Sociopaths / Psychopaths

But of course, Zook. dinz8 Sociopathy and empathy are just delusory mind control programs written by the banksters. Thank you for that profound wisdom. We can all go home now and contemplate our navel lint.

Everyone should de-construct Zook's deceptive reasoning in his opening paragraph to understand how sociopaths trick us. First, his premises are false.

• Morality comes from the environment (say what?!)
• Individuals have no morality, only groups do (WTF?)

His argumentative technique uses the common NLP technique of stating empty "truisms".

• Every baby is born
• A baby's empathy does not exist until the baby exists
• The environment exists with or without the newborn

His logic is ridiculous.

• Individuals can possess both empathy and morality, but groups of individuals cannot.

As a result, his conclusion is BS.

• The reality is that morality (the environment) always precedes empathy (the expression).

Good start, Zook. I have a feeling you are going to teach us a great deal about sociopaths.

 

Every baby is born into an environment from which it develops its morality. But if empathy is rooted in the baby to be developed later, then it does not exist without the baby existing first. However, the environment exists with or without the newborn. And the environment does contain morality, e.g. the societal mores. The mores are an attribute of the collective. Empathy is an attribute of the individual. IOW, a group only possesses morality; it does not possess empathy. By contrast, an individual can possess both, morality (programmed into the individual) and empathy (expressed by the individual). Question begs, because a program must exist before it can be expressed, then how can the expression (empathy) precede the program (morality)? Anser: it can't. That self-contradiction is the logical consequence of Chico's statement. The reality is that morality (the environment) always precedes empathy (the expression).

I'm going to use great self- restraint here and ignore Chico's baiting tactic of calling (or inferring) that his opponents are sociopaths. If I want to bash Chico, I would do so effortlessly at his own forum because that forum has lost purpose and has become Chico's personal den of sorts. I'd really like to explore the topic of sociopathy and expose the paucity of science that is involved in it. The paucity is not just limited to Chico's knowledge of the subject area ... but extends to the larger discipline that is being promoted recklessly by mainstream psychologists.

The actual displacement of the normal mind is being actively pursued by design by the social engineers of the bankster empire. From academia to the marketplace, the discipline of psychology - with its new poster children empathy and sociopathy - is being funded by this empire so that is can (falsely) explain the displacements wrought by its own social engineering.

But the human condition and the greatest students of it - the great writers with an eye for observation - had already given us great insights into the good and the bad ... in the literature from time immemorial. These prescient pre-discipline practicing psychologists had long ago exposed us to the behaviors that delineate and constitute empaths and sociopaths. Only, the terminology was simple and less misleading when the writers exposed it. The empaths were known as good seeds, white sheep, the unselfish, altruists, etc.. The sociopaths were known as bad seeds, bad sheeps, the selfish, misers, etc. Of course, those terms have become stale and no longer sufficient for the task of falsely explaining the ideological subversion being attempted against the masses by the bankster empire via the extensive social programming and drugging protocols (e.g. drugs, alcohol, constant stimulation of sex and violence chemistries, etc.). To wit, the empire needed fresh terms. Not only do the terms empathy and sociopathy create a fresh vocabulary to describe the fresh phenomenon rendered by the designed programming (relatively-speaking) ... for the Rothschild-engined bankster empire has been with us for over 250 years and subverting the masses under its control for at least half as long ... but they have financed a new industry, e.g. popular psychology, the merits of which begin and end with the fiscal bottom lines of the banking and publishing houses. Of course, a brave new world of eugenics labs and research clinics have sprouted in this milieu of subversion, soft science, and softened minds. And these labs and clinics are tasked with isolating genes purported to be out of whack in sociopaths and in normalcy in empaths. How many decades before an actual mapping is made is anybody's guess. But the social programmers and their softened charges are quick to tell you that we are already almost invariably about to be there ... then again, the lobotomy labs of earlier medicine were claiming the forefront of things in their time as well.

Meanwhile, business as usual.

Pax

ps: I'm going to ignore the rest of Chico's messenger-oriented remarks for the good sake of this forum. I'd like to use Rose's forum to educate - and to get educated myself - on facts, rational arguments, and ideas; and not get bogged down in personality conflicts, if that's possible.

ps2: That said, if anyone wants to see me reducing Chico's arguments in a less diplomatic manner, you'll find what you're looking for at Chico's forum (United People).

 

Good question. An even better one is: How would you word it?

 

The next video that came up for me, after I watched the "Charles" satire, was this one:


project avalon - my opinion


She seems to have gotten the notion, in short order, that this "Charles" character is a psychopath. I wonder what possessed her to come to that conclusion so quickly? Even worse, I wonder why it took me so long to do the same thing!

 

Remember this?

Even more specifically, I am here to explore and address the problem of sociopaths among us. The question is, do you want this? Dealing with sociopaths is uncomfortable, even painful. "No pain, no gain." I can maybe lead a horse to water, but I certainly can't make it drink. How thirsty is this forum? Humans have a terrible tendency to choose comfort over truth. Sociopaths use this tendency to deceive and manipulate us with ease. Do we want this to change? I do, but that is not enough. It will take many of us, and we will have to do something we have never done before. We will have to unite behind this one purpose.

Zook is here to make friends, gain followers, and seduce enemies (or crush them). So is Shezbeth. So was Stephen. In other words, sociopaths are here to deceive and manipulate. It's what they do. They cannot help but do that. It's in their psychology. I am not here to do as they do. I am here to explore and address the problem of sociopaths among us.

The question is, do you want this?

 

Sorry, Zook, but you've got it backwards, as usual. Without empathy, morality is not a consideration. That is the case for all sociopaths. You should know.

You are as obfuscating and long-winded as ever, Zook, with just as much content as a box lightly filled with shredded paper. Doing a little suck-up in the new forum to ease yourself into the good graces of the "good folk"? I know you, Zook. I see what you are doing, and what you are preparing.

Everyone should be aware that Zook is the resident Shezbeth at United People. He's been exposed as a sociopath many times there, and suspended four times from the forum. It is all recorded there. Because of that, he incessantly seeks to reset "the game" with me, hoping to eke out a win. His purpose in following me here is exactly that, which he believes will erase the mark of being identified as a sociopath, a mark that I am blamed for. Isn't that ironic? It's exactly how a sociopath thinks.

Zook is two-faced exactly like his avatar picture, a charming but dangerous George W. Bush. He will be trying to form a coalition with Shezbeth (or someone similar), because, as Zook sees it, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I am not opposed to this, as Zook doesn't have the resources on his own to dominate Chicodoodoo. Neither does Shezbeth, so an alliance is only natural. It doesn't change the truth, however, about who is sociopathic and who is not.

I want the people of this forum to be aware of what is happening and what is going to happen. I apologize for this situation, and I am prepared to leave the forum should the membership feel this kind of conflict is unwelcome. You all know from dealing with Stephen/Houdini that sociopaths stir up outrageous drama and confusion. You've only recently been freed of that, and now I am somewhat responsible for bringing in another one. Zook is not anywhere near as bad as Stephen. He is more along the lines of a Shezbeth. He can be very likeable. Shezbeth recently tried to discredit me by pointing out that I have two "friends" that are sociopaths. Actually, I have more. Zook is one of them.

 

No further detail is required to understand the sociopathic nature of Machiavelli's advice. The advice is as sociopathic when given to a prince as it would be if given to a pauper. There is no narrative that comes to mind that can neutralize the implicit sociopathy in his statements. Machiavelli basiically endorses the ends for all circumstances ... and that makes his an amoral consideration. Amoral, not immoral. Alas, without morality as a consideration, there can be no empathy.

Nothing personal taken.

The most benign of princes are still managed by less than benign men. If the prince steps out of this arrangement, he will be dethroned in quick fashion. That is the reality of monarchy. The structure of monarchy requires fangs to keep at bay potential threats to the throne. If the prince himself is a lamb and without fangs, as it were, then the security function propping up the formal throne is delegated to those that do possess fangs. So in the end it doesn't matter if the prince himself is benign and dedicates his rule for the good of the subjects ... the monarchical structure is still being defended by men whose ambitions are their own and not so aligned with the prince's dedication for the good of the subjects.

In this context, Machiavelli is advising for the survival of the monarchical structure and not so much the prince's survival.
But to the extent that he is indeed advising the prince on his own survival inside the structure, Machiavelli is telling the lamb to adopt fangs. Indeed, the prince is just a formal head for the functional potentates, e.g. the keepers of the treasure.

That said, Machiavelli's advice contains no accommodation for goodness (or even badness). It is completely rooted in utility. The acquisition of the ends, as it were; equally, the deposition/exclusion of the means. As such, it is devoid of empathy.

Which invites the next question, is the absence of empathy, an indication of sociopathy? I would argue that robots (completely utilitarian) are sociopathic because they execute algorithms without fuzzy logic. The parameters of morality
are not found in robots. If a robot is programmed to kill ... it will kill without burning its circuits over concerns over morality. Zero empathy. Similarly, the absence of empathy in organic beings, IMO, necessarily makes them organic robots. And these buggers will kill on command. So yes, in my philosophy, where empathy is absent there is sociopathy ... with robots being passive amoral sociopaths, to be contrasted with the more dangerous active immoral sociopaths.

Machiavelli's advice contains no provision for empathy; ergo, it is sociopathic. Just exactly how sociopathic is a question of degree. From robotic sociopathy carried by programmed minds ... to manipulative sociopathy carried by programming minds. Moreover, because the monarchichal structure is sociopathic (here, the jungle paradigm from which monarchy erects is indeed sociopathic under progressive meme inspection) ... it really doesn't matter what the intent of the prince is ... whether for the good of the subjects, for the bad of the subjects, or an indifference for the subjects. The mere arrangement of ruler and subjects is offensive to modern progressive memes.

To which I am reminded of the saying , you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ears. Monarchy is a governance construction originally erected in primitive times under primitive circumstances (kill or be killed)... and even the most benign people representing monarchy cannot make it any less primitive than it is. Here, primitive and sociopathic are interchangeable.

It does not matter who this putative power is serving, the Self, the nonSelf, or both ... a bird in a golden cage with all the privlieges of the cage is still a prisoner.

The logical consequences of "as necessity requires" ... is that the ends (e.g. the state function) are the only thing being considered by Machiavelli. The means (e.g. the path function) is being trivialized, if not completely divorced from critical examination.

Which means that Machiavelli is advising for the maintenance of power at all costs, and he is merely placating the potential anxieties of a putative lambwool prince (e.g. whose empathy might override the ability of his backers to maintain the incumbent power) ... by not explicitly eliminating the subject's interests from consideration. It really does not matter even if Machiavelli had explicitly mentioned the greater good and/or the need to find the lesser of two evils for the benefit of the greater good ... his advice is simple ... do as necessity requires (to maintain power).

Such advice does not actually carry empathy ... and mere promises of future empathy don't count ... for any proposed empathy in the benefit of the greater good cannot be measured ahead of time and credited against the sociopathy required in real time. To wit, the prince cannot promise something that he has no power over; and gambling using "greater good" as currency is closer to the norm of sociopathy than to the norm of empathy. IMO.

True enough. Practicality is mostly if not all about the state, e.g. the ends. Morality invariably infuses idealism into the equation, and alters the path of critical thinking.

Fair enough, Shez. That said, I usually give my debate opponents plenty of explanation, and that requires much more ink than what the rubber can hold or imprint in its stampings.

eepipe


Pax

 

First, you finally admit that we must expose sociopaths.

Then you claim it's bad manners for me to do so:

Then you treat us to your own impeccable etiquette.

Let's see -- duplicity, hypocrisy, accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance, arrogance, no shame, blames others -- and you want us to believe that you are not a sociopath?

As you are fond of saying, good luck with that!

 

Uhm,... what do you expect a person to say exactly? I mean what do you really expect a person - who has a not insignificant psychological experience/education - to interpret from your manner? You burst on the scene throwing out allegations of (known and alleged) sociopaths with an ill temper and poor ettiquette,... just as you have said of other people, that fits the bill of a sociopath.

You know what, fuck it.

 

Sociopaths dominate the positions of power and control far in excess of their proportion in the general population. They may be 4% of the overall population, but at the highest levels of human hierarchy, they may make up 96% of that elite group. As far as I can tell, it has been like this throughout recorded history. So unless we find a way to change this disastrous anomaly, where the worst among us lead us, humanity is stuck in a deep pit and will never reach even a fraction of its potential.

This is a change we can make, however, and we could make it very quickly if only non-sociopaths would unite behind the idea and work even moderately to make it happen. Sociopaths already work quite hard to ensure that it never happens. They do this by keeping us distracted and divided so that we will not unite. That's the game they play and that's how they define winning. It's a win for them, but a crippling cancer for the rest of humanity. And it takes empathy to see that, which sociopaths don't have.

 

As a non-sociopath, I would still make the same arguments as I do now, regardless of the ratio. But if I was outnumbered 50 to 1 by sociopaths, my arguments would have no moral legitimacy in the eyes of the majority. As a sociopath, you would still argue for the validity of The 48 Laws of Power, and you would now have the moral high ground as seen by the majority. This is because morality and the concepts of right and wrong are subjective, as I stated earlier.

It's a disturbing realization, but it is supported by the reality of the natural world we see around us.

 

It is difficult to estimate the proportion of sociopaths in the general population. We don't even have a generally available and definitive way to identify sociopaths! I wish we did so I could stop talking about them, to be honest. I'm so tired of their lying protests -- "I'm not a sociopath! I know what I am! I've been tested! You're the sociopath! You don't know anything about sociopaths!" Etc. Just queue up any of Shezbeth's or Zook's posts to me for more examples.

The figures I have seen in my research range from 0.5% to 6%. I tend to use 2% as a working average. An early influence in my research, Andrew Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology, arrived at a similar number based on the thousands of cases his group of psychologists studied. But the number could easily be higher. If you include "almost" or border-line sociopaths, the percentage climbs to an estimated 24%! In that case, the non-sociopaths would outnumber the sociopathic by only 3 to 1.

We know the true controllers are often referred to as the 1%. It may be that this "woo woo" number feels right for a very good reason. This may be the percentage of the general population that is sociopathic, truly dangerous, and damages humanity the most.

 

Not at all, but recognize the source of the problem; if 'we' isn't in that equation - as bearing responsibility that can/should be addressed first/foremost (IMO) - then one ends up spinning in circles. Unlike the woman in the movie, we as individuals need to be able to stand up and stand up for ourselves.

This means understanding sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, OCD, ADHD, ASD,... the whole spectrum (pick your term; they're all ninjas in my book), but with not only a critical eye/mindset but also with a mind of resource applicability and proactive potential. If the world IS to change along the lines that you describe, it is NOT going to occur WITHOUT the assistance of all of the above 'disorders', etc. Sociopaths in particular make up some of the most influential, powerful, significant, etc. people in history, and will continue to do so until at least the end of our lifetime, no matter 'how hard one works'.

 

Well,... uhm,... good luck with that.

I would empower those who are inevitably and inescapably stuck within it to achieve a measure of efficacy.

To you and those who would claim that "If only sociopaths weren't,...." or "If only the world wasn't the way it was,....

 

Ha! Ask my teachers how effective giving me 'assignments' is! I had one (quite right too) accuse me of calculating how many assignments I had to do (and more importantly, which/how many I DIDN'T) and still pass the class.

I will consider the assignment if I am allowed to refer to the other as 'Master Doodoo'.

Also, I'd like to point out that while reading my writing can give some ideas, if you think that you can understand me, my motives, interests, proclivities, etc. just by studying internet content,... well good luck with that.

P.S. Yes, yes, Chico, we all know that I'm becoming increasingly transparent to you and those with a sufficient level of discernment,....
P.P.S. Thanks for the link to ur forum. This is hilarious! ... Oh dear god, I'm agreeing with Master Doodoo!

 

If you want to know more about Shezbeth, read his posts. That's what I did. His Me in Metaphysics thread is quite revealing, even if you are initially unaware (as I was) of Shezbeth's orientation towards duplicity, i.e. lying. Read his posts at Avalon from five years ago in the The 48 Laws of Power thread, where I also posted. To learn about me, do the same -- read my posts. There are literally thousands and thousands of them (many of them here). Rose can also point you to more, as can Zook. You'll get far more from my posts than you would from an essay on how I spend my summer vacations (and I don't do summer vacations).

I understand what you are asking for -- answers without the work. It's what we all want. It's why many of us watch CNN, Fox News, and other infotainment channels, unaware of their orientation towards duplicity, i.e. lying. The answers you get without working are of little value. In fact, they have negative value.

You are also looking for entertainment. Who doesn't look for entertainment? 2000 years ago, the Roman circuses are said to have entertained tens of thousands with battle and slaughter of the most captivating kind. That too had negative value, but they were the Internet forums of that era.

In another example of notable synchronicity, I watched the following video right after I read your post. I'm watching the entire Spirit Science series after it was recommended to me by my daughter, and this was the next one in my queue. It aligns quite nicely with my view on the debunkers I often face, Shezbeth being the latest, and Zook being the most insidious.

The answers and entertainment we all seek are right in front of us all of the time; we just don't see them.



SS Mailbag 2 ~ Debunker Showdown

 

When you slice it that way, yes it certainly appears sociopathic, but that alludes to the lack of detail applied to the analysis (nothing personal Zook).

Machiavelli was advising a Principle (person in power) how to amass/maintain power. This is crucial for a Principle, and if one looks at it solely on the basis of 'power management', then yes a 'sociopathic' assessment is inevitable.

Why does a Principle amass power? Is it for selfish gain? Is it to more stably ensure the development of their feifdom? Is it both?

The common misconception WRT power is that it is entirely self-serving, which is absolutely ludicrous. Surely power IS self-serving, but it is also emphatically other-serving.

What's more, he never advises 'kicking conscience to the curb', rather he advises that in being a Principle (who tends to their own needs as well as the people's; we're talking Renaissance here) there are unpleasantries that are inevitable if one seeks to see to their own AND their subject's interests. Hence, "the situation" (gravity, scope, etc.) will determine the appropriate response, rather than personal bias, preconviction, idealism, etc.

It is an advisement to pursue and develop practicality and pragmatism above idealism.

But then, most of the things I put forward like this are returned with a "Sociopathic/Evil!" stamp on them,....

 

That's an interesting quote from Machiavelli, and an even more interesting question about its possible sociopathic nature.

Yes, IMO, the passage is sociopathic. To be specific, the sociopathic nature hinges on one phrase: "wants to keep his authority".

In my experience, I find that sociopaths (here, I will interchangeably refer to them as bad seeds) need a power relation with other human beings. Absent this power relation, they are largely indistinguishable from empaths, although they can still be marginally distinguished by their intense expressions of behaviors that we all share (in some measure).

What Machiavelli advises ... is indeed sociopathic precisely because he is attempting to inform the individual (a prince in this case) that in order to preserve power, the prince must behave without conscience. But conscience is the essence of empathy. Machiavelli effectively advises the prince to ignore empathy. No genuinely empathic message would ever advise an empath to ignore the very stuff that defines it: empathy.

Transfer down to the common man, this advice remains sociopathic because it informs the ends and ignores the means. The means, alas, are front and center in the demarcation between empathy and sociopathy.

Machiavelli's remark "as necessity requires" ... effectively sides with the ends, and abandons consideration of the means. And that removes morality from the equation. Because empathy is an element in the set of morality, that also removes empathy. Ergo, we are left with a sociopathic statement.

Pax

ps: I'm currently having a protracted discussion with Chico on his forum on the very topic. I didn't want that discussion to spill over into your forum, Rose, because I wanted to spare Chico the embarrassment of his ill-informed musings being subjected to a greater audience than necessary. But I think I can learn more about the topic here than on Chico's forum which has devolved into Chico shouting down yours truly - and really, anyone he has a disagreement with - by labelling us as sociopaths.

ps2: But hey, if Chico is right, then you'll have a first hand study of my sociopathy. smmile2

ps3: If Chico is wrong, then you'll have a front-row seat to his mischief. popcorn9

 

So then, is your position that if the ratio were reversed - where the 'sociopath/non' ratio was 50/1 - would you be arguing on behalf of sociopaths because there'd be a consensus?

 

I am assuming that question is meant for me. My apologies if it is not.

I don't have a list of 'probable' sociopaths. I don't know much about Russel Brand, and I have not studied his behavior or psychology.

You would like a hierarchy, perhaps? No surprise there. You would like to know the rules of the game. But here is where I will lose you -- it is not a game.

There is a spectrum to just about everything. There is certainly a spectrum to good and evil. It is subjective and open to interpretation. Consensus among sociopaths will be very different from consensus among non-sociopaths. Because non-sociopaths outnumber sociopaths by around 50 to 1, their subjective consensus is the generally accepted one when it comes to good and evil. The consensus of non-sociopaths is usually expressed as the Golden Rule. The consensus of sociopaths is probably best expressed as The 48 Laws of Power.