FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: How Psychopaths Run Our Lives
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:55 pm    Post subject: Re! Re! Re! Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

Yeah, I can empathise with your feelings.
But it is very important to speak out as you did.

What I have found is that even though the emotional-ego mind of your
in-law reacted in a negative way, nevertheless the inner self of any person
hears every word you say and evaluates and recognizes the truth of it.

What happens then is that the inner-self-mind initiates a process of change
by attracting life-experiences designed to bring home a recognition of the
truth of things to the ego-mind. Sometimes these attracted experiences
are painful, but they do induce wisdom.

But none of this happens unless you speak out.

Try to ignore the ego-mind's reaction and just keep those planting seeds of change. Wink

Here here, and there's another interesting by-product I never would have known if I had not seen it in action.

As some of you know, I work in the Nashville Music Business and Political Vomitorium, and on one bold evening I presented the redneck country artist for whom I work with my views on 9/11 reality. After he sat motionlessly aghast for the 20 some odd (very odd) minutes it took for my opening dissertation, he brushed it all aside with queries as to "what I'd been smoking" and such, and I was convinced I had not only wasted my breath, but possibly come dangerously close to getting fired.

Then about 2 months later, I was in a position where I was waiting in a suit's office at the label, and the artist in question was in the hallway, speaking on his cell phone..... and detailing almost exactly what I had said to him to another songwriter, almost word for word.

I never found out if he had done his own research, or if it had all somehow suddenly become clear to him as a possibility. But, the message had been received, stored for a while, then retrieved when he was ready to come to terms with it.

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never found out if he had done his own research, or if it had all somehow suddenly become clear to him as a possibility. But, the message had been received, stored for a while, then retrieved when he was ready to come to terms with it.

You know, you may have been the first one to speak freely on that taboo topic to him. Post 911 was truly 'the deep freeze'. Sometimes it just takes somebody else saying the Emperor's fuckin' NAKED, dude, to start the gears moving.

Aw, what the hell. No guts no glory. This decade really makes us appreciate just how important freedom of speech really is.

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

American Muslims I've met remind me they get jailed or killed for criticizing their rulers, so wtf, let 'er rip! (I usually do my trial balloon thing on the quotes of Brzezinski and Ledeen first, etc. advocating terrorism as a solution. "Isn't it odd ...")
Back to top

Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 6
Location: Atlanta

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrewTerry wrote:
I fail to see what is so exciting about this guy and his "Ponerology" concept. This is nothing new!!

His ideas about leaders being psychopaths are not revelatory or ground-breaking ideas. Perhaps because they are old ideas repackaged in a new form with new terms and phrases they seem to hold promise.

However, is that not one of the oldest tricks? By regarding the current phenomenon as something new, and by dissociating history from the present using new words to describe old, we lose the benefit available to us in studying history to learn about today.

Ponerolgy is just another word for pathological narcissism, and it all comes down to one thing - manipulating people's consciousness to maintain class division and prevent the people from realizing the power they have. Narcissists, just like our elite, are scared little kids running around with a big bat, hitting over the head anyone they perceive as a threat. The only thing that keeps them going is the fear people have over what they might do next.

I agree with DrewTerry. I couldn't get to the "second part", which was where "the really good stuff is", according to (I suppose) Ms Knight-Jadczyk. Perhaps, Dr Lobeczewski's original is less wandering than the commentary. I kept waiting for Ms Knight-Jadczyk to get to the point.

But I don't think there is much of a point. Frankly, I got more out of Ormand's re-telling of Lobaczewski's theory (in the audio clip and on the forum) than I did reading the excerpts of the original and the commentary that were available at http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm .

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth...

I think, at best, Pan Dr Lobaczewski has uncovered a strong entropic tendency that runs counter to the negative entropy (or negentropy) that creates human history out of the natural evolutionary forces exerted by culture, competition for resources (including war), and the mutability of species which enjoy sexual reproduction. In this sense, the well-known neocon statement that they are creating reality (reminiscent of a similar statement by Orwell's Inner Party handler in 1984) is a recognition of this counter-counterentropic process.

This is a minor trend in actual history, however, in which it is but the counterhistorical tendency (another way to denote the collective process which embodies their whole body of lies and disinformation) that marks the level of decadence of a system in its final death throws.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that realityjudiciously, as you willwe'll act again, creating other new realities...." - a Bush aide quoted by David Susskind, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community .

This shameless boast is heard not only from the neocons (or, as they are called in Europe in non-New Speak, the "neo-liberals"), but has long been on the lips of their predecessors in the corporate world of modern capitalism and of their parodies among the apparachiks of Eastern Europe. Here, George Orwell (real name: Eric Blair) has shed light on an important modern phenomenon that was further elucidated by the psychologist Eric Fromm and given some further scientific support, I'll admit, by Dr Lobachewski. The "pathocrat", to use Dr Lobachewski's term, considers himself above what most people commonly regard as ethical and moral norms, and sets out to create his own norms using as his sole criterion his egoistic disregard for anything but his own material success. This "Devil's virtue" of the pathocrat is for all intents and purposes synonymous with that of the clinical psychopath. The universality of this phenomenon has already been recognized by Orwell and by numerous observers of modern corporate life and many professional and amateur social psychologists.

The really important question which Dr Lobaczewski doesn't address (as far as I know) is this: how does society throw up such people and place them into positions of power? This question was addressed to some degree by the Marxist Wilhelm Reich, who wrote one of the landmark books on character analysis, Character Analysis (Charakteranalyse, 1933) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich . Reich questioned not why so many people suffered from psychopathies, but why so few did, given the psychopathological nature of modern industrial society and the pathological nature of paid work. He made a sharp distinction between what he called "orgonomic work", the creative work of an artist or scientist whose primary criterion was neither career success nor financial reward, and "non-orgonomic work", the paid labor of the alienated hireling. His Mass Psychology of Fascism (Massenpsychologie des Faschismus, also 1933) grapples with the same questions as Dr Lobaczewski, only in Reich's work making use of a dialectical materialist method of analysis - as far as this was possible within a Freudian or neo-Freudian framework. Reich - who was a student of Freud and broke with him over Freud's insistence that there was a "death wish" that was not just a deprivation of the natural life force (an expression of Henri Bergson's lan vital, itself an idea lacking in a firm scientific basis), but a positive human instinct. Although Reich on numerous occasions in his works remarked at the extraordinary parallel between the impulse to malevolence - which he had put down to a deformation in the natural psychological make-up - and the religious concept of "evil"; he was adamant in regarding this mystical concept as itself an expression of pychopathology and a misinterpretation of an unconscious truth by the ego. The ego sets up defense mechanisms - denial, displacement, intellectualization, etc. - that are inadequate and socially counterproductive reponses to social depravity. Reich was himself inflicted with psychosis in his waning years due to his years of persecution by the German Nazis and later by the FBI, so that he fell somewhat into mysticism and re-wrote some of his works to reflect his infirmity. But his honest materialism stands on its merits. Throughout his healthy life, he regarded mysticism as the enemy of science and truth.

This is why I find Dr Lobaczewski's theoretical work disturbing. I thought it very telling that he secreted his work out "to a Church dignitary at the Vatican by means of an American tourist". Does he have no understanding of the reactionary nature of the Roman Catholic hierarchy: their role in helping Hitler to power, their smuggling out of Nazi war criminals at the end of the war, and their anti-Semitic history in Poland, among numerous other crimes? Then there's his false conception of hedonism, which focusses only on its perverted expressions. Perhaps he has never heard of Epicurus of Samos (http://www.epicurus.info/etexts.html), as he has probably never read Karl Marx's essay on alienated labor (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)?

"Thus, through estranged, alienated labour, the worker creates the relationship of another man, who is alien to labour and stands outside it, to that labour. The relation of the worker to labour creates the relation of the capitalist or whatever other word one chooses for the master of labour to that labour. Private property is therefore the product, result, and necessary consequence of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself." -ibid.

This is the starting point for the honest researcher who wishes to understand the perverse nature of interpersonal relations under both capitalist wage-slavery and its parody under the Stalinist apparachiks.

Everyone who seeks to appreciate what the Marxist tradition has to say about society begins with this question: how does society throw up leaders? One is then confronted with the nurture-versus-nature dialectic. There are three major routes to intellectual maturity in secular Western thought, according to three major traditions:

(1) The classical tradition: here one reads the Great Books, delves into the mind of the Roman and Greek philosopher to understand certain seminal values such as that of aret (the final chapters of Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: an Inquiry into Values, 1974, has an excellent discussion of these), one reads Lucretius's expression of Epicurean philosophy in his The Nature of Things (De Rerum Natura), then one forges ahead through the Dark Ages (when religion ruled the human mind in Europe), until one comes to the rediscovery of Epicurean Materialism by Pierre Gassendi at the beginning of the 17th century, and modern philosophy takes up where Hellenic philosophy left off. One then opts for Platonic and Neo-Platonic idealism and goes the route of Logical Positivism or Phenomenology, or puts reality before mind and opts for Materialism. The Jewish and Islamic ethicists should also be considered a part of this classical tradition.

(2) The Bourgeois (capitalist) tradition: here one takes a more empirical approach. "Objective" science and experiment are given preference over ethical speculations or consideration of the fundamental classical question: "How is one to live one's life?" One is to live one's life by perfecting one's competency in technical matters. An "invisible hand" will nurture all who better themselves in the market of salable commodities. In this tradition, ethical and metaphysical questions are left up to the castrated shamans of the religious cults - large and small. Knowledge and Human Interests, 1968, by a leader of the Frankfurt School of Neo-Kantianism, Jrgen Habermas - who comes to tradition (3) below by way of tradition (1) above (in which he still has a foot) - offers an excellent critique which makes use of the works of Freud and Marx to deflate the Bourgeois notion of "objectivism".

(3) The Marxist tradition: here one takes as a starting point a most sympathetic understanding of Epicurus's advance over the materialism of Democritus (the subject of Karl Marx's doctrinal dissertation), follows a merciless critique of both idealism and vulgar materialism, uses the historical methodology derived thereby to discover the mechanisms that determine modern history and to discover the crucial role of economic forces as the primary determinant, and goes on to put all the lessons learned into political practice. "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it!" (so says Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach). The Marxist notion of "practice" is the German notion (as manifested in Hegelian dialectic and given a humanistic reinterpretation by the Left Hegelians) of praxis: praxis is a dialog with nature (also society, which is social nature) in which one tests one's ideas and at the same time learns from their application. "The taste of the pudding is in the eating," says Engels, Marx's collaborator. There is, then, an appreciation for empirical method but not without an understanding of the human prejudices which the experimenter or activist brings to the process.

These are the intellectual traditions that have freed themselves, to one degree or another, from religious mysticism: the classical (1) as an outcome of the Pelyponesian War between Athens and Sparta (according to Bertrand Russell, at least); the Bourgeois (2) as a result of the Renaissance, the Great French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution;and the Marxist (3) as, again, the Great French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Uprisings of 1848. There are many great non-European intellectual traditions, but to an unsurmountable degree they have been subsumed within their regional religious traditions. Early capitalism and the Bourgeois intellectual tradition which it fostered were regarded by Marx and Engels as a giant step out of bigotry and mystical unenlightenment. In almost all corners of the earth, patriots of their own national emancipation struggles have regarded the Bourgeois liberal tradition and - even moreso - Marxism as great insights into human possibilities.

Now, while warning all against the horrors of European Fascism and such parallels with the actions of Bush's junta members and corporate handlers as should make us keenly aware of what psychopathic rule could mean for a hegemonic and racist power armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, one must never forget that a workers' dictatorship without workers' democracy is thoroughly counterrevolutionary and anti-human. We don't need a Pope-worshipping reactionary to tell us this. We should look, instead, for those who understand that Stalinist totalitarianism is a perversion of a deeply humanistic and psychologically healthy understanding of the human condition. We can understand how easily such monsters as Stalin and his followers can facilitate the disinformation campaign by which the enemies of social emancipation have brought the uninformed up to believe that Marxism is its opposite and how the word "communism" has become associated with despotism rather than with its origins in the communes of the revolutionary workers of Paris. Let's not forget that the Church fathers redefined the name of Epicurus in our language so that it became synonymous with "profligacy" and "gluttony", and that Bourgeois indoctrination (which recommends a shadowy reward in the sky as the answer to our ethical questions) has taught the unenlightened to regard "materialism" as a synonym for "acquisitiveness" and even "avariciousness" (its own sins).

Firmly rooted in the anti-humanism of latter-day Bourgeois social theory in its decadence, the theory of Dr Lobaczewski is to be regarded, in my opinion, as an anti-evolutionist theory which seeks to turn hopeful and progressive social-evolutionary theory on its head. In his "objective" studies, Dr Lobaczewski has smuggled the Catholic doctrine of "original sin" into what he now offers us. Marx and other humanist thinkers (probably few were aware of Darwin's later writings in which Darwin stressed the role of co-operation over competition) took Darwinian theory to the left and made it a tool of emancipation, while Herbert Spencer and his co-thinkers in the eugenics movement took it to the right. Dr Lobaczewski has little faith in the influence of human culture (be it high culture or the deep-enduring folk culture of workers and farmers) as a defense against despotism and tyranny (an evolved defense mechanism which Pavlov recognized). The current neocon and corporatist counter-evolutionary tendency is an aberration: to hold it and the examples Dr Lobaczewski gives of Stalinist totalitarianism up as examples that demarcate the high road of human development shows a fundamental ignorance of the lessons of history.

In summation, let me offer one crucial observation which (as far as I know) Dr Lobaczewski has missed. Psychopaths are incompetent of creating new intellectual tools, so that they must pervert the creations of the beneficent in order to pursue their ends. The poet William Blake recognized this truth when he said that humanity is divided into "the prolific and the devourers". History favors the prolific in the long run as the rightful beneficiaries of natural selection: the history of technological innovation testifies to this!

For a more sympathetic treatment of the human condition as it faired under Stalinist oppression in Eastern Europe, blog readers should try to get hold of a copy of the film The Lives of Other People (Die Leben der Anderen http://www.movie.de/filme/dlda/), or, better yet, see it in a theater. The Lives of Other People shows us how humanity will eventually triumph over "pathocratic" social systems, East and West. It is an answer to the pessimism of George Orwell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello to you all,

I just listened to the show, and I want to thank you for presenting the subject of psychopaths and political ponerology. I am one of the editor's of Political Ponerology, and we are pleased that the ideas are starting to circulate more widely.

So thanks to Fintan and Dan.

I want to respond to Drew Terry's remark that the book contains nothing new. Obviously, the idea that there are psychopaths in power is not new, however Lobaczewski's analysis goes much further than that.

First, a perhaps minor point but interesting in the light of how psychological ideas shape us, the analytical approach he brings, and he was a clinical psychologist during his career, is based upon ideas and writers who are not well known in the West. From what we have learned, it was a school of thought developing in Eastern Europe during the twenties and thirties that was all but crushed after the Second World War. It appears to represent an alternative to the Freudian, Behaviourist, and other schools in the West. In seeing the clarity with which Lobaczewski decribes the psychological processes he discusses based upon this other school of thought, we can see how much psychology in the West has been ponerized.

Second, Lobaczewski shows how different pathological types, with different characteristics, work together to form a system that can ponerize any organization. Lobaczewski shows how this process happens. That in itself could be a major key in turning around the dire situation in the world today.

He describes the essential psychopath, the schizoid, the characterpath, and others, and shows how each occupies a specific role in the system. Understanding the types and their roles is, I think, a necessary survival skill for anyone who is working with others. Any group, movement, or social organization can become ponerized, that is, infected with deviant ways of thinking. If you do not understand the process, then you will have trouble seeing it early enough to take preventative measures. If you do recognize the various types, you will learn to spot them in any groups with which you might be working. If there are not confirmed deviants in the group, there will very likely individuals whose thought processes have been affected. You'll know how to spot ponerized thinking in non-pathological, but not entirely healthy members, including yourself. That information itself could be the life or death info needed to keep the group on track.

Lobaczewski also emphasizes the role ideology plays in ponerogenesis. Ideology is the mask that is used to rally the support of those necessary to bring the pathocrats to power and keep them there. The pathocrats themselves have no ideology; they can be communists, capitalists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslems, whatever is the going ideology of the day. In this way, we see how they continually split normal people into groups and set them against one another.

Another aspect of Lobaczewski's work is that he gives a scientific grounding for what is derided as conspiracy theory. There is a group of people on the planet who recognize each other and work together for common aims. They are psychopaths. They have complete contempt for people of conscience. They are ruthless and invisible, spanning race, creed, nationality, culture, language as they move among us. They are our natural predator.

They are quite capable of the crimes described by those of us who point out the conspiratorial patterns of history. What is the importance of providing a scientific grounding for "conspiracy theories"? That alone seems to me to be huge. When people say, "How could they get away with it?", there is a concrete explanation.

The work has much, much more in it. It needs to be read and reread.

To really appreciate how bad the situation is, and the importance of the book, you also need a good understanding of psychopathy. The trouble here is that psychopaths are also psychologists and they present theories and propose psychological categories that would make most everyone a potential psychopath, eliminating the fundamental fact that there is a profound difference between psychopaths and normal people, one that is genetic in those with inherited pathologies, physical in those who have acquired the pathologies, and moral. Psychopaths have no conscience. Nothing will change that. This idea, of course, upsets those who believe that God put his divine spark into everyone. But we have to really understand that we are not all made equal, and the fundamental split is between people of conscience and those without.

Which also tells us that in order to change this world, we need to act upon our own conscience. If we don't, then in practice we become like them.

To help understand these issues, one place to start is on our Cassiopedia page on psychopathy. It gives a good overview on the subject, including how the DSM-IV, the standard guidebook for psychological disorders, completely whitewashes the issue of psychopathy, or has been ponerized.

We have also transcribed and made available for free download the seminal work on psychopathy by Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity, available from our bookstore.

Two excellent introductory texts are books by Robert Hare, Without Conscience, and Snakes in Suits, co-written with Paul Babiak. Marhta Stout's The Sociopath Next Door is an excellent look at the question of conscience.

So, thanks again to Fintan and Dan.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome to BFN, Henry. And thank you for your contributions and links.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Jul 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, obeylittle.

bill-turk: The really important question which Dr Lobaczewski doesn't address (as far as I know) is this: how does society throw up such people and place them into positions of power?

Hi Bill,

He does address this to a certain extent in his book. Or he lays the groundwork for understanding how it can happen.

He describes two types of pathologies, those that are inherited and those that are acquired, often through injuries to the brain at birth or at a young age. What happens is that the brain, once it is damaged, uses other parts of itself to carry out the same functions. Unfortunately, there is not a perfect match. The function is in some way deadened. Simplistically, we can say that the thought processes of these people are not 'normal', and the various ways this is manifested are described in the book.

The individuals in the inherited category appear to just not have the hardware to enable them to feel empathy. Their emotional range is pretty much limited to predatorial sensations of excitement at the hunt and anger when their food source is taken from them. Because of their inability to put themselves in another's shoes, they are quite willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead: killing, lying, refusing responsibility for anything.

So there is a population which Lobaczewski puts at around 6% of the whole (the different pathologies combined) whose basic perceptions of the world are different from that of 'normal' people. They are ruthless and without conscience.

They also feel themselves different from others in the world, and they can feel out of place. They sense an injustice, and as with normal people who sense injustice, they can want to change the world to fit their vision, to make a place for themselves. Therefore, they can enter into political and social organizations which have at their origin the goal to improve our lot. Once in the organizations, however, their difference of thought, their different emotional life, puts them on a different track that the sincere members.

Lobaczewski details very clearly the different roles played by different pathological types at different stages in the ponerization of these groups, parties, etc. This framework is the groundwork I was speaking of. So let's try to apply it.

Go back in history and imagine that some of the more ruthless of these types were able to ascend to power through force, manipulation, violence, etc. They accumulate wealth; they become the ruling class. They have no moral strictures holding them back. They can do anything at all and never feel remorse. With the arrival of trade, manufacture and finally the industrial revolution, there is a place for a new group of these deviants to ascend to power. Remember, ideology means nothing to them. And since there are these types in all classes, in all cultures, any movement against the injustices of the current day will attract those who have no obtained power.

So the communist movement, arising against the horrors of capital, begins with a hope and finishes corrupted.

This outline won't answer all of your questions, but I hope it helps.

I would add more thing. Lobaczewski writes:

In spite of their deficiencies in normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety. Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest to normal people because they are considered self-evident - strike the psychopath as strange and, interesting, and even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts. They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments. The suffering and injustice they cause inspire no guilt within them, since such reactions from others are simply a result of their being different and apply only to those other people they perceive to be not quite conspecific. Neither a normal person nor our natural world view can fully conceive nor properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts.

While this paragraph is rich with ideas, let's look at his suggestion that they see us as a "para-specific variety". They don't understand our psychology and find much of what we do comical. Well, if they consider us as a para-specific variety, perhaps with more knowledge we will come to understand them that way. We could say, this percentage of the population does not truly reflect 'humanity'.

Our studies of human nature have all, up to now, included the pathological deviants as part of the sample. To what extent has this skewed the results? We see ourselves as animals who think, and psychology tells us we all have a 'dark side', that beast within that we are fighting to control.

But what if this depiction of humanity is completely wrong because the picture includes individuals who are not really human at all? Or who at least are defective because of genetics or injury? Do we see ourselves are beasts because we are told that we are all capable of the horrors committed with cold calculation by a small percentage of the overall population?

And if this group were isolated, quarantined from having any positions of power and influence in society, what type of social organization might arise?

And if this is true and possible, then how must Marxism be changed to reflect it?

Also, your quote about "creating our own reality" from the Bush aide is a classic bit of psychopathic thinking. This has been documented by many researchers. Facts are whatever they say they are. Here is an excerpt from the article BEYOND INSANITY by Amos M. Gunsberg [he is using the terms 'humanoid' to refer to psychopaths):

Amos Gunsberg: Nothing of what WE call reality is real to THEM.

I repeat.

Nothing of what we call reality is REAL to them.

When a human being mentions a chair, the reference is to a chair that sits there on its own legs. It's there whether anyone sees it or not, whether anyone mentions it or not, whether anyone "declares" it to be there or not. It's there ON ITS OWN.

A basic element in the profile of humanoids is their lack of comprehension that anything exists on its own, separate from their say-so. They don't SEE it. The only objects humanoids see are the ones they "declare" . . . the ones they imagine.

We use the phrase "my perception" to mean an appraisal, a measurement of something separate from ourselves. We don't announce it as "fact." We are open to consider other views if given facts to consider.

Humanoids use the phrase "my perception" as a buzz word. They imagine what they choose, and tell us it is their "perception" . . . which, in their minds, ESTABLISHES reality. What we call "facts" do not exist for them. That's why they whine and claim they are being attacked whenever substantiation is requested.

Humanoids claim their statements are valid simply because they make them!!! They elaborate on this: "I honor integrity in this regard. As an egoist, I make statements which are valid to me. Validity to my 'self' comes first. I grant other people this same respect assuming they say things valid to themselves."

Among human beings, for something to be deemed valid it has to be substantiated with facts. Nothing is valid simply because someone says it.

When humanoids are asked how they determine what someone says is valid to that person, and not something made up or imagined, they ignore the question.

Note the strange use of the word "integrity." Humans define integrity as uprightness of character; probity; honesty. We refer to sticking to the facts, sticking to the truth, not selling out. Humanoids use "integrity" to mean insisting what they imagine is what's real. No measurement. No evaluation.

When the demand is made for their pronouncements to be evaluated, they claim the confronter is the one who has no integrity . . . meaning the confronter is not upholding THEIR position: what THEY imagine is what's real.

On what basis do they claim this? Humanoids treat the world as if it were their own private holodeck. They "declare" things into being. Everything is a hologram. They program the holograms. They interact with them in any way they choose. They have them under total control. When they decide to cancel a hologram, it vanishes.

A hologram is a hologram is a hologram. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to think for itself. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to measure, evaluate, appraise, etc. Most importantly, a hologram is not supposed to be able to break out of its holographic state and critique its master.

When this does happen, they first chastise it to bring it back into line. If that doesn't work, they "vanish" it. When that fails, they run for cover by abandoning the program and calling up another one.

Experience has shown no matter what we say, no matter what we point out, no matter how much evidence is given, it has no meaning for these creatures. They have one goal: to fool us into classifying them as human so they can concentrate on murdering our human values. Without human values, the next step is murdering human beings.

Doesn't this fit the actions of the Bush administration ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Psychopaths have no conscience. Nothing will change that. This idea, of course, upsets those who believe that God put his divine spark into everyone. But we have to really understand that we are not all made equal, and the fundamental split is between people of conscience and those without.

Which also tells us that in order to change this world, we need to act upon our own conscience. If we don't, then in practice we become like them.

This is the key truth that needs to catch on again. Culture has been deliberately constructed more and more to sever individuals from connection with the natural world. No connection with the life cycle of the food we 'consume', less and less need for cooperation with community and family. They've done it their money system all along, and for over a century have exponentially amped up the social engineering to isolate the human being as never before. Such isolation induces a similar perception of self and other that is intrinsic to that of the pathological brain physiologies--though it's achieved artificially by 'training' the human from cradle to grave through forbidding their natural connection with nature and other beings. I see that as identical to the science of animal husbandry. Chain a baby elephant, and when it grows to the size that it could simply give a tug to yank the stake out of the ground, the elephant never attempts it.

We have a problem today that for generations the whole culture has been encased in a web of global simulaca, a reality which is man-made by these aberrant brained people. The culture is increasingly set up to give advancement to those possessing all the desired traits: high intelligence, compartmentalization of thought, and no real emotions at all.
It's time that people recognize that it's not just 'anomalies' like Adolf Hitler or Stalin who exemplify the 'self actualized' psychopaths. And Hitler and Stalin were each loved by millions when they were on the go, who were in awe of their strange charisma. People tend to make excuses for leaders who are adept at appealing to the human sense of tribalism.

Lobachevsky has indeed taken this study to the foundation of a science of understanding how deep and old this matter really is. It didn't begin with the 'neocons'. The gradual corruption and indoctrination of the public has been fully underway for generations.

I know you're well aware of all this, I'm emphasizing for readers who are just beginning to understand the paradigm.

There may a tendancy of the public to not respect a science which is late in being formally organized, but obviously the study of poronology wasn't authorized to get the huge funding and support of Foundations and think tanks. They've put their money into studying us, and how to control us.

After 911 and an unrelated but near simultaneous death of a loved one, in 2002 I resorted to some counseling mainly for the group talks with others in a similar place. In the group therapy there were a couple of court ordered types, one was diagnosed a full sociopath. He'd been a con man all his life. Usually playing along with no remorse or interest in changing, he said something very honest one time which I wish I had on tape. He said that "what you people feel, emotions, I don't know what they are. I've never felt anything". He said he did not envy it, nor was he especially proud that he couldn't. He really didn't feel anything at all.......but a classic case of what natural acting ability goes with this condition. In any other situation, this would be the guy you'd trust on the spot with confidences, money, etc. He came off as so serene and calm that it was misinterpreted as 'non jugemental'. He appeared like a great listener. He didn't have to try to act, I realized that the true sociopath comes off with charisma to normal people because of the emotions they lack----they're calm, let you talk about yourself, and don't say much about themselves. They don't get nervous or flustered or angry, and that's just appealing to people who don't recognize what it is.

This is what people need to understand. A healthy person can sit on a plane with one, or work for or with a sociopath, and never realize it unless they become one of their targets. For they are always targeting somebody. They're natural predators who can only see humans as objects and prey.

That particular sociopath was one of the failures, since he also lacked any ability or desire to work with a pack. My impression was that he simply lacked the element of ambition, he said he didn't understand the feelings of power he'd read that psychopaths have. So there are 'slacker' sociopaths too...

He did reveal that he had always had become obsessed with anything that gave him 'sensations' as he called it. Sex, drugs, sadism. So he became a low order criminal, limited to acting on the compulsions of the moment.

The poronological sociopath needs that special touch of the psychotic...for they can feel something through self aggrandizement---power.

Thanks again for your work, Henry. We're not done yet with this topic. I've been keeping it very much in mind for further understanding and presentation. Your informed contribution here or anywhere else is needed and appreciated.

The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CBT (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy) or REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) are meant to be the cure-all and brilliant alternative to pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs. Is that really the case? Is rationalising our 'emotional' response to a situation really the right way for us - as a society - to go? Perhaps emotion is superior to cognitive function?
Back to top
Wu Li

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:54 pm    Post subject: The evil bastards that run our world slavery system Reply with quote

I HATE to change the vibe but I saw the Topic after a long while and thought I post this.

I can not find the whole event on CSPAN but am happy to present this.
Not a shocker, but may be a good topic for conversation when dealing with the evil bastards that run our world.


"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 165
Location: unsure of its legacy, uncertain of its agenda...

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:28 pm    Post subject: Domination structure Reply with quote

Domination Culture:

[quote]MARSHALL ROSENBERG: We've been living under structures that require educating people to believe that authority knows what's right for us to do, and that it's our job to do what authority tells us to do. If we do not, we deserve to be punished for that. If we do what authority says, we deserve to be rewarded. Now, that is a dangerous way to teach people. There's a lot of people who claim to be authorities, and know what's right, and have a lot of power, and can educate people to do things that I think are rather violent - like, look at other people as enemies. We can be educated to think we have to punish them, because the authorities tell us these people are bad. That kind of thinking is, for me, very dangerous. I wanted to do what I could to show people another way of thinking and communicating that I think is more natural and more conducive to everybody getting their needs met peacefully.


INGLES: Having established how you are feeling about a given communication and linking that feeling with a need that is not being met?


INGLES: This is really a critical step. Why is it so hard, do you think?

ROSENBERG: Because we have been educated, for a long time, to fit within domination structures: to do what authority says. When you want people to be nice, dead people and do what authority says, the last thing you want them to be conscious of is the life within them. You cannot make a good slave out of somebody who is fully alive. The last thing you want to teach people, if you want a domination structure, is for them to be in touch with their needs. You ought to teach them that the highest value is not a need to express their needs. "Needs" means you are needy, selfish, dependent, egotistical. Loving women have no needs; they suppress their needs, for their family. Brave men have no needs; they are willing to lose their lives for the king. That is why we do not know what our needs are. I went to schools for twenty-one years. Not only was I never asked what I was feeling; I certainly was never asked what my needs were!

KRYDER: Give us a list of maybe the top five or seven generic, human needs.

ROSENBERG: Let me give you all nine of them, because, according to the Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef, we only have about nine needs. Needs are very important to Max-Neef, because his whole, economic system is based on human needs. How do we measure them, so we really gauge our economy, its success, on the meeting of human needs - and not the tragic way we have been measuring it?

The first one he calls, "sustenance:" food, shelter, and water - the basic, physical needs. Next, "safety:" protection. Next, "love."

Next, "understanding." Next, "community." Next, "recreation:" play, rest; he lumps those as one. Then, one of the most important needs of all, "autonomy." Look in the newspaper on any, given day and see how many wars are going on over that need. Human beings have a strong need to be in charge of their own lives, to not have somebody claiming to know what they have to do or should do. Anybody who says that to them, it threatens his or her autonomy. You see all the wars going on between nations. Listen in on any family with children. You will hear autonomy wars. "It's time to go wash up for bed." "No, I don't wanna." "Did you hear me?" "No!" See? An autonomy war. Another need, "creativity." Then, according to Victor Frankl, probably the most important need of all, a need for "meaning:" purpose in life.

How sad, how few people on the planet are getting that need met. They are educated to misrepresent needs, according to Michael Lerner. We have been educated to misrepresent our needs. We have been educated to think we have a need to consume, a need for money, a need for status - not realizing those are not needs.

Last edited by the_loast on Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Wu Li

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Re: The evil bastards that run our world slavery system Reply with quote

Wu Li wrote:
I HATE to change the vibe but I saw the Topic after a long while and thought I post this.

I can not find the whole event on CSPAN but am happy to present this.
Not a shocker, but may be a good topic for conversation when dealing with the evil bastards that run our world.



"Fear is the passion of slaves."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.