Untitled, unowned, unhindered

Sam, I want you to understand that I am not singling you out as the only one exercising poor judgment. We all do it. No one is born with good judgment. It has to be developed, and it is an on-going, never-ending process. Some people haven't progressed very far in their development of good judgment, while others have. Even those with demonstrated good judgment can easily make mistakes, because our experience is limited, the information we have to work with is limited, and worst of all, the veracity of our information is uncertain.

I think you do have significant dissatisfaction with the results that your poor judgment has produced. Your video with CW Chanter clearly demonstrated that to me. It is quite normal to be dissatisfied with any poor judgment you perceive yourself as having made.

Indeed it is subjective, and how good that subjective opinion is depends upon the quality of your judgment.

Perhaps you don't really understand empathy. Do you not care enough about yourself to pass judgment on your own decisions and actions? Caring about yourself is an important component to empathy. I suggest it is a prerequisite for caring about others if you perceive others as equal to yourself (which sociopaths do not).

Hmm, I just had an interesting thought. Perhaps morality can be defined as caring enough about yourself to pass judgment on your own decisions and actions exactly as you would with any other person.

They are the same to me. How do you see them as different?

What in particular? It is a long and extensive interview.

It's interesting that you would choose this video. Bill Ryan has long tried to sabotage any interest expressed by Avalon members in John Lash's perspective. Bill Ryan actively discounts John Lash to the Avalon membership, and he gave Selkie free reign to badmouth Lash to a degree that would have gotten anyone else banned from Avalon if they had attempted to badmouth Bill Ryan in a similar manner ( 1 2 3 4 ). I am guessing that you have been sufficiently indoctrinated by the Bill Ryan mind control program to see John Lash as a bad man, and to discount his ideas, and that is why you chose this video. Is that the case?

 

Chico has sure made me think... I was able to look close at myself and see that I really don't use judgment and I do this knowing the risks!

I don't recommend this to anyone. But also, what seems to have come hand in hand with that is that I rarely (not always) but rarely judge others. That is why I would not be any good for the psychopath identification board. I just accept that as part of this strange thing we call life... perhaps an experiment (at least we could see this metaphorically), that the odds are high that if selfishness / sociopathy "win" then at some point there may be only two left standing and then they would have to ask themselves if eternal loneliness is worth the killing of the other or... perhaps maybe they had it wrong all along and that maybe the alternative, learning to love and appreciate others raises the odds of avoiding eternal loneliness.

So I ask, how can any of us make this world sociopathy free? Anything we might do in this regard... at least at this point... may be a sociopathic behavior. How can I justify that?

If I appear sensitive, the frustration comes for the catch-22 and not Chico's posts. Chicodoodoo has been a good discovery for me and thanks to Rose and Chico, I have come out of a recent posting slump.

While driving in the car today, I saw that the pole that has won for the most part, the empathy pole, has caused my behavior to adjust for the better (though a few groups would disagree) and this, as in the case of Hollie.. suggests I have morals or at least demonstrate I do. I just feel that I do what I do... what I wish to do. I feel Chico's points hit the mark too. I am still a happy, willing fool and though I have fears about my next adventures, the rewards seem always to outweigh the risks. The rewards being living LIFE!

 

Chico, would you please comment on John Lash Lamb's opinions that he expressed in the video above?

 

Ok Cool, I am a non-sociopath that has no problem using poor judgment! In fact, I am such a fool that my favorite tarot Card is the Zero Card - The Fool.

I see incarnation as nothing but a fool's journey anyways BUT a fun one at that... usually fun.

Here's another thought/point - what is good or not good judgment is all and only a subjective opinion... in my opinion.

I did discover one thing in this life's journey, judging others isn't compatible with what for me is true, real empathy. Assessing others is one thing, judging them (at least for me) is another.

 

Your analysis is quite interesting, Sam, but seems flawed to me. Let's see if I can justify that statement.

Morals are internally defined by your own judgement. What I am hearing here is not that you lack morals, but that your judgement is poor.

Refusing to play the label game is refusing to use your judgement. This is not unusual for people whose judgement fails them often. For those people, assigning labels does indeed seem like a shallow game, because they don't see accurate descriptors backed by observation and sound judgement. They see "labels" backed by very little substance.

For example, if I say UncleZook is a sociopath, it is not just a label that I pulled from a bucket of assorted labels to help identify one individual. No, that so-called label "sociopath" is the result of a great deal of observation, interaction, thought, analysis, testing, and verification. And it is not certain (nothing is), only highly probable based on the preponderance of evidence I have accumulated, judged, and continue to re-evaluate. Obviously, I am able to do this because my judgement does not fail me often. It is also based on judgements by other people who have also demonstrated good and reliable judgement (recognized psychologists who specialize in the study of sociopathy). They could be wrong, as could I, but evidence continues to support the validity of our collective judgement.

That's a result of using poor judgement.

The criteria for recognizing sociopathic behavior were not derived from decree by authority! They were derived by people with good judgement using a great deal of observation, interaction, thought, analysis, testing, and verification. By oversimplifying the facts like you have done here, you will often come to faulty conclusions, and if your judgement relies on these faulty conclusions, you will often have poor judgement.

An empathic person with good judgement wouldn't do those things. Any person with poor judgement could very well do those things. And yes, a sociopath with "good" judgement could do those things too. So you can see reality is not so simple.

You're showing poor judgement here again. There is indeed a strong genetic component to sociopathy, and many Jews (who tend to inbreed within their "religious" group and are led by strong sociopaths) manifest strong sociopathic tendencies. That is not a label, but an accurate observation that has been time-tested.

Again, this is evidence of a habit of exercising poor judgement.

Could Hollie have a better developed capability for sound judgement than you?

Not in my opinion at this time. I would say that your own poorly developed judgement has you floundering about. No offense intended, I'm just giving you my honest opinion. I do the same with Zook, and he doesn't like my opinions, but that's the risk I take by being honest. Some will be pleased, and some will be displeased. C'est la vie.

 

Hi Chico, why I say I have no morals is because of the life I have led and the things I have done.

I never acquired "morals." I now (usually but not always) make choices I am happier with, which appear to benefit others more now than the choices I made when younger. These choices result in less craziness (issues) in this lifetime than when younger. Yet never has there been "something" which could be externally defined which could be placed in a basket others might call "morals" which I have adopted that I strictly live by.

If a third party wishes to judge me as one who lives by morals or not, then that's their judgment, not mine. If someone would like to analyze data I have produced to determine if I am (or not) a sociopath, then they can and perhaps will judge that I am. I would be able to give all sorts of examples in my life which I, myself, could use to play the label game that I either am or I am not. But I don't see the world as black and white anymore. And for this reason, I still find myself at times in strange relationships with all sorts of folks where one day I might experience behaviors that third parties might determine were sociopathic. That's just life to me. To be "born" into this world is the first step and risk. I concluded that if there's nothing more to it than this one life, then none of it really matters so live for myself. Only later did I apprehend (speaking only for myself) that there may be more. And this became my wish, hop and desire. Strangely (at my current stage) I prefer to be less selfish than when I was younger yet am I not being less selfish now because I like to be this way? YES! Not because of something external that might be defined loosely as a moral. And so isn't that also... essentially selfish? Seems so to me.

If I desired to round up all the folks who failed the brain scan (and were determined sociopathic by some authoritatively derived criteria), removed all the non sociopaths from Australia, threw all the test failures into Australia and then set up via satellites a method for frying anyone who tried to leave that continent with a laser beam so that "the rest of humanity" could live peacefully would I be able to justify this?

Could the brain change? What about the many who may have been improperly identified or determined to be lost causes? What about those who, like me when younger, behaved so atrociously they should have been in prison for much of their life? What about the sleeper sociopaths who didn't get sent to Austrailia yet later revealed behaviors which could be determined as sociopathic and that were sociopathic to such a degree they received their arm branding (like the Nazis did to folks in the concentration camps) and sent to Australia later on? Who would be the ones to determine all these things? Wouldn't that have to be... sociopaths? I ask that because I do not see how an "empath" could possibly do that.

What about (as an example) the suggestions by John Lash Lamb that some folks have some sort of genetic defect which causes them to be sociopaths and that he has identified this genetic line which also happened to be folks who (at least many of them) adhered to the Jewish faith? Maybe we should kill em all? Ohhh but would that not be the response of a sociopath?



Anyways - I have no morals. I do what I do because I choose to and I make my choices based on what I want to do and am willing to suffer the consequences for if things go wrong. I do not keep any morals on a shelf inside my being where at times I must access one or another to make some decision. I just do what I desire to do (or am influenced to do). I simply learned to take responsibility for all my words and deeds. Fortunately I learned long ago I never have to be responsible for my thoughts until... I decide to own the thought. I don't call this a moral. I call it a component of my operational protocol. And I never live up to my standards in this regard either. I am able to look myself in the mirror with acceptance of the good the bad and the horrific.

My son and my son's girlfriend/"wife" have lived with me for over two years and have a one year old baby girl. I just asked her to answer honestly this question...

"Hollie, do I have any morals?" She replied with a look on her face that said... "how can you even ask that?" And then out of her mouth came... "Of course you do."

Could I just be a master at fooling others?

 

I would like to hear more about this.

How do you define "morals"? Why do you say you have none? Can't we all say "I do what I do"? What qualifies as a rule to live by? Are you thinking of the Golden Rule? It is not really a rule, but a guideline. You don't have to follow it, and no one enforces it. If you don't live by any rules, do you still drive on the right side of the road? Do you stop at red lights? Do you wait your turn in line? Do you pay your taxes?

 

Or perhaps a loss of programming?

And yet then... what might be this reality experience we call physicality? Sometimes I wonder if it is not a "group agreement" which is held together under the radar of our waking state consciousness. Would we wish this to all go away? What might this strange world that emphasizes what (for me) is an illusion within the illusion we call "death" if we had nothing but empathetic folk?

My feeling is the ones who lean to sociopathy are fueled by an unrecognized fear of death to the point they lose any sense (if they ever had any) that there just might be something more "to all this" than simply living and dying... and so all they are left with is just this one life so they live it selfishly.

I am rambling personal speculations and philosophies... sometimes its better when folks can speak with each other... better communication seems to result.

 

Sam Hunter said: ↑
I noted Zook's point regarding morality preceding empathy and I understood that could very well be the case...

Chico said -
Zook is a master at twisting things around to support his erroneous arguments. I suggest you think about this concept (morality preceding empathy) a little more.

My words were meant to honor Zook's right to his thinking and his logic. I also understood his logic... meaning his logic flow.

My own experience was quite different though.

I realized when I reached my late teens that I had two "me"s in me and one was a complete opposite of the other and both were extremes. The empathic one would emerge when I was experiencing my own emotional difficulties. I would then end up home in a safe situation and in time, the "normal one" came back to take charge.

It was only after going back and forth from these two poles that I began to study mysticism. It was during the course of these studies that I came to the "understandings" I shared in post #389. That is when I also understood intellectually "why" it made sense to feel empathy.

In summary -

First I discovered the two poles I would swing between.

In self honesty I admitted to myself that the empathic "me" was the me I desired come forth consistently if not completely and permanently.

I then studies mysticism and discovered why "to be empathic" made sense.

And guess what? I don't have morals... none. I do what I do. I hope that what I do ultimately turns out to be for the best for all.

This isn't to say an observer would not draw the conclusions that of my actions have been moral. As Chico pointed out, perhaps those actions occurred as a natural consequence of the empathic me that won over the selfish (perhaps sociopathic) me. But also, as noted by my mistakes with that story teller, I can also perform actions I later feel bad about and even apologize for. All I am saying is I don't live by any rules though I have developed my most successful operational protocol to date. A protocol which ensures I won't get emotionally entangled by those who may not understand the possible negative consequences for another of their made up stories.

 

The outside empathy is feigned. Sociopaths show their true colors behind closed doors and/or when stressed. Remember, they are chameleons, or if you prefer, actors. They pretend to be normal, while they keep their true nature secret.

Of interesting note is that non-sociopaths also show their true colors behind closed doors and/or when stressed. They too can wear masks, adapt to their surroundings, act, pretend, deceive, manipulate, and seek power. The difference is a matter of degree and intent. And when non-sociopaths show their true colors, those colors are far warmer than what sociopaths display. The colors lie on opposite ends of the spectrum. It's the difference between hero and villain, or good and evil.

 

Zook is a master at twisting things around to support his erroneous arguments. I suggest you think about this concept (morality preceding empathy) a little more. Consider the following points. Morality is a very broad concept, while empathy is much narrower. Morality relies upon many other concepts, including empathy and its opposite, selfishness. Morality is often arguable, while empathy is not so much. You can see this in the Golden Rule, one of the standards for morality -- "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you." If the "you" is singular, then selfishness is the guiding factor. If the "you" is plural, then empathy is the guiding factor.

I've thought a lot about morality and empathy over time, and Zook's claim that morality precedes empathy is backwards. He has a bias, a reason, for presenting this particular precedence of morality over empathy. Zook's argument is basically that if one behaves morally, then one must have empathy, and therefore one is not a sociopath. Though the argument seems reasonable, it is not necessarily the case that behaving morally implies empathy. Sociopaths can put on a convincing act that they feel empathy and are moral, when it simply isn't true.

Zook's underlying agenda is to prove that he is not a sociopath, with the implication that Chico doesn't know what he is talking about and is therefore not credible enough to assess anyone as a sociopath. This is how a sociopath thinks, "gaming" reality in order to win an argument, and thus deceive and manipulate others (i.e. Zook's audience) in pursuit of greater power and control over them (i.e. Zook is a guru with better discernment than others so you must let Zook think for you).

The BBC special about the man studying the brain scans of sociopaths only to have his own brain scan identified correctly as a sociopath is an example. Even though this man was a sociopath, he adhered to the moral standards of the society he lived in, yet his levels of empathy were very low.



The Brain of a Murderer - Are You Good Or Evil? - Horizon - BBC

 

Just for information sake, I am not religious at all. Afterlife for me (if a reality) would imply that the same continuous individuation was almost certainly present prior to this life... that is, if my hope, wish and desire proves true. I respect the right of anyone as to a faith they might hold an affinity with.

That individuated consciousness could exists for a living being both prior and post the lifetime from which they are currently experiencing, if true, is simply what I call "the science of being."

Another thing maybe useful to know for my friends here is that for me, "God"... yes, that lovely word, is all of us, is all life and indeed is all. I don't see "God" as separate. Quantum theory points to it. How the heck "that" ended up "individuated" is a mystery I have accepted probably will never be solved and perhaps it can't. There's peace for me in that.

I guess this explains why (at my core) I feel empathy. I noted Zook's point regarding morality preceding empathy and I understood that could very well be the case... when using cause and effect logic yet what causes morals (if any) to exist? I have my own "theory" about that which, if asked, I would share as it all begins with my own derived cosmogony which I view all and only as metaphor.

Back to "God."

(Metaphorically) If I hurt you, I am hurting those I love for you are my loved ones and you are also me and I am you and I am my loved ones and on and on... again, this is not meant literally.

All the above is described by words which are inadequate... the best I can do is point to that something where the paradoxical one and many seamlessly meet.

Funny that when I tried to express this about myself to Stephen along with my strong desire to see a clean house in this strange alternative community I cannot recall ever in my life being so totally verbally blasted.

Now back again to... to "God." The single type of experience I have experienced to the degree I could no longer deny "something" is going on is that experience known as synchronicity. For this reason, one day the following came to my mind.

“I (as us all) am (are)

simply the ‘All that Is’

that found a way to trick Itself

that It wasn't Itself

and simultaneously

hid Itself within Itself

such that It might (re)discover Itself

alive and individuated

within Its self-created Magick Kingdom.”
​

 

This is unfortunate, but it may be better than being raised in an environment where one particular viewpoint is enforced to the exclusion of all others. The ideal learning environment, in my opinion, is one where free and open debate is allowed to transpire, recognizing that differing opinions will be the norm, and that knowledge is not as certain as many people believe. That's one of the reasons I felt online forums were so valuable, because they could provide that kind of environment. My first forum experience at Avalon dashed those illusions when I uncovered all the censorship occurring behind the scenes, all while Avalon was advertised as a forum of enlightened free discourse. Such hypocrisy I now know is the mark of sociopaths. Bill Ryan, Paul, Dennis, and Ilie would disagree, of course.

 

I once found myself in a situation of exploration with another. In the course of that exploration, I was told many fantastical things. I wanted to believe these things. I wanted to believe the one telling me these things would not lie... at least would not lie to me about these things.

One day my gut screamed so loud I could no longer ignore it. I stopped believing the individual and most of the things I was told. I then experienced an unexpected depression. I then found myself speaking with a friend where I shared about my experience for the purpose of processing that experience and getting past my depression. In the course of the conversation, I identified one of the habits demonstrated by this individual which might result an a deeper emotional entanglement between the story listener and the story teller. At the moment of realization, I was so emotionally broken that I shared an example where this story teller did the same thing with another (and I was even aware of a third example).

Unfortunately what I shared was something I had sworn never to repeat. At the moment I did this, based on my state, I didn't even recall my promise. But moments later I did. I implored the one I shared this with to never let it out. This person promised. Yet it got out. Despite the circumstances which I have been honest about here, I knew that I had made a terrible mistake and hoped that it would not get out. Soon I was contacted by the one I had promised but failed and this one was obviously and rightfully upset. That ended the relationship, a relationship I held dear.

Soon after, the group that centered around the story teller went against me. Unfortuantely conclusions were drawn which were false yet got out of hand. One rather touchy yet erroneous conclusion by the group could only be exposed as having its roots from the stories of the story teller. This could only be proven by producing the conversations we had relative to this touchy matter.

More than once I had told the story teller that I do not like secrets and I do not like to play the secret game. The story teller agreed. Yet, after I revealed the private conversation where within it, any intelligent reader would recognize from where the roots of what had later been used against me (not just within that group but to others outside of their group) had originated at least in part was with the story teller and what can be seen as a story teller seeing an advantage and vulnerability and running with it. Because of my actions own I became accused of weaponizing conversations. And that I had shown a pattern of doing so.

The fact is that this was true. It all began when I left Project Avalon with a related group to the group that formed around the story teller. Essentailly, from January 2015 until hopefully recently (thinking I have "learned") I would use anything I could to expose what I believed were frauds in the alternative community. This included conversations. I played the justification game because I had experienced the individuals I did this to as having "done so first." I then did so on a forum or two which I justified because lies were told about me on a forum which I had been kicked out of. Note kicked out because "I stopped believing" the story teller and because of my mistake with that one individual and then... as things escalated, I was blamed for everything despite that others made most of the rest up via speculations and "knowingness" beliefs. See how these things go?

Soooo... the result was a "coming to a head" where someone who has established themselves as an internet commentator and has generated his own following had developed a relationship with me. A few weeks ago, I made a comment which prompted my friend to make a video... about me. Pointing out how I weaponize statements made in conversations which included statements made publicly or perhaps in one on one conversation. I fired back a video which my friend felt that in two places I overstepped my bounds. To resolve the situation we agreed to a Live conversation which we did through Google Hangouts. Another internet friend joined the conversation. This is the video I probably mentioned, Rose. It is three hours long.

If anyone actually watches it... or at least the last hour and may have any questions, I am happy to answer them all.

I have some additional comments to make as well for anyone who happens to watch it and observe such that they might have a stronger opinion as to where it appears I fall on the sociopathy/empath scale.

 

Sam Hunter said: ↑
Hey Chico - what's you view and/or hope with regard to a continuation of one's individuation beyond death of the physical body?

I really appreciate the way you expressed your answer.

Here is how I would answer my question (which is best presented in reverse order).

One: My understanding is that I actually don't know.

Two: My hope is that I am right about Three which is what I call my "operational assumption."
(Note that I view a belief as an assumption upon which often we make decisions. This is why I use the term "operational assumption.")

Three: My operational assumption is that there is continuation after death. This, of course, is a hope, wish and desire.

 

My view is that there is no continuation of individuation after death. My hope is that I am wrong. My understanding is that I actually don't know.

 

Hey Chico - what's you view and/or hope with regard to a continuation of one's individuation beyond death of the physical body? I am hoping you will share your view about this as I would like to make some further comments but they may or may not be relevant... all depending on your answer.

 

A donation button is a very specific thing which is applicable in very specific circumstances. Do you really believe that this concept just sprang into your mind all by itself? In your younger years, when you felt appreciation for something, did you wonder where the donation button was?

So why do you think just about everybody else thinks along the exact same lines? Maybe because our ideas about money are also programmed into us by our surroundings?

You are thinking like a brainwashed white man. Think like an enlightened native American. They knew no one owns the land, the waters, the buffalo, or the air. No one owned the gathering of people to express their appreciation, complaints, sorrow, joy, foolishness, or wisdom. Ownership was a diseased idea brought by the sociopathic men from far-away lands. At every place these men "discovered", they would plant a flag and claim the owner of the new land was their king. No brainwashing going on there, huh.

I am fixated on the problems of humanity and how to solve them. I had no idea when I started that I would be led deep into economics, history, and psychology. Those subjects were my least favorite in school. Now they are the most interesting things imaginable! But that's because I'm not talking about the garbage they taught us in school. That was all for brainwashing purposes, full of deception and manipulation, by very deliberate design. The real truth behind economics, history, and psychology is almost beyond belief. We've been conned, brainwashed, and programmed to think the way someone wants us to think. In tracking down that someone, I have found that all the likely suspects have a common mindset, which is very different from the mindset of normal people. Is it my fault that mindset is the very same one described by sociopathy?

 

I look am not conditioned or brainwashed to look for a donation button. Note it has been 16 months that I have been involved with inPHInet and just noted to myself I hadn't seen one. So then I looked and still haven't seen one. Part of the reason I looked is because I see that this forum is, for me, quite wonderful. I finally am allowed to see the creator be herself too (it didn't seem she was allowed to be herself last year and I assumed that was because of Stephen and because I really thought this was his forum... I wish my account would not have been deleted or there may have been some interesting gems in the PMs I had with Stephen).

Why I would donate to any forum is because in our world today, as it is, these forums have costs and someone has to pay for them or the forum won't be up. In addition, some folks who might create, own, operate and administer a forum might not be independently wealthy or at least independently comfortable enough that they are able to operate and administer and spend the time adding meaningful content because they are consumed with full time slavery or, if lucky, doing something they love that also happens to earn income and allows them to live comfortably while also balancing a life (in some cases, not all) with a family, loved ones and friends. If that thing they love happens to be creating, owning, operating and administering a forum while also providing meaningful content and they are able to achieve a comfortable living by receiving donations which do this after paying the monthly fixed costs, then I can see absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I am speaking for myself and do not expect anyone else to see it the same way.

Having said that, I see that inPHInet does not have that donate button while observing what is clearly a well put together site. A site that it seems obvious someone (or a staff of someones) are spending much time in improving the site, adding meaningful content and that there's no income source absolutely does say something very loud and clear. And I pointed that out. I am finding Rose (unleashed) so much different than before and it is so refreshing that, as can be seen... I have jumped in, found some incredible threads, have been provided a place to enter into exchanges, meaningful exchanges, exchanges that I am reflecting upon with hope that even though I am an "old dog" I really can still learn... my motivation all and only so that my loved ones and friends and those I meet and those I may never directly know experience the best "Sam" that is possible... and maybe a post of mine now and then might benefit another.

... and seeing that this is done as a true labor of love.. no... bad words, a true passion where I have also found your posts, Chico, to be certainly driven by a true passion with a clear goal despite how all but impossible that goal might be, gives me a very, very warm feeling - a comfortable feeling - I don't feel pressure and I don't need for any Thanks Buttons pushed as the follow up posts seem to say what's needed in that regard.

WoW, I get up, drink coffee and it flows - apologies for the rambling.

OK so... the point about guest in the house. I get your point. I have ideals. Believe me... I have some serious ideals. I found that I could get so upset when an ideal of mine wasn't appreciated or if it wasn't, it wasn't appreciated enough. I get the feeling that the points Chico made with regards to whose forum it is are also quite idealistic (where the posters are the owners). I also like the points and frankly think to myself... if there were a forum (say... inPHInet) where that ideal manifested for the most part then... in time, would not that forum begin to attract many, many would be posters who would then join? I would think so. Of course, forums that become draconian would lose members. I hope I can be positive for this forum. I feel I am starting out to be. I do believe that if I disagree with Chico, he will either work hard to support his position OR perhaps might see something he hasn't considered before that gets him to reconsider his position. I should have written this directly, Chico... apologies...

Chico, I feel you have a fixation on the sociopathy thing. I also feel there is a good case that fixation is quite merited. I have spent much of my mind's free time thinking about all of this. I have found myself coming to inPHInet to share some of my thoughts directly with you but every time I am seeing a new post and I dive into that one like I dove into this one today. And I fail to make my post.

Soooo.... here goes number one -

Identification of a sociopath.

First there is the problem of who might do that? (a group of who's?)

Number two -

There is the problem of the black and white - "are they a psycho/sociopath or are they not."
Where is that magic line? Surely there is the obvious cases. And then there are perhaps the obvious non sociopaths. But then there's that vast group between these two extremes. I have looking at so many of my relationships the last few days... mostly past relationships and I found something quite interesting. I have known folks that did not appear to be a sociopath. In fact, I read in the sociopath thread the example of the friend whose girlfriend broke down one day where eventually it came to pass that the friend was deemed to be a sociopath. OK, so... what we have here is a case where opportunity was important as to the manifestation of the sociopathic behaviors.

Here's what I am getting at - leaders... so we throw out ALL the leaders. Do a one time cleaning of the house, apologize to any of the leaders that maybe they are not specifically a sociopath but to make sure, we have to do a one time, global house cleaning and start all over.

So then we put in a whole new crew... all selected from a group of non sociopaths. How would those that are placed within this group identified as truly non sociopathic? What if we found out the hard way that the tendency towards expressing sociopathic behavior is proportional to opportunity? We might put in 10,000 new leaders and never know that 5,000 are borderline sociopaths - odds are that the borderline sociopaths would tip over that line where they are no longer simply borderline… and these would become the leaders that replace the identified and subsequently ousted full blown sociopaths.

What might tip them over the edge is the aphrodisiac of their newly acquired power. Even if we somehow had only 1,000 or maybe even 500 or so of these "closet sociopaths" what we have seen is how a small percentage, in time, takes over the whole body of government.

So to address this we probably need to address all the forms of government and perhaps come up with a new form and do our very best to ensure that that form cannot be corrupted. I wrote lots of words so far here but I think John Dalberg-Acton's famous quote sums it up - "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Sad... and I wish we could prove the last sentence untrue.

So we need something that prevents any one individual or group of individuals from being able to obtain power. But also we know that if you have a John Kennedy for example, his insight that's apparently founded by compassion and empathy and true care for others along with his ability to express his reflections and ideas so clearly and so convincingly would elevate him to positions where power again would and could be so overwhelming that it would take an equal amount of counterbalancing humility to overcome the temptations.

There is only one manifestation of world organizing that I have come upon that gives me any hope and that is the meritocratic form. Planning committees that somehow keep corruption at bay. Some way that in cases of extreme, dangerous behavior where that behavior does not have to be link-able directly to sociopathy but that is clearly harmful can be limited and those who manifest the behavior have realistic opportunities to make the necessary changes. What do we do with those who don't? Hey... your crusade against sociopaths has provoked so many thoughts. Besides looking deeper into myself as I have serious concerns about my inner struggle between feelings (often quite powerful) of empathy, compassion, understanding, remorse when I feel I made a mistake that may have harmed others... my desire to have a solid "nobility of character" not for patting myself on the back... but because I love my wife, my family, my friends... my neighbors, those I pass on the street and those I have ever known and I wish for them to have the best experience possible knowing in some cases I play a role in their experience - yet... sometimes behavior that I later can see was quite sociopathic manifests. Uuuughhh

Maybe no one reads this post... maybe a few, but this type of posting is what I did at Avalon and the exchanges (posts and replies of the members) I experienced there... frankly I went from a true, full blown, post suicide attempts "dark night of the soul" to completely resurrecting what life I still had. I have completely reconstructed so much of my world view. My family has a father and husband again. Everyone I know (save for some very odd online relationships) has benefited from this "new me." I can only be thankful to the Project Avalon forum and the One Truth forum for much of this. But now... it is inPHInet too. This last week or so at inPHInet has been pretty amazing frankly.

 

A while back, I was trying to help Rose see how our experiences at Avalon influence the way we think about what administrators are supposed to be doing. We are both forum administrators. We both "grew up", so to speak, with Bill Ryan demonstrating the administrator role, a role which is focused on making people behave while they are "guests" in "Bill's house". This is a con, because Avalon is not his house, and the members are not guests. Avalon is a community, one supposedly focused on seeking the truth, but this focus is also a deliberate con. My point was that we become brainwashed about forums to some extent by our experience at Avalon, and we tend to repeat what has been modeled for us.

Another brainwashing we receive from Avalon is the concept of the donation. If we appreciate our time in "Bill's house", we are expected to send money. This too is a con.

The way forum members support the community is with their posts! It's not with money. At Avalon, the money goes to support Bill's comforts. It's ultimately all about Bill. That, of course, is the way a sociopath like Bill would see it. He's the master, and the forum members are the slaves. If you step out of line, you're kicked to the curb. Note that Stephen operates the same way.

I bring this up because one of the things we have to do to achieve freedom from sociopaths is de-program ourselves. We have all been mind-controlled. The things we believe to be "right" have been programmed into us by our orchestrated surroundings, surroundings constructed by sociopaths intent on controlling us. At the macro level, those surroundings include the work place, the market place, the schools, the circuses (entertainment), the courts, the information outlets, etc. At the micro level, those surroundings include cell phones, personal computers, and online forums. There's some overlap, of course, as forums are a subset of the circuses, schools, and information outlets (it gets complicated), but I hope you get the picture.

So Sam Hunter's "natural" (conditioned or brainwashed) response to enjoying the forum is to look for the donation button. I'm not targeting you, Sam, but using you as the readily-at-hand example. I too have had programmed behaviors that I discovered, analyzed, and changed. I'm still finding them.

 

This would be a good time to listen to John F. Kennedy's speech about secrecy again. He was addressing the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961. No American president since then would ever make a speech like that. That's because the Kennedy assassination was a coup d'état, and all presidents since then have been puppets controlled by the shadow rulers who murdered Kennedy. Those shadow rulers have skillfully kept that secret from the American people for over 50 years, and their unchecked sociopathy has led our nation to ruin.

You may have already heard this Kennedy speech before. I certainly have, many times. But did you ever really listen to it, absorbing the meaning of every word? It's all about the secrecy sociopaths rely upon to gain ever greater power and control over us, the non-sociopaths. They want us enslaved -- serving them, enriching them, satisfying them. Their plan only works because they pursue it in secrecy. The truth would set us free.

And that's why this speech makes me cry, because it is something we don't hear from politicians any more -- the truth. The truth can be hard to accept for most people, because they prefer comfort to truth. Not me. The truth in my eyes has such exquisite beauty, especially when encountered in this Matrix world drowning in deception, that I sometimes can't help but choke up. It's like experiencing God, I would imagine, and I'm an atheist.

They say God is truth. If religions had only stopped there and said nothing more, I would not be an atheist. Truth could easily be my God.

Listen to it again. It's the real deal. Isn't it beautiful?




JFK's Speech about Secret Societies