The term schizoidal declaration refers to the characteristic kind of expression that betrays the psychological worldview of the schizoidal psychopath. Such expressions can often be found in their statements and writings, and have been described by Andrew M. Lobaczewski as follows:
[Schizoidal psychopaths] are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.”
Ironically, normal people, when under the influence of schizoidal psychopaths and their twisted view of reality, will tend to fulfill such a view of human nature. Such open schizoidal declarations are apparent in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Thomas Hobbes, and various leading neoconservative intellectuals.
An openly formulated schizoidal declaration can be taken as a clear warning sign alerting a reader to the possible character of the author (though signs of schizoidia may also be subtler). Unfortunately, few are aware of this sign. In reading the materials produced by schizoidal authors – even when they contain open schizoidal declarations – most people approach them not as views of reality warped by a pathology, but as they would any ideas to consider.
Most readers who encounter such materials without being aware of their nature tend to either reject them (e.g. feeling moral disgust without being aware of the specific cause), or critically correct them. The latter means that they reinterpret the work according to their own nature, trivializing obvious errors and taking the material in the context of their own, richer psychological understanding. Such reinterpretations end up being more sensible and measured, but cannot become entirely free from the pathological influence of the authors.
A minority of readers, who themselves either have a psychopathology, or have been injured by social injustice, accept the material without creative reinterpretation. Depending on the individual factors, such a reader may accept the material as given – including any schizoidal declarations – or go even further in brutalizing its concepts to promote violent and revolutionary means. Such brutalizing interpretations are usually done by psychopaths and characteropaths.
With knowledge of schizoidal psychopathy and its characteristic signs, materials produced by such authors can be examined with more critical distance, allowing a more selective approach in considering their contents. Works such as those of Karl Marx can contain some valuable elements, though these need to be distinguished from the doctrine as a whole and its pathological deficiencies.
When reading any of those disturbingly divisive works, we should examine them carefully for any of these characteristic deficits, or even an openly formulated schizoid declaration. Such a process will enable us to gain a proper critical distance from the contents and make it easier to dig the potentially valuable elements out of the doctrinaire material. If this is done by two or more people who represent greatly divergent interpretations, their methods of perception will come closer together, and the causes of dissent will dissipate. Such a project might be attempted as a psychological experiment and for purposes of proper mental hygiene.