So true, Ike! At best, they now conceptualize me as exactly like them, but merely on the “other side”, equal but opposite, which makes them real live Straw Men.

And it’s amazing how the “leader” continually tries to convert me with purely groupist arguments, especially involving his thinking that I want to be in with the allegedly correct Group/Cult simply because this is his desire.

It’s so strange: once he said ominously, “You know, only 1% of people think like you.”

So I simply said, “You just made that up,” because that’s exactly what he did, and that was my only point.

He dropped the sequence at that point but several weeks later he tried the very same “argument” again. So this time I merely asked him if he was trying to flatter me. He discontinued the discussion again.

Stunning!

You are a threat to their worldview, because you do not fit neatly within the silo of the Straw Men they create as an easy counterpoint.

I was looking and discussing political sociopathy with someone thru email. during the course of these long tracts (you see how i write), i pulled up an article by martha stout. eye opening if you dont discount things out of hand http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm?author_number=1097

anyway.. one of the things in this article is that she listed out a few of the famous sociopaths. i my discussion i listed out more.

then i asked the person i was discussing with, to list next to each one, the ideology they were following. with a cut off date being the creation of new social order… in this case, soci is a root symbol that stands for sociopathic… like a little club, so socialize is no longer to make social, but to make socialist, which is to make sociopathic.

SOCIalism is rule by sociopaths.

here is the list… we may not have all the subtypes right, but we have the major category all of them sit under correct!!!

Hitler: socialism, fascism

Stalin: socialism, communist

Mao: socialism, Maoism

Rasputin: socialism, socialist realist

Eichman: socialism, fascism

Peron: socialism, liberation theology

Che: socialism, liberation theology

Pol Pot: socialism, Leninist

Chavez: socialism, Leninist

does anyone see a pattern here? leftists dont, and socialists excuse everyone of them as having good intentions.

John Gotti was the only one on her list that was not political. but with that in mind, is it really so hard to see and imagine what gotti would be like if he were president of a nation?

Zipping over to an interesting psych site (sort of), who seems to specialize in discussing clinincal sociopaths, but focused more on the sub clinical of which its very hard to study. (who would step forward for that? which is why what we know is the criminal clinical sociopath)

http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/category/explaining-the-sociopath/

just the headlines are interesting.

think about kennedy, clinton, spitzer, Barry, etc.

everyone of them the news makes the excuse for that they have fallen (temporarily) from grace. the news NEVER EVER associates them with sociopathy, which not only would associate them politically with stalin, et al, but also with them medically!!! (and if the press is leftist, then wouldnt this be a very convenient omission for the side of sociopathic megolamaniacle rule)

with those people in mind..

It’s not that the psychopath’s beliefs are awry (they are); it’s that his desires are too perverse and too uninhibited

just this little phrase opens up a world of insight.

the reason to teach sex in school so young… to create a bevy of curious victims that are more easily manipulated, and to prime sociopaths to seek those victims later in life since this creates their impression experience with such young people. perversion of innocence. (look up hungarian schools, and luckaks).

reinforce it? the vagina monologues, original script, has a lesbian drug a 12 year old whose vagina later says, if it was a rape, it was a good rape.

destruction of family. puts the kids into the hands of the new sociopathic state, so that tehy can sort them as they did in russia, with the sociopaths being shuttled to certain schools that train them in more than just reading and writing. the rest are horses and the means of production.

by destroying the family, you release the protection of women from sociopaths. no longer could others watch as the person behaved, and could glean their suitability. we now believe that this was elitism, what if it was to weed the mentally unfit from your genetic family line?

well then changing that would allow sociopaths to then have a EQUAL stand at access to proginey. in fact, they are most likely to wander aroud and create babies and leave. t

feminism paints all men as being sociopaths, which means, that the feminist leaders are sociopathic and projecting. they cant see merit, since they are cheating, and so they think that mens place is not by hard work and merit but by a large secret collusive system called patriarchy. now if they think this, then what would they be attempting to make then? a large secret collusive system called matriarchy that is sociopathic and the same as they imagine the patriarchy to be… (though like moriarty we can find the matriarchy plots, but the patriarchy plots, are too good)

one of the most telling is an almost identical quote that a serial killer gave. the serial killer after describing how he tortured a woman to death, then said she was lucky. thanks to him, she may have learned something.

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..

going back to the headings… and tying the analytical view to examine the goals in light of waht sociopaths would like, what would make more of them, and so forth… things become even more interesting.

next heading:
Why are there so many sociopaths in America?

This semester I am teaching Psychology of Women at the University of Bridgeport. This is the second time I have taught this course. It is a fun course to teach because everyone likes it. This week we took up the issue of whether overall women’s personalities are different from men’s. A significant percentage of the class believes that men and women are very different in many domains and that this difference is biologic or genetic. The author of our textbook is a feminist from New York so she tends to down play any gender differences found, and she attributes nearly all gender differences to culture.

To balance the views of the textbook, I look for other articles to share with the class. This week I found a great paper, and coincidentally some interesting statistics were also reported in the news. The paper I found is entitled Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures. It was just published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The results are shocking and a wake up call.

what you will find is that the ideology is all lies, or half truths… and waht is the baliwick of sociopathy?

would a culture of relativism be conducive to socipathy, or against it?

would a culture, such as being jewish, work against or for sociopathy? well, mamet found out but didnt realize that jewishness and its laws, protect you from sociopaths by forcing the dialog to move to merit and not games.

so science uplifting human growth, is a process where the sociopath who is a throw back to our dayhs before civilization… civilized man has to cooperate and the more kind they are and loving they are, the more likely they will grow into the dream that socialism promises.

one thing that is VERY commin is that they reverse things. they are our dopplgange opposites.

think about it.

the direction we went to with society is a direction away from a world that favors the sociopathic and perverse.

so judo would say, take that big dream, and stick it on an arrow pointing in the wrong direction and who will follow?

this is why socialismt degrads society till its primitivized. this is why adorno wanted to primitivise the culture. not only because it makes them easier to control, but becasue it moves us away from a nice world where everyone is happy and cooperates gladly, and protects each other.

wouldnt that be anathema to sociopathic dreams of thier kind of world?

heck, you can look at christian settlements, like the amish, and they are accomllishing what socialism promises.. no? but their world has little perversion in it.. in fact, sociopaths are weeded out very fast… they are cheaters and with such morals as the amish, cheaters dont get far as their sins are not excused.

of course sociopaths would love a more TOLERANT world in which tolerance is defined as indifference not understanding.

just to note, the amish are not backwards. every amish kid has to leave the community and live among the english. then they have the choice of whether to live that way, or live the other way. so much for religious programming and force. are socilaists giving us that choice?

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

i think not…

who does the AUTHORIZING? isnt that totalitarian?

“A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” — Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

look at sanger… she wanted to exterminate the blacks and chinese… her planned parenthood was originally the negro project… hitler wrote to her people for suggestions on his programs. she said the purpose was soft eugenics.

so how do we get to that being a public good?

even worse…

the stem cell argument puts lights on to how up is down and down is up, and heads now are tails.

remember the people are not the group of 120 and above that may or may not have some understanding. they are the people below that. there are a lot more people below 120, than there are above. so would the politicians argumetn for licence be cogent or manipulative? i am not saying whether the manipuation is good or bad.

now if one side is good, and one side is bad, and this is not reletevated away to excuse sociopathci acts.

then the one that is arguing the right course is forced to manipulate the better course…

while the side that is arguing the ulterior motive is forced to manipulate the worse course as being the best.

the assumption of the argument on the left, was that only fetal cells could do that. that stopping this from using fetal cells woudl stop the science.

on the other side, the slippery slope is what they were against, and not to mention that, capitalists realize the power of the invisable hand.

unlike socialists, capitalists know that capitalism overcomes obticals if there is something that can make people happy on the other side, and there are no cheaper alternatives on your side.

so what happened?

the same thign that happened in the drug war when they sprayed teh fields with paraquat.

the birds were kicked out of the nest of the easy path, and so they were forced to seek alternatives. and so they found the more productive and expensive cocaine.

int he case of stem cells, they foudn an alternative that allows adult cells to be used..

now actually thats better since now you dont have to bank your fetal cells.

but the left isnt happy… why? they should be happy that science wasnt killed and progress wasnt stopped and its all workig out great for the long run.

so why not?

because the argumetns were false. they were trying to stake out a justification for abortion and eugenics.

planned parenthood and all that is changing the demographics of teh nation. the smart are suiciding their family lines. the gullible are too. the poor are not listening, the middle is exterminating, the wealthy are just fine.

its an assault on the middle… putting off babies is the same thing… oops, missed the boat, sorry maybe your next life..

ulimately what does that do demographically for the lords at the top? well it pushes their proginey foward and increases their repreentation in the genetic legacy.

while we are all in dreamland, they realize that ther is only one game in town, and there was always only one game in town.

dynasty.

serial monogamy is anotehr one. how do 25 sociopaths share a harem of 200 women without haveing to take care of them and upkeep them.

mathematicallhy serial monogamy (material equivalence), is a harem system in which the harem girls have to pay their own way.

this is why they play with perspectives and create a correct party pc perspective.

if you juggle the varialbes, then you fidn that the ultra smart sociopaths are playing with words to create equivalent material outcomes.

just as a book or a locket can have a magical quality to the normal person, the sociopath sees that as an exploitable weekness. it means that we have ways of looking at things that change how we see thigns which changes how we react.

if we had soldiers or doctors exterminate 54 million babies since 1964, we would do what?

but if we convince mothers and change their life cirumcstances to misery, we can get them to walk in happily and exterminate their future contrubution to the world in favor of the leaders who tell them too.

would normal males think a harem is good? no. not at all, because a normal man (not described by feminists so that the normal man turns into a secondary sociopath and adopts the tenets because of unjust social harm. worked to make the blacks hate the whites, no? worked to make them forget that it was the republicans that freed them and wanted them and invited them whilet he left fought for slavery and jim crow. shows the real values, and how they flipped).

since a normal man with sensitive emotions and things sees his mother, daughter and children as important. the harem system is not liked. its why more enlightened groups went to that.

in this way, the women were not the sexual chattel of all the men that wandred by. that she would ahve trust love and help… not abuse, abandonment, and be used up.

up is down… war is peace.

arbeit mach frei.

work will set you free… the words over the gate at auswitz.

[here is the punch line no one tells you. the sociopathic punch line. for auswitz that message was TRUE. if you worked very hard, you would use up your subsistence calories faster, and would die sooner. work will set you free]

i am not good at organizing this stuff for people that need things linearly… i dont think that way..
so i make a lot more novel associations

as should be evident here i think divergently, so rather than my thoughts converging on a solution, my solutions expand to all other implications.

so when i look at something i see it in 50 different ways as a supposition of states where the intersections of many of them is the truth.

physics is my training, and i will show you why they see things differently.

ideology says there is no objective truth becasue there is no clear view without subjectivity always leaks through.

is that true? or is that an assertion that hasnt been truly determined. remember 40 years on, their blind assertion of tabula rasa is dead as it was always.

are they giving you a preferred view in which you stop asking questions and questioning authority? question authority is something stout advises you do ALL the tiem so that you authority is not a sociopath.

read this and let me know if it changes your view

A pessimist will see that the glass is half empty

The optimist will see that the glass is half full

the quintessential example that reality is subjetive.
no?

well if you say or think that is all there is, then yeah.

but what about a third option?

The physicist will say you have too big a glass for the water you have.

is that subjective? or absolute? would the converse statement lead to opposites?

the first two are subjective preferential, the last one is unarguable fact in which its obverse is also true and not a contradiction. You don’t have enough water for the glass you have. to the physicist both answers are valid and unlike the one tied to subjective ego, they are neutral and equivalent and not at all dependent on your outlook in life or you bias that day.

So is truth subjective? or is there an absolute truth?

is it dependent upon the rigor of how you phrase the problem?

dont let smart people play with lesser minds of naivette and honesty.

it then would take a good person of high smarts without the contempt for their fellow man, and such high faluting things.

wasnt it maslow that discovered that these people really existed? didnt the church make some of them saints? doesnt ultimate power corrupts ultimately really just blaming an inanimate state for the actions and moral of the person absoving them of their responsiblity and creating false forgiveness?

That’s why physics gets farther than other branches of science. physics is at the edge of reality, philosophy, and mind. unlike the other branches of sciece, physics was the branch that knocked the philosophers off their pedastal.

prior to physics, and empirical math, invented by men… philosophy, magic, intuition, were the leaders of modern thought and deviners of how god made the world.

intelligentisa, pseudo religious thinking, and womens special knowing.

so in the bigger picture… taking hegel into account.. they got the intelligentisa to agree to their own immolation by teasing them with the promise that they will be on top again over empiracsicm.

and in sociology and psychology they are very well along… but in the HARD sciences, they are not so far along.

read about the spy franz boas.
he tagged anotehr woman.. margret meade..
she lied.. her somoa work is a sham.
boas turned out to be a front man.
dont worry, naomi goldstein she took the lies of margret, tied that with the lies of the sociopathic kinsey, and giving up her writing for the CPUSA created the feminine mystique.

kinsey is a good example of a sociopathic doctor.

how did he get babis to orgasm so he could describe it? well, he put them in the hands of child molesters who he was also studiying too.

so his work is a sham too…

i have to get going.

i am the king of digression… but there is so much to talk about that just doestn enter discussion due to ignorance… and trust.. and refusal to believe what is right in front of you.

[on another note i just read that link… nope… it doesnt explain it. its argumetns are off, and i dont have time to spend dissecting it and such. sorry. but i do thank you a whole lot for sharing it with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

Possibly worse, the libs I’m around – by necessity – used to think that if I remained resolutely stoic in the face of whatever they were saying that I had actively agreed with them.

Now they try to avoid any opening for a real conversation on anything important, probably also because I’m fairly well prepared with one-liners in response, that is, unless they have strong numbers or can otherwise virtually trap me in some socially compromising position.

Still, they catch me off guard by doing such things, which they apparently can’t suppress, like referring to Blacks as Nig****, talking about “that Jew”,or trying to get me involved in something illegal – things which by their ver own zealotry they themselves have made illegal such as catching and eating a “protected” fish.

Again, stoicism in response to these outbreaks is not something they recognize as not really affirmative but instead rather negative.

So I just might have to start packing and even occasionally draw a gun on them in order to have a ready means of communication available at all times.

You really, really are a Russian…..

You know Ymar, thats sounds about right. Its not about a “magic” argument. Maybe a series of arguments, but would have to be a personal epiphany. There are people you are not going to reach because their hatred is so ingrained. Then again I believe that there are people (like Neo) that grew up in the middle of strong regional liberalism (great term huh?) that are able to break free of the dogma. Would that be accurate to say? I dont know.