Hello All

With Chic it is his insistence that his sociopath Hammer means every problem is a nail. You cannot propose to seek truth when you evaluate every situation with a bias. You have to check yourself because this bias is ego. Self proclamation be damned.

I sometimes listen to the reactionary radio shows because I know their bias...They don't think they have a bias anymore than Chic does. NOBODY thinks they have one do they?

 

Related to your post of the Assange interview, Gemma:



Assange on latest leaks: Alleged Russian hackers not linked to Wikileaks docs (EXCLUSIVE)

Buying Clinton "favors" via contributions to the Clinton foundation is the way it works in sociopathy world. Yep -- bribery, conspiracy, criminality, secrecy, deception, manipulation, power, and control. Naked capitalism. Naked sociopathy.

 

A lot of people think she is smart...he is entitled to an opinion and so is anyone else. I see no evidence of anything from her but having the backing of people who will murder, steal and destroy the credability of any one who tries to stop them. She is a cog in the wheel, just as the insider spoke about on Reddit. IMO they chose her deliberately because she is not very bright and will listen. She isn't even smart legally, as jean Piro pointed out she basically perjured herself in her bifurcated answer to the media regarding the emails...Comey could walk in and get her for perjury tomorrow based on her answers to the media. Yet people say she is a brilliant diabolical evil mind lol.

Gemma I just reread this post and I want to be clear about something: I don't think my opinion is special...it is just my opinion. I don't want to sound like I am trying to confirm in some objective way something that is partially a matter of speculation. I just really do not see her intellect. Maybe I am missing something...it would not be the first time, just ask my dear friend chick.

 

I'm afraid Assange would beg to differ - @ 31:55

 

Sociopaths also like to act deceptive by employing the very ploy they are accused of when attacking another or justifying their actions...two examples come to mind: Hillary Clinton lying as she is accused of lying to Comey and my very own fellow sociopath and dear friend Chico, who is now confirming through confirmation bias once again! that pointing out this ruse makes me a sociopath.

Smart sociopaths tend to be a bit more circumspect and sneaky about doing this: this is one reason I have got the "Hillary is wicked smart" angle...No she isn't! She is just propped up and forced down our throats, hardly anything smart about the woman...and Chico? lol... My dear friend Chico would label a chair a sociopath if it bumped into him... and when the chair just sat their unencumbered by the burden of consciousness Chico would say with a grin "see sociopaths often remain quiet when caught up in a provovation they know they are responsible for...you bet chico!!! You bet!

 

Accusations of confirmation bias is a deception and manipulation that David uses regularly ( 1 2 ). His ploy is to discredit real supporting evidence (confirmation) by painting it as confirmation bias. This is an easy deception to accomplish, which explains why David employs it so readily. Take Donald Trump as an example, who is a bonafide sociopath. If you point out confirming examples of his sociopathy, Trump can accuse you of confirmation bias, and gullible people with a bias in favor of Trump will accept that as a legitimate defense, when in fact it is a deception and manipulation (because Trump really is a sociopath).

Sociopaths are very clever and will readily twist psychological concepts like confirmation bias to discredit other psychological concepts like sociopathy. The idea of "fighting fire with fire" (or fighting real truth with twisted truth) appeals to them, as it is all just a game in their eyes, one they are determined to win. In their minds, they must win, as the success of their deceptions and manipulations depends on it.

 

Apparently when you deconstructed Chicks Bromance partner, you went too far Rose. Stick to the message lol.

Seriously as much as I laugh at Chick? He may sincerly believe that when you question the motives, when you deconstruct the experiences of an individual, and want to make these experiences relevant to the discourse, you are questioning his authority. I know its preposterous... as a quote unquote "normal" person I would also feel like someone was disparaging me as well, but its Chick...And thus there are two things he will never do:

a) Admit he might be wrong...that in essence deconstructing a person's experience might bare on their motives...a rather plausible assumption and something that would seem to have to be true to one degree or another.

b) Just apologize... because, the fact that he hurt your feelings is perhaps more important than being right and asserting power over the discourse involving his bromantic buddy. Chick probably does not have the empathy to know whats its like to feel like he often makes others feel when he has to be right and control the discourse at all times.

The truth is that if this individual being discussed could not be essentially deconstructed in the basis of his experiences, with regard to his "message" he would not be human. One cannot evaluate a message in a vacuum! But alas this might be too much for Chick to understand, he is after all none to bright and in a bromance with a man with two first names.

One of the best examples of this type of blindness is regarding one of the main proponents of the biggest contingency of the Flat Earth Society, (see edit) Eric Dubay. If anyone has eyes...one can see this man has so many characteristics of a disinfo agent. He is also a professional comedian (hint hint). The plausability of his stories is laughable...yet Flat Earthers want people to stay on message and declare this guy a genius. It is ironick because he is actually extremely talented! As an artist capable of recreating and restoring art he is a 1% er ! my cousin was an art restorer. Also as a lovable rogue with a sly grin and cigarette forever hanging from his lips...he is perfect disinfo! I am sure many of his followers have a bromance/Romance with him as well.

EDIT: Have to apologize. When referring to Eric Dubay I was in fact talking about Mathew Powerland! Sloppy mistake, my apologies to the board. I changed the following: "One of the main proponents "(instead of proponent) to include Powerland.

 

Again, time to set some limits....You seem to have pissed off another forum member...Why does that happen so much Chick? Gee, cause your not here to make friends? lol. Even that statement belies a pathology Chick. Seriously your good buddy Davy the socio wants the best for ya so take this to heart: You actually are kind of here to make friends. A free exchange of ideas, opinions, etc is no reason not to make friends...I have people I disagree with totally on issues, its part of being a mature human being, having "give and take."

Then there are people who cannot accept disagreement. They may even resort to Banning people Chick sound familiar? And these people cannot accept when they are not wanted...so they come back to the forum again under a different identity...sound familiar Chick? Both of which you know you did and again, thats good enough for me...you and I know right friend? lol.

You are antisocial. That is part of sociopathology, look it up lol. You are in a word, incapable of having a dialogue without trying to control others with your opinions. As a matter of fact, you even wind up insulting people because you are socially retarded. If you were a psychopath (you are not a psychopath) you would probably take this one step farther: watch Clinton attempt to show that she is humored for example...she laughs and laughs....the host beside her starts to get uneasy but she laughs some more, because she does not know what laughter is, she is trying to mimick it.

Thats extreme but you in somewhat analogous fashion try to have a dialogue with people and wind up always insulting, alienating, or otherwise having to dominate a consensus with your perspective. Thats what makes you antisocial which is at the root of sociopathology. You probably didn't even intend on insulting Rose. You don't know any better and to you? anyone who is sociable and amacable is probably trying to control people right chicky? After all, we are not on a social forum to make friends!!!! No no!.

I will be the adult here and set some limits. Playtime is over Doo Doo. Now you have quite a task at hand...you see social intercourse is not learned behavior anymore than learning language is, so you better be a good sociopath and imitate it better. Good luck

Your sociopath and dear friend David

 

I'm sorry to disagree, Rose, but I have not called you a liar. If I had, I would surely know about it. Would you please quote my alleged accusation that you lied so that we may all review it? I am sure this is a miscommunication that we can easily clear up.

 

That "thing" is simply your continuing deception, another lie to support your previous lies. Once a sociopath has been caught consistently lying, his only recourse is to keep lying. Bill Clinton is a prime example. So are you, David.

Like a skilled sociopath, you couldn't wait to jump on the opportunity to drive a wedge between Rose and me, could you David. Divide and conquer, the typical ploy of sociopaths. Such hypocrisy on the heels of your lecture about not being a "splitter"! The hypocrisy of a sociopath, to be precise.

Of course I remembered you! You were the loyal lieutenant in Gypsy's scheme to take down the United People forum! Using one of her sock puppet accounts (King Art2, an acknowledgement to Bill Ryan's sociopathic expertise), she posted "private information" about Gypsy Woman (herself) so that members would demand that I censor the poster, breaking the forum's basic principal of no censorship and thus setting me up as a hypocrite! It was a clever plan, but I quickly spoiled it by recognizing Gypsy's game and exposing it. Gypsy then erased her King Art2 posts, destroying the evidence of her deception, but unfortunately you had quoted one of her posts before she erased it! So she asked you to approach me via PM and ask that I erase the last remaining evidence of her scam. And like a mindless idiot, you did. And not being a mindless idiot, I refused.

So you didn't have "much of a presence", eh? You just got caught lying again, David!

Yes, one can hardly miss it -- you are a sociopath, cruelly deceiving and manipulating with no empathy for your victims. However, I appreciate the opportunity you give me to point out to others exactly how you do it.

 

A lot to unpack here: Let me use pictures because pictures are worth a thousand words. During the mid sixties in Northern California, and other places in this country...but Northern Cali was the epicenter...A group of Bakti loving, pasty looking individuals, commonly referred to as "Hippies" took on the chesty, violent, well equipped United States Military....and won. With this picture in mind we can see an exerscize of power at work. When I say that the exerscize of power in nature is not always pretty, I am not saying that we have to accept brutality as inherent when power is exerscized, I am saying that we have to understand that the exerscize of power in itself is amoral...It is dictated by who decides to use it and how. When the hippies used power its tempting to say it was antiseptic and nice, but many people in this movement, as in other social movements suffered greatly because of this decision.

Noting the qualitative impact of a decision (exerscizing power) is not the same as trying to justify brutality. Its also important to remember consequences because when power is exerscized conflict results. Darwin, whatever you may think about him never advocated social Darwinism. Social Darwinism was a media creation to justify business practices that were in fact reprehensible. Its ironick though, because just like the thinking that created social Darwinism was attributed to Darwin's observation of the natural order, it seems like you are making an assumption that when I note the dynamics of what occurs when power is exerscized, that I have certain beliefs about this process.

And psychopathic logic? If there is such a thing it would seem self contradictory. Psychopathic behavoir is not logical! That is why psychopathology and sociopathology are disorders.

I understand your feelings regarding those with disorders exerscizing power... it does indeed suck! Hillary Clinton for example, but the exerscize of power, how this looks in all its myrid forms: nature, a communist collective where a person's ability is prized above a state sanctioned license, a Hippie stopping the Vietnam war, is just that... the exerscize of power. Those who use power are...immoral, moral, or a creature in nature, etc.

So I guess I disagree with you in the respect that you see something inherent in the exerscize of power itself. I don't.

 

See that's where we differ David: I don't see and therefore don't use "nature" as an excuse to exercise power in a brutal way, (but for many years I too could not find any other rational explanation for brutality). Evidence of an intelligent non-brutal social humanity stares us in the face - DAILY! So we don't actually have to aspire to it or even wait for so called evolution to understand it and then transition into it - we already bloody have it!

I've had 30 year friends believe that inequality/race division is "natural",
(masqueraded as nature because we are educated to believe the Darwinism Alpha indoctrination that mind controls everyone to think we have nothing more to offer our social construct than what a wolf can imagine for its pack),
and that survival of the fittest will always reign over humanity, so basically get with it or suffer as we do not have the power to create anything different.
And I personally did try many years ago to drink the Kool-Aid and "think and believe like everyone else" but very quickly discovered that the pain and depression of being a "convert to the ideology of psychopathic inequality" was far more damaging.

The fact that good hearted, caring, loving, compassionate, intelligent people are unable to comprehend, let alone imagine, a completely transformed world that is not run on the philosophy of psychopathic scarcity, inequality and fear, is tragic. What is even more tragic is that even when they can open up their imagination to a world of resource equality, sustainability and decision making processes, they sabotage the new by bringing the baggage of the old system and overlaying it onto the new.
The fact that a majority of humanity cannot believe that within humanity we have the extraordinary intellectual capability to create a new system is fascinating - in a disturbing way! The psychopathic mind control over humanity is overwhelming!

So from my experience, perspective, observations, and understanding, our global social structure problem is psychopathic primitive logic currently lording and ruling over intelligent empathic logic. (Empathic logic that we see powerfully demonstrated in homes, cultures and civilizations every single day which is the incredibly sophisticated glue that actually keeps humanity compassionately connected and which has most likely prevented our demise thus far.)
The two are already on the table - we just need to massively shift perception of this reality for a global consensus to weigh in on stopping global leadership that mimics and acts like wolves into global leadership that starts acting like humans.

 

Chico gets so caught up in confirmation bias that he assumes he can know, past a point of empathy, what others intend to communicate...thats always the problem with CB in having to tell someone its so, you lose the capacity to reflect critically and with an open mind upon the material. Its classic: "when I have a hammer every problem is a nail." the sociopaths just are allowed to spread Rose and you know why? because in our ignorant well intentioned ways we are supporting them with a capitalist mindset! And I know your ideas before they come out because of the system that produced a mammilian gland that nourished ya!

The architecture of Chic's thinking is actually 1900s...The grand age of the systematic thinker!! Hegal started nice and big... individual proclivites were mere oddities swept up in the dialectic current where we would all magically merge into the concept of the Christian One God...Marx turned it on its head dialectic materialism where our thoughts were brought out in the system of matter being transformed into means of production and in so producing a consciousness where eventually men would no longer need the middle man. Freud and the psychoanalysts were the best though: Freud believed he could watch you hold a salt shaker and tell you what stage of development you were stuck in...

The point being that this antiquated way of thinking was such that all things that went against the system were confirmation of the very system. So...when Chick tells you it is your capitolist mind set and it is not your fault, and even when he says his own emotionalism is errrr suspect? he does so exclusively to confirm that the system is fool proof. The problem becomes when there is a legitimate critiscism of the the system! So we have Marx defining the "asiatic mode of production to describe non-European economies that did not follow his way...You have Freud preoccupied with hysteria and women...because women seemed so different in their actions and rationality than men. Etc ect.

People using this paradigm of the grand system have gone by the wayside because we now seem to recognize that when we deconstruct power and prestige, these systems themselves act to reify the ruling order itself. In other words if one cannot reflect critically on the power one exerscizes over another when saying to them "your critical insight is nothing more than a confirmation of the system because the system says so" then how can we subject the confirmation bias of any system to critical thinking?

As much as I loathe Chick and see him as a "dull blade" I do understand that he is caught in his own trap and probably cannot see why it bothers others that every reaction to his understanding becomes confirmation bias just because..... There is a reason why the grand system makers are a thing of the epistemological past. I have brought this issue up to Chic before and he is blind to it.

In my own opinion power, and the way we exerscize it is part of nature...it is not always pretty, vis a vis nature is brutal actually! but the mere exerscize of power does not preclude sociopathology.

 

Heres the thing Chic: You and I both know you are a liar and a hypocrite. You know because you banned members including me, and you took up different identities on Ryan's forum....thats good enough for me unless anyone else wants the proof. YOU KNOW you did lol. If anyone needs to know they can ask me... Just knowing that you know is good enough for me!

Like most sociopaths it may not bother you that I know this about you...well that proves that you are indeed displaying a big sociopath red flag my dear friend!! Its ok... us sociopaths have to stick together lol.

Again deny that you banned Gypsy or me at your forum, make it official!

You don't voice an opinion...you try to bully people as a Beta by whining about having the right to shit all over threads with your mistaken understanding of sociopathology. You see Chic? people who do real research accept critical thinking and feedback as part of the process they do not just try to pass opinions off as facts and bully people with their ideas...Just yesterday I did something stupid researching a political event and your dear friend Gypsy called me on it....Bless her, she was right I was wrong, I will be a better person because of it. Thats just an example.

You say you are not here to make friends....really? Thats also kind of revealing. You see Chic, I might be haughty at times, but you will notice that when it comes to critiscism, using discourse on a forum socially, in a friendly manner, nobody would characterize me as being antisocial, except in regard to you because you are a bully. You on the other hand just pissed Rose off who has quite a bit of tolerance actually. Members often tolerate you and your need to tell the world about all the sociopaths but you do so in an antisocial way. And even though I am being outrageous when I am haughty, you really do believe you know more than others! I tend to accept others when they have a point to make...and if I disagree with them I have a reason.

The irony is that you are a dope and a coward. You have never given a proof for your ideas, rather you interpret behavior according to your idea regarding sociopathology which is, as mentioned, quite wrong actually. When I was coming back here you even remembered me...strange considering I didn't have much of a presence really...you even thought of yourself as having to be gracious and "take it easy on me" lol. Thats like mice guarding a tiger BTW lol... I have never had a problem dealing with people on the net or otherwise but thank you!

See the pattern chicky? its never too late to change you know. Cheers! You may not be here to make friends but you know what? a forum is supposed to be a social place, a place where people exchange ideas with give and take. The fact that you use this forum as a way to affirm your cockeymamee ideas shows a lack of intellect.

 

That's strange. I had no intention of calling you a liar, Rose. I was just describing how your impressions of Peter Joseph came across to me. I was not claiming those impressions were the way things actually are, but only how I perceived them at that time. Impressions, like appearances, can be deceiving, and I'm well aware of that. We already know that there was miscommunication regarding the videos you posted about "George Ohwell", which I stated had confused me. Your perspectives of my perspectives of you are accelerating into a strange place which is far from the truth, and I have the impression that you would say the same thing to me. It's strange how these misunderstandings develop.

I could say the same thing to you, only I wouldn't use the word "everything". Yes, I suspect there is a lack of clear communication going on here.

I understood that you were continuing to evaluate Peter Joseph. As I stated, you are right to do so. I do the same. That's why we were discussing him.

Yes, clearly there is miscommunication in play. There was no intent on my part to accuse you of mean spirit.

No problem looking within. I have several friends that are successful performers who are definitely narcissistic and sociopathic. It is not unusual.

I make no claim to know what you are evaluating or what you have viewed. It would be helpful to have your impressions of Peter Joseph from that video so that we could know what you have viewed and how you made your evaluations. That might help clarify communications.

You've overreacted, Rose, taking things personally. I have no intent of "painting you". I did not attack you personally. You know from my forum posts that I don't "uber-emotionalize" regarding issues or people. I don't pledge allegiance to flags or people, only to principles. I am making no effort to insult your character.

The bottom line is that for me, forums are about open discussion. Written communication is difficult and open to enormous misinterpretation, as is all human communication. I am sorry we are having problems communicating, but I expect problems, and so should you. We would be wise to avoid jumping to conclusions, ask rather than assume, and avoid taking things personally. And we should continue to communicate, despite the difficulties. Peter Joseph and his ideas are a worthy subject of discussion, and I enjoy exploring both. I also enjoy your contributions to that discussion, especially when your perspectives are different from mine.

 

You are very clever, David, like a skilled sociopath. No, you are not lying here. I did ban "at least two people" (yourself and Gypsy Woman) at United People, much like Rose banned "at least two people" at Inphinet (sociopaths Stephen and Rhiannon). There are rare times when a ban is necessary, but that is not the same as "quick to hit the ban hammer when it suited him". That's where you lied. Likewise, posting at a forum under an "alias" is normal. "Gypsy Woman" is an alias, as is "dsimon3387", your alias at United People. Where you lied is "quick to use sock puppets as well". I've never used sock puppets. Gypsy Woman used sock puppets at United People, having multiple accounts using different aliases, primarily so that she could skew the UP voting polls for her benefit.

So now we have two more examples of how you lie, David. Sociopaths always expose themselves, if you know what to look for. Sociopaths can't help but expose themselves, because clever lying is their calling card.

 

You banned at least two people on your forum, thats a fact. You had aliases on Ryan's site when you were banned...thats a fact. Am I lying Chico? Better watch what you say! I already know the answers lol.

I always accused you of being a sociopath...you are one, just a beta thats all. I have been consistent with my behavior and never remotely displayed signs of socipathology lol. because you don't know what a sociopath is, and because it has become a way for you to act as a type of inquisitor, I doubt you would even know if a sociopath was truly around... Therefore whether i am a sociopath or not, you would hardly be the one to judge.

What you are is amusing. But even though you amuse me your presence is often detrimental to the progress of meaningful dialogue...you have a need to create a false dichotomy, black and white situation where people and events are either controllers or being controlled. Instead of voicing this opinion you use it as a crutch for your antisocial (uwww another trait!) behavior. When people react emotionally to your Bullshit and protest you play the victim...hence a member like Brook who truly does interesting research, was put off posting here. Posters like Gypsy who does legitimate research and is truly bright and gifted in this department would not be seen on any forum where you are sprouting your same tired horseshit. Even Zook has some intelligent things to say.

You on the other hand are not progressive, interesting, thoughtful or insightful. You occasionally veer off your tirade only to come back to it time and time again...in an attempt to gain control. Those who must control others do not have self control Doo Doo. Anyhow, back to posting on subject, thank you for the amusement. I must be psychic predicting how you would inevitably label me a sociopath huh? lol. In another life Doo Doo you were a Spanish inquisitor making those convert or torturing them... but I might prefer the iron maiden to having to look at some of the BS you type!

your favorite sociopath David to his dearest friend Chick the righteous one!

PS: Hey Chicky how many sociopaths does it take to change a lightbulb?
This is my light socket and I have a flashlight so whats the problem?

 

You came into the forum claiming you were a sociopath, David. Your posts (two examples: 1 2 ) clearly confirmed that claim. I finally conceded, based on the evidence you provided, that you do indeed appear to be a sociopath. Since I made that concession, you have now resorted to accusing me of being a sociopath. All sociopaths I expose do this, it is known as accusing your opponents of your own malfeasance. It is one of the quite reliable indicators of the sociopathic mindset.

So, simply by voicing his opinion, Chico gains unfair power and control over others. Is that your claim, David? Do you not voice your opinion as well? Why is it not appropriate for each of us to enjoy the same access to free speech? Could it be that you lie, whereas I don't?

Sociopaths are indeed hypocrites, and they do indeed have one set of rules for themselves and another for others. Why don't you provide evidence for your two claims? Show us how Chico:

1. is "quick to hit the ban hammer when it suited him", and
   
2. "quick to use sock puppets as well"

I provide evidence for all my claims. Let's see you do the same. "Just saying so does not make it so." Or could it be you that is the hypocrite?

 

When we talk about human nature and private property, the idea of a capitolist is not necessarily part of the same belief system. For example, consider an island where one side has apples the other coconuts and the two sides have unlimited supply, each of one of the fruit. But trade cannot commence until the two sides figure out a way to exchange apples to coconuts.... This situation is often used to illustrate how our consciousness is programmed: Anyone not part of a capitolist system would no doubt say "You don't need a system of exchange, there is unlimited fruit on both sides, just let people take what they want."

I just bring this point up because when we discuss any economic theory or thinker, its important to remember that there are many methods by which people have owned property and resources. Not all ownership is part of the capitolist enterprise per se.

 

Nope. Chic is a sociopath. He has to control others...in this case its not dropping bodies, or threats, it is with the power of entitlement. He is entitled to shit on all threads with his same limited understanding whereby its all about the sociopaths. It would be one thing if he said it and agreed to such a disagreement, but this is more than an opinion for Chick, it is a means of control. Remember that Rose. We all have opinions, we don't all have to dominate every thread with our opinions....One is a form of discourse, vis a vis having opinions, the other is a means of control...coopting the group with said opinions..

Besides Chick is a hypocrite. he was quick to hit the ban hammer when it suited him and quick to use sock puppets as well... sociopaths often have one set of rule for oneself and another for others.

 

Could it be that a majority of human cultures have some sense of property rights after we were hunter and gatherers? Ohhhh those sociopaths they got everywhere!

 

Poor Doo Doo....Trying so desperately to shit up a thread, yet sociopathology just isn't doing it. yes Doo Doo its all because of the mean sociopaths ok lol.

 

Its an interesting dilemna: Most societies have historically had some form of property rights.

 

I got lazy with this one and didn't take notes, but there is some discussion from Peter about his background, motives, and anti-capitalist viewpoint in this interview.



Peter Joseph and Cenk Uygur: The Zeitgeist Movement Interview TYT

 

Just being honest. That was indeed my perspective. Since I'm not here to make friends per se, I can push the envelope more than those who are here to make real friends or false friends. That means I can be more honest and play fewer games.

Your research into his personal history and background. Instead of evaluating his message, you decided to evaluate his background. Peter was a musician (often narcissistic) . A stock market day-trader (selfish, greedy). Worked in advertising (deceptive, manipulative). I thought this indicated a bias on your part to discredit or at least question the motives of the messenger, rather than consider the pros and cons of his anti-capitalist message. Did you have other reasons for throwing out these "tidbits", besides a bias to question Joseph's personal motives?

Note that I think there is nothing wrong with questioning Joseph' motives. It was just your priority to do so when it appeared you preferred to dismiss his message that caught my attention.