even to the point of going to a destructive war that has caused untold suffering not just to Ukraine but to the world. We are also seeing Russia’s narcissism in its passive-aggressive attempt to gain influence in Africa. It’s one thing to want to trade and cooperate with Africa from a genuine desire to advance mutual interests, but in the case of Russia, it is only doing this as a passive-aggressive, egotistical stance meant to goad the West. Russia’s inability to simply live its own life as an independent country, not at odds with anyone, exposes it for the narcissist it is.

The Sane one

This brings us to the final member of the UN Security Council, China. As far as I can tell, China is the only sane member of the UN Security Council. But unfortunately, China has a see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil attitude, which means it has failed to live up to its potential. China remains silent as the other members of the UN Security Council run amok, causing havoc everywhere they turn. China, in its dealings with most countries, refuses to take a moral stand, preferring to quietly trade without standing up for human rights. This is a failure on its part and a waste of its huge potential. When Israel started its genocidal campaign in Gaza, it was South Africa that brought a case to the ICJ. South Africa is still suffering today from the wrath of the Americans, who are staunch allies of Israel, through the false accusations of white farmer genocide, and the US boycott of the G20 meeting that was held in South Africa. China is powerful enough to stand up to any country on the globe, but this potential is going to waste. China also boasts of having lifted millions of people out of poverty, while a rich country like the US has people living in poverty, in a land of plenty. China has the moral authority that the US falsely claims to have. Not that China is perfect – we all know about its authoritarianism and the suppression of individual rights. But if there is a non-aggressive country that does not have a history of slavery or colonialism and is quietly working towards the economic uplifting of not only its own citizens but citizens of the world through its Belt and Road Initiative, it is China. China needs to step up, as the only sane member of the Security Council and as a respected partner of many countries in the global South.

Bonus: The Sadist

The dark triad is sometimes referred to as the dark tetrad when sadism is added to the mix. For purposes of my analysis of the UN Security Council, I used the dark triad because none of the members of the UN Security Council display sadism. But as a bonus, I am adding Israel to the list, a country that is not part of the UN Security Council but takes the sadism crown. Sadism is defined as the derivation of pleasure from the infliction of physical pain or psychological suffering on another person. It is characterised by a persistent and intense pattern of fantasies, urges, or behaviours involving the suffering of others. In Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, we see their sadism in full display. They seem to enjoy the suffering of the Palestinians, even going as far as randomly shooting and killing Palestinians who show up to collect food at humanitarian centres. Their sadism is displayed in their intentional killing of children, which has horrified the world. While killing is never a good thing, no matter who is killed, most people have an instinctive urge to protect children. Israel seems to deliberately target children to cause maximum psychological suffering not just on Palestinians, but the entire world that is constantly bombarded with news and images of the killings. We have seen Israel’s sadism in their denial of humanitarian aid to Palestinians, going as far as killing aid workers who are desperate to supply aid. What Israel is doing goes beyond war, which is horrifying enough. Israel seems to enjoy inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on others.

Conclusion

Now that we know that the forces that run our world are dark triad in nature, what can be done about this? The only way to stop such people is through raising the awareness of the public as to the evil nature of these dark triad institutions. The world right now is at a very low state of awareness, meaning that most people don’t see anything wrong with how the world is run. Most people don’t see anything unnatural about world leaders who scuttle peace efforts, who start wars and threaten to start wars, who exhibit inflated egos and believe themselves above the law, and who keep the world in never-ending chaos. When we start seeing that this is not normal, then we will stop remaining silent and start demanding change. It’s like growing up in a family where the parents are mentally ill. When you are young, you accept their unstable behaviour as just how things are, because that is all you have ever known. But when you grow up, and the true horror of your parents’ behaviour sinks in, you can finally break away from their control as you recognise how much chaos and suffering their mental illness has caused you. This is what needs to happen in the world. We need to start understanding that the chaos in the world is not accidental. It is being caused by individuals and institutions with dark triad personality disorder, and it is time we broke free from their control.

The System is Rigged to Favour the Most Aggressive Among Us

Leave a reply

The world we live in today is structured in such a way that the most aggressive among us always end up on top. According to Darwin, this is the natural order of things. Survival for the fittest. From politics to business to geopolitics to the workplace, the people who are willing to do anything to get ahead are the ones who ultimately end up winning. The ones who are the most relentless, persistent, aggressive, ruthless, cunning, willing to lie, cheat and bribe in pursuit of a goal are the ones who end up on top. The world rewards such behaviour. But if you think about it, is this the ultimate way for our world to be structured? Because let’s face it, who among us are the ones most likely to thrive in such an environment? Who are the most aggressive people among us? It’s the psychopaths! They are the ones who have no boundaries, no limits to what they’re willing to do, no pesky conscience to bother them in the pursuit of their goals and no empathy or guilt to prevent them from destroying anything or anyone who stands in their way.

Who are the most aggressive people among us? It’s the psychopaths! They are the ones who have no boundaries, no limits to what they’re willing to do, no pesky conscience to bother them in the pursuit of their goals and no empathy or guilt to prevent them from destroying anything or anyone who stands in their way.

When we hear the word psychopath, most of us immediately think of is the Ted Bundys and the Hitlers of this world i.e., murderers, rapists and the criminals of society. But today we know that psychopaths can be very high functioning individuals and can live their entire lives without being detected or called out for who they are. They are masters at creating convincing façades that hide the truth of who they are. While they spend most of their days dishing out emotional and psychological trauma to the people around them, they will nonetheless keep their psychopathy hidden behind charming personas and the image of success. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned to admire outward displays of success to the point that if someone is successful, we believe that they are worthy of admiration and emulation. And psychopaths can be among the most successful people due to their driven nature and single-minded focus on getting ahead. They are well represented among CEOs, politicians, lawyers, surgeons and business owners. You will also find them in professions we have been taught to revere such as policemen, the military and believe it or not, church leaders. Hence the kind of abuses you hear about in churches for example the paedophilia in the catholic church or the abuse of children in the Canadian residential schools.

How did we end up having a system that is rigged to favour psychopaths without us even being aware of it? First and foremost, psychopaths are the ones who have been writing the rule book. It is said that history is written by the winners and if the winners are psychopaths, then they will manipulate the narrative to suit themselves. So, for example, the imperialists who go out and conquer faraway lands and subdue people through brutal force become our heroes. The countries that take all the resources on the planet and leave everyone else starving and poor become the admired countries while the poorer countries are despised and blamed for the condition they are in. The billionaires who siphon all the wealth leaving everyone else to make do with the little that is left over are held up as the models of success that we should all strive to emulate.

Secondly, psychopathy is a condition that hides in plain sight because we are not trained to see it. Psychopaths have an outward, superficial charm that easily deceives most people. They are the people who tell the funniest and best stories and are fun to be around. But when you spend enough time with them, you start noticing that they are not really who they say they are. You will notice that their behaviour is not aligned with the way they portray themselves. You may notice how they bully people and emotionally abuse people and how they seem to induce fear in those working close to them. Psychopaths have an uncanny ability to abuse without the object of the abuse being aware that they are being abused. They may make you feel that you are special to them but suddenly turn on you and attack you. This causes your mind to go into denial because you cannot believe that the person you’ve come to trust could turn on you so ruthlessly. Psychopaths are also pathological liars. They will say one thing today and later completely change the story. They lie so much and change the story so much that they are not even able to keep up with the lies themselves. And so, their reality just keeps changing to become whatever is most convenient at the time. If confronted, they will just create a new version of events and the new version becomes the new reality. You can never win with them because their version of the story is the truth and that’s the end of the story.

Below are some ways in which psychopaths have managed to infiltrate the system and rig it in their favour allowing them to dominate the planet to the detriment of us all:

Politics

The political systems in most parts of the world are designed to favour the most aggressive, rewarding them for their ability to do whatever it takes to win, their ability to eliminate the competition, their ability to mount aggressive campaigns, their willingness to bribe voters, etc. Even in countries with so-called ‘mature’ democracies, the most aggressive people still manage to find their way in and rig the system in their favour. Money talks in politics and those who have the most of it can influence the outcome of elections. You end up with situations where people are manipulated into seeing themselves as being on one side of the divide in opposition to those on the other side. What they don’t see is that it doesn’t matter which side wins, the elites ultimately end up winning and everyone else loses. Voters are manipulated into thinking there are only two options and they must choose the lesser of two evils. We are manipulated into thinking that the obscure candidate who represents the kind of qualities we want is a loser not worth wasting our vote on. And so, we continue voting in the same aggressive types because we don’t see any other option. I think it would be better to abstain from voting than to vote for someone you don’t want just because they represent the lesser evil.

Business

Does profit have to be the only motive in business? We have been taught that profit and maximizing shareholder value is the only motive for business, but is this a sound idea? What is the result of this ideology? It’s what we see today, businesses mindlessly pursuing profits at the expense of integrity, the environment and their employees. People are viewed not as human beings but as human resources. Have you ever wondered where that idea came from? If you put human beings at the same level as capital or land and you see them as resources, then you have a right to treat them as a resource and not as human beings. You have a right to ruthlessly cut down on staff whenever the need arises to save on costs. You have a right to pay them as little as possible because it is none of your concern how they survive on the little you pay them. Your greatest concern is keeping as much as possible for the owners of the business. You don’t need to be concerned about what happens when they fall sick because you don’t need to think of a resource in such terms. You don’t need to concern yourself with what happens when they give birth. You don’t need to concern yourself with how they manage to get to work at 8 am every day and how they get home when they leave at 5 pm. You don’t need to care for them, you just need them to work and deliver the results you need. You view them as workers, not partners. But if you think about it, is it possible for a company to achieve anything without every employee doing whatever it is they are supposed to do? From the top person to the lowest-ranked person, everyone has to play their part for the business to run smoothly. If the cleaner doesn’t clean the office, can we work? Employees should be seen as partners, not as resources that are there to serve the owners who see themselves as the important ones.

Workplace

Starting from the point of recruitment, the system is completely rigged to favour the most aggressive. When we recruit, especially for leadership positions, we look for the most confident, outgoing personalities and we overlook the more gentle, reserved people as if they have less to offer. The person who can express himself or herself with confidence and charm easily finds their way into leadership positions. What about career advancement, who is the most advantaged? It’s the most aggressive and assertive people. The more willing you are to show off your achievements, flaunt your credentials and take credit for other people’s work, the more likely you are to climb up the corporate ladder. So, the system ends up supporting the most aggressive people and by the time you reach the top of the ladder, you find narcissists and psychopaths being very well represented. I think it should be possible to weed out narcissists and psychopaths from the very beginning of the recruitment process. There are psychological tests that are designed to detect these traits and these should be administered at the point of recruitment. Then you select out the most aggressive before they even come in through the door. Our processes for promoting staff should also be more discerning, not just looking for the most outspoken people and assuming they are the only ones capable of leading. Even that very soft-spoken, timid person given a chance and the right training would surprise everyone with just how capable they are to lead teams and add value to the organisation.

I think it should be possible to weed out narcissists and psychopaths from the very beginning of the recruitment process. There are psychological tests that are designed to detect these traits and these should be administered at the point of recruitment. Then you select out the most aggressive before they even come in through the door.

Geopolitics

The world is structured in such a way that some countries are extremely wealthy while others wallow in poverty. And it is accepted that this is just the way the world is and it can be no other way. The ones with the biggest weapons have a right to take all the resources on the planet and leave everyone else to scramble for the few remaining crumbs. The most developed countries have a right to forcefully change regimes and foment wars in the name of bringing democracy to the people. They have a right to do this while loudly condemning others for human rights abuses. They have a right to bomb other countries and call these ‘righteous strikes’ because everything they do can only be righteous. They have placed themselves in positions whereby they judge everyone else’s actions but no one can judge their actions. They have given themselves the monopoly of violence in the name of maintaining world order. Does it seem hypocritical that western nations consider it acceptable to have ever-increasing numbers of nuclear weapons but consider it a crisis when countries like Iran or North Korea acquire these weapons? What makes it okay for them to have nuclear weapons while everyone else is not allowed to have them? Is it because they are the most responsible and unlikely to start nuclear wars? No, the opposite is true; they are the ones continually starting wars in different parts of the world and therefore they are the last people anyone would want to have nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is simply mind-boggling.

Mainstream Media

What is the role of the mainstream media in rigging the system? It is to normalize all this. It is to report on all these things as if they are normal and that is just the way the world is. The media teaches us to be observers of events, not participants. We are taught to be passive consumers of news, never really looking too closely at what is happening or questioning what we are told or analysing things too deeply. We are given a certain worldview in which there are people out there who are the experts, who know what is happening and who are the deciders of what happens. The media divides the world into those who make the news happen and the rest of us who are the consumers of news. So, if for example, war breaks out somewhere, we are supposed to just assume someone somewhere had a good reason for deciding that the war should start. We don’t question this. We don’t ask what are the issues, why isn’t diplomacy being used, why do some countries have the power to veto things at the UN? This is the role of the media, to help you accept that the world created by psychopaths is normal and there is absolutely nothing to see here, just go back to your daily grind and let the important people make decisions on your behalf. The media also keeps us distracted while important things are happening on the world stage. They distract us with sports, entertainment, celebrity news, etc. We become the proles who concern ourselves with mundane things while big brother manages world affairs.

Education

Our education systems teach us from a very tender age that life is a competition and we should view others as our competitors. We are taught from a young age to see ourselves as competing with other people and this is done through exams and ranking systems and reward systems, etc. Our education systems program us to accept the idea that the person who wins is somehow better than everyone else and therefore deserves to be rewarded. This is called meritocracy, whereby you need to prove yourself worthy of the good things in life. In other words, just the fact that you are a human being does not qualify you to enjoy the good things in life. You have to prove your worth. Instead of education systems being places where our creativity is allowed to flow in whichever direction it wants to flow, we make it places where we have to prove our worth as human beings. So, we learn to aggressively pursue academic excellence as this is what guarantees that we will have the best lives afterwards. Instead of each person seeking to discover what makes them tick, what they enjoy doing, what they excel at, we have this competitive spirit out of which the most aggressive emerge as the best people. Everyone else then has to make do with second class lives because the system is already separating and weeding out the weak and rewarding the strong. Is this Darwin at work or is the system deliberately rigged to work this way? Is it survival for the fittest or is it the most aggressive creating a system in which they are the most likely to thrive? We need to question some of these very deeply held ideas and ask ourselves whether they are true or whether they have been made true by the ones who make the rules.

Hollywood

Hollywood plays a very important role in creating a reality in which the most aggressive people are the most admirable people. They portray an upside-down world in which the guy who goes shooting everyone in pursuit of something is to be admired. The cop who turns the city upside down, destroying property and killing people to catch the ‘bad guy’ is an admirable person. Soldiers who go to fight wars are heroes. The idea that we should thank soldiers for their service and give up our seats for them is presented as a valid idea. So, we learn to view things in an upside-down way, where wrong becomes right and right becomes wrong. Those who refuse to fight wars are cowards and wanting peace is a cowardly thing. And what about all the dystopian movies they keep churning out? Have you ever noticed that Hollywood never imagines a future in which the world is in a utopian state? It is always a future in which the world has been destroyed by some catastrophic event. It’s always a future where some people wallow in poverty while others exist in some technologically advanced state. Hollywood never seems capable of imagining a good future for humanity, it is always the worst possible vision of a dystopia that no one would ever want to exist in.

Could our world possibly be structured differently such that the system favours the majority who are just normal people trying to live their lives? I believe this is possible when we start to understand how the system is rigged against us by the minority. We need to reject the idea that human beings are inherently aggressive beings and that competing with each other is a normal state for us to be in. We can cooperate and create a world in which everyone thrives. There should be no need for anyone to have to prove their worth. If we could just see through the programming and change our mindset regarding how we exist with other people, then, we could surely end up in a world where the most aggressive could not possibly dominate and enslave the rest of us.