Untitled, unowned, unhindered

Everything you have written seems reasonable and wise to me.

How do we create the criteria for the test? Who would do that if it is not all of humanity? How would we exclude the sociopaths from that selection group? Once we have that group, if this is not all the rest of non-sociopathic humanity, how is a selection process achieved that has the goal of creating a body that all humanity stands behind - a body that creates the testing criteria, a body that employs and evaluates fairly the tests, a body that implements the test results (by dealing in the best way possible with the sociopaths and in creating a new, human cooperation structure?

In regards to usages of words, one person might see it as identification where another may see the exact same thing as "determination" because they have not accepted the "identification criteria" or how data was interpreted when someone is identified as having met enough "proof" where that determination is experienced as no different than a conviction. It's just like pedophiles. When someone has been convicted of pedophilia they are now required to register everywhere they live for the rest of their life (if in the US) as a convicted sex offender. Please, don't think I am saying this is wrong. I am just using that as an example where someone who is "identified" as a sociopath may actually not be one or perhaps were able to make the personal changes where they are no longer a sociopath.

Ohhh wait, "psychiatry/psychology has determined that once a sociopath, always a sociopath." So how does "psychiatry/psychology" achieved their credential to be forever right about this determination?

We can sit here on a forum and point the finger and then place a label on someone and decide that that label will forever apply to the individual being pointed to but isn't that a subjective opinion. As Chico mentioned above, isn't all this just opinions? How do we justify opining as to who is or not a irredeemable sociopath while claiming we are empathetic?

That's my dilemma... I can't.

Perhaps again I can be labeled as having poor judgment. Would good judgment be agreeing with a group of others who somehow achieved the authority to determine who is and who is not a sociopath and that my agreement with their decisions comes all and only from the fact that a world mob appointed them to the task and that I have poor judgment?

All my questions are meant all and only to suggest how difficult these ideals suggested in recent posts would be to achieve.

Do I wish the world to be rid of all forms and expressions of sociopathy? Yes I do. And that is a wish, a hope and a desire. Can I live with myself if the way to achieve that ends up proving my fear? That no matter what, sociopathy is as natural as all other forms of manifestation in a paradigm where sentient, self aware expressions of individuated consciousness arise and then dissolve?

IMO (and I know mine are pretty goofy but...) IMO sociopath can only become a dinosaur if/when each and every one of us comes to the conclusion we are not just a physical body that is born and then dies.

Identifying and eradicating sociopathy (or rendering the ones identified such that they have less rights as anyone else... ie. that they are ineligible to attain any positions of responsibility as that also may include having power) won't solve the issue as to why we have sociopaths in the first place. When can we explore that?

 

OK, Here you deide to use different words and use them in a way that some readers might then forget the point of the question. So I will change my words so the points can be addressed.

How would a sociopath be indent to identify? To then take actions?

Who would be the identifying individual or group?

What then would this individual or group "do" based on their identification.

If this does not include all humanity (that is non-sociopath) what would be the justifiable empowerment for this group? Notice the word "empowerment." Isn't this impossible to avoid?

If it is impossible to avoid, how are those chosen to be empowered chosen? Can a psychology test work when we know the craftiness of sociopaths? Perhaps they ace the test because they are so good at manipulation.

What about borderline or potential sociopathy cases?

What about those who have not yet been identified because they haven't revealed enough of themselves to be identified but via the removal of the "determined to be sociopaths" (which is why I used a reasonably accurate word "convicted") there's a "space" or "hole" that wasn't there before which might be attractive to this "potential sociopath" to fill where in some cases they become (or finally emulate) full blown sociopathy.

Certainly there would be the initial implementation where if done, it would seem that a change in the governmental structure might need to come simultaneous to this initial mass identification process so that the vacuum could not be filled by potential future full blown sociopaths.

Doesn't all this sound so idealistic it is likely also so impractical?

What a dilemma.

 

I hope, Chico, you might explore this question.

Is that how you are trying to answer the question?

So that if I feel I have been wronged, this now justifies my reaction because I have justified it to myself? This sounds like you are heading to an ideal where we all self-rule. An ideal I love in concept and if I were the painter of a utopian picture, I would wish this as well.

So are you suggesting that if the house could be clean then perhaps true self-rule (meaning individuals responsible for there actions where no external body is ever involved much less needed).

What I have difficulty with is the expectations behind idealism. Why I have this problem is because each individual also possesses different ideals. So though, ideally, I would love the ideal, I make odds very low there's any practical or reasonable expectation that in this world today and anytime in the near future, this is remotely possible. How do we get there? What can be real, practical steps which would lead us to the doorstep of that sort of reality? Would the definition of sociopath change as we change such that never can we be rid of what might be identified as sociopaths? Please, Chico... offer answers to each question.

 

No. The criteria we must go on first and foremost is psychology. The psychology of sociopaths leads to the behaviors of sociopaths which leads to the deeds of sociopaths. To minimize the evil deeds of sociopaths, we have to remove the means they use to accomplish those deeds -- power and control.

Put a person behind the wheel of a car, and they now have significant power and control. Is it wise to allow a child behind the wheel? No, they are not sufficiently developed or mature. Is it wise to put someone who is visually impaired behind the wheel? No, so all drivers must pass a vision test. Is it wise to allow an irresponsible, careless person to drive who is repeatedly cited for traffic violations? No, so their right to drive is removed.

Put a person into high political office, and they now have significant power and control. Is it wise to allow a child into high political office? No, they are not sufficiently developed or mature. Is it wise to put someone who is psychologically impaired into high political office? No, so all political candidates must pass a rigorous psychological test. Is it wise to allow an irresponsible, careless person to occupy high political office who is repeatedly cited for ethical violations? No, so their right to hold political office is removed.

Unfortunately, we do not psychologically test for sociopaths, nor do we remove them from positions of power and control. Witness Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Barry Soetoro (Obama), George H. W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and so many other classic sociopaths.

We are not convicting, we are identifying. Identification can certainly start with a feeling, but it will require more than that. That's why we look for specific behaviors that sociopaths exhibit. When we have a preponderance of those behaviors that we can point to, then we can better identify the sociopath. Once identified, we take the necessary precautionary steps to prevent them from easily deceiving and manipulating others, and we do that by disqualifying them from any positions where they can exercise of power and control over others.

Note that we do not do to them anything that we would not want done to us if we behaved the same way. I think that is the concept you are having difficulties with.

 

There may be folks who are primarily sociopaths. There may be folks who are primarily not sociopaths yet might do things that would not be normally acceptable unless... they do those things to someone who has been identified to be a sociopath. Then its ok, "right?"

I will assume most folks will answer that as, "wrong." So for those who might say, "wrong," how will issues between a sociopath and a non sociopath be handled?

Say I am a not sociopath yet, somehow I generate the justification to steal from someone who most folks I hang with have tried and convicted to be a sociopath. If the sociopath can be called out, can the non sociopath (who harmed the sociopath in a way we normally would not accept if the victim was not deemed a sociopath) also be called out?

In other words, isn't the criteria we must go on be deeds first and foremost? Words too can be looked at... as they are verbally expressed or expressed in writing.

Another question... as far as sociopaths go, can we convict someone we just feel is a sociopath when all we have to go on is what they say? Perhaps this can and should be done... I don't know.

 

This is absolutely right! But note that the relationship between a parasite and its host is not a good one for the host, even though the parasite is usually quite satisfied. This is the same as the relationship between a sociopath and a non-sociopath! That is why it is so important to identify the sociopaths and change our relationships with them. The good life for all of humanity is built on good relationships between all of humanity, which we have never had because of the sociopaths who lead us!

The good life built on good relationships assumes the participating parties have sufficient empathy. That is the case in the majority of the participating parties. But it only takes a few bad apples in high positions to rain on everyone's parade. The sociopaths have a bad influence far, far in excess of their proportion in the population.



Danger, Will Robinson!

 

The good life is built on good relationships

 

Sam, nowhere did I intend to imply you are an idiot. Exercising poor judgment, something we all do at times, does not mean you are an idiot. Let me clarify that I do not think you are an idiot.

I answered many of your numerous questions. If I missed some that are important to you, ask them again. I will give you an answer.

That's right, Sam. Everything we think we know is just opinion. We all have opinions, but can we justify them? Unlike many people, I am not afraid to express my opinion and justify it. If you are afraid to express your opinion, or can't properly justify it, then I suggest you should examine carefully the reasons why. You will learn many revealing things if you do so.

Avalon deliberately steers members towards uniformity of opinion, or likemindedness. Those who do not comply are "corrected" or banned. Why is that, Sam? Think about that and you will learn some revealing things. I saw in Inphinet an attempt to deviate from that insidious Avalon model. That's why I contribute to this forum.

 

Well actually I think CW was caught off guard. I believe he was led to believe I actually recorded stuff. Never have even thought to do, never would. Text services usually come defaulted to "save conversations" and usually folks might either turn that off or modify for how long and where they save them on their computer. I also save all my e-mails... always have.

The one click meant a one time setting that is a checkbox that comes ON by default. To turn it off is one click. It's a permanent setting... not something someone does each time they type chat.

If others were honest with me, they recorded me without me ever knowing much less being asked. At least that is what one of them told me when things went south.

Guess what? They can play them all to the world for all I care as long as they don't edit or modify any of it.

 

Hi Rose, just to clarify - I have never recorded anything in my life that wasn't a soliloquy or some benign video like my one year old grand daughter learning to walk. I have never video recorded or voice recorded any conversation ever in my life until...

That one video that had CW Chanter and donk in it. I was asked to do it because CW couldn't get it going at his end. Also, that was done and seen live and I then had it posted in my Youtube channel and everyone knew it was going out live and also would be available on my channel.

I never recorded all the conversations with Rhi and Stephen. I may have said I wish I had because then I would have had it on tape where Stephen told me to "get the goods on Simon Parkes" but I did not. If so, I would have posted that sound bite.

Having said all this, why have I never recorded a conversation? Because if I wanted to, I would first have to ask the other participants. If we all agreed and I recorded it, it would have been meant for posting it.

But also the biggest reason I never did that was... because I never even thought to do so. People know what they have said. Stephen knows he told me to get the goods on Simon (for example). What the real question for me is... how the heck does Corey Goode (the very next day) come and deliver the goods? Thinks about that. How does timing like that happen? Should I consider something conspiratorial?

Anyways, just in case there is a post I have made that might suggest I ever recorded anything, please go check it again. I bet it was a misread.... probably back somewhere in this thread.

 

Are you? Is it kind to allow the deception and manipulation to continue? It's a judgment call, to be sure, so here again your decision is dependent on the quality of your judgment.

The truth only appears as a weapon to those who are invested in deception.

 

That's true. They also say things like "I protect my friends." But the intent to actually do so in not there. It's simply another deception and manipulation, just like "You don't know who you are talking to."

 

We often read different meaning into a written piece than the author intended. It's interesting once again to note how important intent is in both the author and the reader.

Also related to this is something I wrote in this post:

Since my purpose is to seek truth, what I write is guaranteed to rub some people the wrong way. That's just the way it is, because many people don't want truth. They want comfort. They want to "be friends". They want to exchange pats on the back. They want inclusion, validation, approval, and rank.

To hell with that! Because most of the time, it's fake. It's not truth. It's deception and manipulation. If you want true friendship, you have to start with truth, and then see how things shake out. If there are any friends left standing after that, you just might find true friendship.

 

No, I am being kind to the believers and followers and friends that are friends all and only because they share common perceived enemies, tried and convicted sociopaths via internet trial. And because I promised not to weaponize things where if this would be exposed completely, a case could be made that I broke my promise.

 

Sam, there's no need to invent "passive sociopathy". What you are describing is plain old sociopathy.

Are you not doing the same thing as the other "believers and followers", i.e. doing the "dirty work" to "protect the central figure"?

 

If the "snippets" you are referring to are the quotes I select from your own posts, like the one above, you had best get used to them. They are there to provide context and improve communication. If you think I chose them to produce a false context, refer back to your original post via the link to review the actual context a reader such as myself might take away. If I have misunderstood the context or "tone" of your original post, then say so and clarify!

Unlike you, I happen to see writing as superior to speaking when it comes to clear communication and maximizing understanding. Words can be reread and reviewed until they are understood. They can be selected and polished more precisely. They endure.

I have the impression that you post in the same manner as you go through life, i.e. "I do what I do", and that is why the communication between me and you, at least from my perspective, is so poor. I am also beginning to understand why you were accused of "weaponizing the narrative". You are not putting in the attention necessary to communicate clearly. And now you tell me you are dyslexic, which might help explain your posting style. I apologize for not knowing you were dyslexic. I wrongly assumed you were like me (the typical mistake a non-sociopath often makes). Now I'm thinking back on your comments that there are "two of you", and I had better start taking that claim seriously. That might also explain your posting style, which I have trouble with because of its lack of clarity.

A superiority complex is one of the classic traits of a sociopath. Keep this in mind. This is something Bill Ryan and John Lash share. There are many more sociopathic traits that they have in common.

That sociopaths cannot be cured with current health science technology is the conclusion of professional psychologists who have exerted enormous effort trying. I accept their conclusions with little objection, as current health science is so primitive and corrupted. I have also experienced the "irredeemable sociopath" phenomenon myself in my dealings with UncleZook, among others.

I understand your reaction, but do you understand the value of hate? Like violence, it is important to survival. It has its place and should not be erased from the human equation. That is what the sociopaths would like to do, erase hate and violence from our minds, so that we will never oppose the hate and violence they will freely inflict on us.

Absolutely right! Now can you see the value of judgment? You need it to determine if hate or violence is appropriate to the situation you are in. You need it to determine if you are being deceived and manipulated into hating or behaving violently. You need it to realize that hate and violence should be avoided, but that there may be times when it is necessary to counter hate and violence directed against you.

Very good, Sam. I saw the same thing in Bill Ryan.

Should you genocide the genociders? Should you kill killers? Or do you turn the other cheek and die at their hands?

John Lash is a sexual predator. That is another classic trait of the sociopath. Bill Ryan is the same way.

I remember that episode as well. Bill elected to censor (his default behavior), claiming it was to protect the forum members. I suspect it was to protect himself, because JLL was saying things that might expose Bill's game.

Not so. You already knew Bill's views about a lot of things that may have influenced how you judged JLL (and you did judge him). That is how Bill influences the members, by the theater of his false example, and by the implications of his deceptive mask. And by banning those who don't fall into line. Isn't JLL doing the same thing?

Sure, I acknowledge I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing it in this case. I don't think you understand the power of the mind control and brainwashing techniques that are used in cults like Avalon. If you are under the influence of those techniques, you will have no awareness of it and will even categorically deny it.

Not necessarily. It depends on the intent behind the action. Is the intent to deceive or to clarify the truth?

I got that directly from your posts and your video, Sam. You said you revealed the information you had agreed to keep private without thinking (reflecting), and that you realized afterwards (upon reflection) that you had erred. That was in your posts and your video. I don't make my observations up, Sam. I get them from you.

What is it that you can accomplish with my help that you can't accomplish on your own?

 

Thanks Rose... I am fully willing to admit I don't have much of what can be called discernment but I have learned some lessons that have led me to establish operational protocols for myself (self rules... not morals, rules). I noted one above.

It is my belief that two major factors have influenced me to be this way. Factor One is that experience I had when I was six years old, all the highly unusual "dreams," 4 OBEs and then the plethora of all but impossible highly meaningful synchronicities that I could not deny suggested "something is going on" where I have taken all sorts of risks in trying to uncover exactly what that something might be. Factor Two is that because I have made a fool of myself so many times and learned that this is always the result of the risks I have taken in pursuing that very something and always landed alive, well and on my feet knowing I really have nothing to lose but false ego anyways... I find myself constantly stepping in doo doo. Its always a new type of doo doo, but it is still in fact always doo doo. All in the price one pays for exploring tat which few have the courage to explore.

This is what I don't regret. This is what Chico points to as poor judgment. My feeling is that Chico has a point but it is subjective and narrow. I see it as taking risks. I see being born into a world like this as a risk. I am not interested in dying while harboring regrets I didn't explore life to the fullest... and that's just me.

I wish Chico would share about his conclusions regarding JLL based on all the research he has done. Maybe he has some things to share that might add to my own experience and alter my views.

 

Not JLL.

Yes I have been vague. After the last almost 1.5 years which led up to the video you saw, I am still experiencing trauma over the events. As I said before but am happy to say again, part of that trauma can clearly be seen as self inflicted. In other words, actions I took played a role in increasing the overall trauma many experienced. If you noted in the video I apologized and from the heart for my mistakes. I also said I would not weaponize communications. If I took some of the communications that came forth "publicly" from those events and used snippets here and there of those communications, the folks would say I had again participated in weaponizing communications, so it is not only difficult to talk about from the standpoint of trauma, but it is also difficult to do so without whatever I might state descending into usage of communications in efforts to refute false speculations which turned into outright lies (as is seen in the example a few posts earlier in green type). The one in the center of it all knows the truth.

You act like I didn't learn from what I now see as the mistakes I made. Well, I have and here is the most important lesson I learned which if I had known this before meeting my friend, we would still be friends today. That lesson is that if ever one enters into a relationship with someone in the community that shares fantastical stories which include having lived before this life and that this same someone suggests to you any type of relationship you had with them "in this past life" where you are at risk of becoming emotionally unloved and entangled with that individual, throw up the stop sign. Because if the day comes that you realize that same individual is making everything (or at least most everything) up, you run the risk of experiencing an emotional letdown you might not be able to handle.

That's the core of what happened.

But also... if in fact this happens, be prepared for all the believers and followers to form an internet gang that is willing to destroy relationships, destroy your reputation, threaten you and essentially demonstrate the very behaviors you have often pointed out that suggest the possibility of sociopathy.

What I am seeing now as a possibility is what I would call "passive sociopathy." Where the sociopath is so good at hiding it to the vulnerable that when someone who has gone deep into it (as I did) suddenly gets the screaming gut (as I did), the believers and followers do all the dirty work to protect the central figure. Where the true colors of that central figure finally reveal themselves is when that central figure, knowing the truth not just about their BS stories, but also the truth about exactly what happened in the aftermath, doesn't do the right thing to straighten that out with the rest. But also, perhaps because this central figure knows that there are still some followers who could be emotionally harmed if he came clean, then he'll take it to the grave. This may also explain why he didn't protect me from the what were at the minimum wild speculations presented as fact to outright lies and most of that knew if not almost all of it. He certainly received the proof in November yet never took steps to make things right. If the central figure had done so, and done so because "I protect my friends" (something he told me) of which I was one too and foolishly thought I was actually a close one, this issue would have continued on (as I have done with it) and perhaps too, what relationships that may have been repairable could have been.

So you ask "what source would that be" but I prefer you just ask Christine as I don't feel comfortable in mentioning this source here by name. It's sort of like having loved someone and one day there's a serious issue that causes separation. I can only speak for myself but I can't not love them... I always will love this person.

 

OK Chico, I like your last post but I don't like to play the snippet game. I feel its a disservice to do that as too often the snippet can be taken out of context or the tone has been misunderstood which is much due to the fact we are just writing whereas speaking directly is usually best.

I feel if we did that, lots of the strange direction our conversations have taken might not have occurred.

I am dyslexic and the older I have gotten, the stranger my mixups. That I recalled JLL's name as I did and the fact I haven't thought about him the last 18 months may have played a role. But my conclusions that JLL is actually just as much a problem as his targets were quite researched (discovered may be the best word). I don't know if I would go to the level of placing a label such as sociopath on him but I am very willing to say that I find him terribly harmful.

I came from a phase in my life where I had been quite enamored by "the Goddess Tradition." This phase came from my recognition of the programming of a dark patriarchal society. So it was natural that I came upon, JLL's book Not in His Image (and have it still on my shelf). It was natural that I also studied much of JLLs sites.

Before I go into the next part, the way I have explored the other worldly and mythical has been by looking at these things as archetypes and metapahors such that I had avoided getting too deeply literal with regards to some of the characters found in these myths and discussed by those in the community both publicly and privately. JLL seemed to believe he was not just "a" expert but "THE" expert with regards to the interpretations of the Gnostic myths related to Sophia and the Archons and that he was in direct communication through what he called "telestic communication" or something like that. No metaphor there, literal.

One day in late 2011 I believed I had come upon a solution to the "archontic" problem (and since you have done your research, you know of at least JLL's metaphorical connection between sociopathy and "the Archons" up to that point). So I wrote JLL. And his reaction was a surprise in that he suggested there was no solution. JLL even seemed to conclude, like you also seemed to have concluded, that sociopaths are irredeemable. So I dropped it and forgot about JLL until one day I came upon an interview where two females were talking with JLL. The interview title went something like, "Solution to the Archontic Problem" (I can find it if someone wants to hear it).

As I listened, I heard his solution. JLL said the solution is "to hate the Archons." That sounded to me the same thing as pouring gasoline on a fire in hopes of putting it out. That doesn't seem to have any empathy either. I realized that someone who is in alignment with that thinking is forced to "judge" who is to be hated and who is not to be hated, what is to be hated and what is not to to be hated.

The next experience that bothered me was when I came upon another interview where JLL explains that Sophia had taught him three spells. My memory is not the best but I believe the first spell was a "love spell." But it was the second spell that bothered me most. JLL claimed Sophia had taught him how to cast a "death spell." He then claimed Sophia had taught him a third spell but he wasn't ready to reveal this at that time.

Both of the above were all the research I needed to realize JLL may not be a sociopath (though there are many signs he is) but that he behaved in many very concerning ways and that due to his high profile circumstances, appeared to me to be a high risk for the vulnerable and the rest of us in general.

Then one day I heard the Red Ice interview I linked up a few posts back. JLL, as carefully as one can do, hinted that a roundup of (or perhaps a genocide of) those infected with the archontic virus would be a wise solution.

Yes, Rose... that video. If the inuendos made in that video are not seen as repulsive and no different than the sentiments that have arisen countless of times in human history which have led to horrific genocides ... and these don't raise a red flag with the listener, then I have to question their judgment. In addition, but this is just my opinion... to use intentional magic is, for me, a serious form of deception. To use it to kill others is over the top. To glorify some mythical deity he calls "Sophia" (certainly not the archetype I have come to know) which gives him the role of "ordained executioner" is, to me, as archontically compromised as one can get.

Then, to take advantage of the vulnerable (and by the way, only females were allowed to participate other than JLL and that female to female sex is fine yet male to male is evil or wrong seems to me nothing more than brainwashing and taking advantage of the vulnerable). Again though... this is just my opinion. Hey, if someone wants to jump into orgies go for it. But to set it all up under the guise that he has been officially sanctioned by Sophia Herself to lead these exercises all and only to produce the energies behind the magic that is intended to assassinate those JLL has designated as "sociopaths" is so mind blowing that how can any reasonable person find any justification in such or credibility in JLL? Wouldn't a reasonable person actually see that its just some horny guy who has developed a scam that sucks in vulnerable women for group sex? That became my conclusion and it still is.

So back to the story - To the best of my memory it was sometime after that Red Ice interview where Christine was able to record an interview with JLL. From my understanding, JLL expanded on the ideas he presented in that Red Ice interview. I remember that it became a big deal that Bill would not allow that interview to go up but I had already seen enough regarding JLL to draw my conclusions and despite the fact that at the time I was told Bill nixed the interview and that "views" of the evil Bill were already being expressed behind the scenes, it didn't matter to me who agreed with me or not when I made this post.

Note who thanked that post too.

It was only just after that I found out about the so called war party which was based on using sex magic to bring forth the energies that would fuel the "death spells."

Only then did I ever come to know how Bill felt about it all. I repeat, my opinion of JLL was not in any way influenced by Bill Ryan. In fact, I got a thank you PM from Bill after I made my post. It was then and only then that I realized Bill shared some of my views.

So Chico... the moral of this story is that you really have done a great deal of research regarding sociopathy and I see you as quite an expert. I have been learning lots from reading many of your posts. But I also feel you can go too far in your speculations where, in my case, because I lived my experience, happen to know your speculation (that Bill influenced my views of JLL) was quite off the mark.

Before I end this post I will note again how you take my words and make something out about them that isn't what I said and wasn't the intent of my communication. I said I do not regret the mistakes I made from a selfish point of view because those mistakes have often led to lessons learned. I also said very clearly that I regret the mistakes I made that harmed others. Sometimes the same mistake can do both. Please, don't extract just one tiny part of a more complex statement as that is doing the same thing you claim Bill Ryan does in "twisting" things. That is a twist, Chico... to just extract snippets to make points. Newspapers are famous for sound bites being extracted and used against folks where if the entire context were provided, the point wouldn't be makeable.

You did this same thing with regards to what I said about morals and completely ignored my own further clarifications which I spent the time to make and did so primarily for you. You also added something which my posts and that video actually prove otherwise... that I don't reflect and you even suggest I said I don't. Why do you do this? I won't say that you do it because you are a sociopathor behave as a sociopath might behave because that's, for me, not the best way to get you to see something you do that you could probably stop doing which might enhance your life and enhance the lives of others. So seriously? Why do you do this?

Anyways - as you pointed out, I was indeed vague with regards to the internet storyteller and have been so intentionally. So I ask you this. If I shared the story with the details would you be willing to research it on your own? And if so and that research led you to conflicting testimonies would you then require actual proof to back up the various testimonies? Because if so, I am ready to enlist your services.

And why? Its not because of the specific incident and that others and myself were needlessly harmed. It is about the how behind it all. It is about the the general yet often repeated underlying factors which are prevalent in the alternative community which I hope to raise awareness about. I wish you would help even though you wish to throw the hero role back onto me while you act as hero to all when it's about sociopaths (as if we can delineate between who is one and who isn't in any sort of precise way that remains what is so called "humane").

 

I focused on your judgment because it was the elephant in the room in your video interview and your posts. I only analyzed it as a courtesy to you, thinking you might be able to learn something valuable from it. I didn't do it for my benefit.

What I normally focus on is "the harm caused by those who, by deception, take advantage of, and in fact harm, the vulnerable." Those are the sociopaths.

I don't go hunting for sociopaths. I run into them often enough as it is. My goal is to help people recognize them. I'm not the hero you are waiting for. You are.

We are not going to rid the world of sociopaths. They are here to stay. What we have to do is identify them and disqualify them from positions of power and control. That's all it will take to solve the biggest problem humanity has ever had. I am doing what little I can to help us all get there. I don't expect to have any impact, but I try anyway, because if I don't try, I know I will have no impact.

Can you explain about the significance of John Lash in all this? What conclusions have I painted above that are wrong? I have paid quite a bit of attention in the past to John Lash, Selkie, and Bill Ryan, but I need more information to understand what you are talking about. For example, you didn't answer my questions about why you chose the Lash video, or what specifically you wanted me to comment on about it.

You haven't done your homework, Sam. I made a mistake thinking Bill Ryan was the real deal (i.e. a truth-seeker). He's a con-artist. I made a mistake thinking the Nexus forum was a real truth-seeking forum. It wasn't. I made a mistake thinking Zook was not a sociopath. I was wrong again. I made a mistake trusting Andywight. He played me. I corrected all of those mistakes, I learned from them, and I will try not to repeat them. Are you doing the same with your mistakes? It seems not, since you claim you don't regret your past decisions, you do what you do, you act without morals or reflection, etc. Do you even listen to yourself?

Pointing out that you exercised poor judgment, which you yourself have essentially admitted on video, is hardly equivalent to saying it was all your fault.

Is the Internet story teller John Lamb Lash? Have you done "a complete research" on him, and is that why you have his name wrong? I have no problem studying John Lash. I've done it for years, much like I've studied Bill Ryan. If you had checked my links, you would have seen that.

What source would that be? I basically don't know what you are talking about, as you have been quite vague with your story and have provided no references to any supporting material. You may be intimately familiar with what happened in your personal drama, but I am not. You have also admitted that there is a lot that you don't understand about it yourself. So you are asking me to read minds and perform miracles, Sam, and like I said, I am not your savior. That's your job. I'm willing to help if I can be of help, but I'm also willing to let you handle it yourself.

 

Hi Chico. I have no regrets I took the risks I took with regards to the internet storyteller. I only regret how I handle some of the fallout. Instead of focusing on my judgment you might see the wisdom in pointing out the harm caused by those who, by deception, take advantage of, and in fact harm, the vulnerable.

I have zero regrets about my experiences in this regard. I only regret some of the ways I handled it. Yet not once have any of the folks involved or who participate in similar back room mind games ever once... ever once asked me exactly what happened and why I took the actions I took. What they did instead was become an internet gang/mob that then decided it was wise to draw conclusions from their own speculations which they then accepted as fact from which willing gang members made posts such as this -


I think there's a miss understanding here, Realeyes is not denying having known Shane just she did not know who all the group would be. Sam brought the group together, he told me him self, all of it was his idea.

What shocked the individuals was all there personal information being twisted and passed out to all insundry ( without consent ), which he did to all these people that were his friends.

For example he'd been friends with Christine Bills X for years, what would amount to hundreds maybe thousands of hours of time spent supporting him.

You see Sam likes to talk, it's not uncommon for Sam to keep you on Skype for five hours at a time, while keeping an eye on his different screens for work purposes or quickly popping to the next room to get a coffe, and carrying on a text chat to someone els, he gave the impression he was lonely, so all these people were supporting him, before the group thing happened.

It is Sam who did the so called outing.

I knew of the group, I was not part of it and yes he did discuse with me, that he thought he was related to Anu, though it did not make much sense to me and what was considered his biological farther was not according to Sam.

I did ask what made him think he was the son of Anu, "it was a feeling" according to Sam.

I've met many people who think their walk in's, incarnations of all sorts of famous people, demi gods, but Sam dose not believe in reincarnation or the soul, Unless he's changed his mind of late.

So, Chico... are you able to be as zealous going after the internet gang/mob that went after me as you are in going after Bill Ryan?

Are you willing to be my advocate with that group? Because mistakes were made by everyone. Are you willing to call out as vociferously as you have called out so many others... and have now aimed you sights on me and in essence have begun to do the exact same thing to me as this poster did above which is to make statements that any reader would consider as truth without first doing a true and proper investigation and I am speaking specifically of John Lash Lamb. For if you did an honest (one of you favorite words) investigation first, you would find that the conclusions you have painted above are wrong.

Maybe it never happens to you, Chico... making mistakes (I have never read you citing one at least) but I have shared many of mine and in detail. Yet do you really think that everything that has gone on involving myself has all and only and always been all my fault? There's a reason I ask that and that reason is, when are you going to do a complete research of the things you enjoy pulling snippets out here and there and then use to make your points? Are you willing to do it? If so, when? Wanna do it regarding John Lash Lamb? Want to get into the whole story involving the internet story teller? Let's do it. Can you be a fair advocate for all?


Ohhhh and note - that quote above was from the only forum which I am not a member of today. I broke no rule (sound familiar)? And that post (and others) was made after I was kicked out. I was kicked out because I was tried and convicted without defense and based on speculation which turned out to be false. Sadly, the central figure in the matter, who was provided the proof the speculations were false, didn't have the guts to set the record straight. Who might be the sociopath in this instance? Tell lies, have someone finally call you out on it that was once a foolish believer, the believer has an understandable human reaction and makes one mistake and that's all that is needed to create a full blown internet gang/mob. Is that the sociopath that leads the non-sociopaths to act sociopathically?

Yet, I say no. In this case it seems that it was all caused by someone who didn't expect things to go as they did and instead got caught up with a set of believers who, after one saw the light, had to maintain the charade behind the scenes (especially with one) or cause even more trauma. A trap the storyteller built which he will probably take to his grave. That's the reality of that situation and just because I made mistakes does not mean I was alone. If you are such a social justice warrior, why don't you set your sights on the source?