You are primed for an introduction into the wide wonderful world of 'psychopathology.'

This is an older interview with a guy who introduced me into the exact topic that you're hinting at. A psychological explanation for the poor behavior of the self-appointed rulers of the free world. Their behavior and language patterns point directly at psychopathology.

http://youtu.be/qigr-axv2dk

That's a quick intro. I've been on the subject for about a year now and have a pretty good grasp of the subject. There's more that I could know and I'm missing a lot of pieces. Still, psychopathology seems to answer for all of the worst of the behavior of the people in government, banks, mega-corporations and so on. There are other elements, to be sure, however, the most virulent is clearly psychopathy.

As for you notion of success as being defined as a win / lose situation in which one wins at the expense of another I would disagree. A psychopath would present the situation in such a way. I disagree that there only so much 'win' in the world and that one must hoard the 'win' for themselves. There is an infinite amount of 'win' in the world and it depends on how you define it. There's enough 'win' for everyone. The key difference between my view and a psychopath's view is that a psychopath wishes to be better than everyone else. So, in my world I get to win and the psychopath also gets to win - the psychopath, on the other hand, does not want me to win at all. The psychopath wants me to lose. This is why they define the amount of 'win' as being finite and that we cannot both win.

Like I say - I disagree with this view.

There's an interesting question that gets raised in my head when I consider the subject: psychopaths wish to feel in control / powerful. When things happen that threaten this view they tend to lash out. This suggests a level of insecurity regarding "reality." I think that psychopaths are essentially threatened by "reality" and wish to control it so that they don't feel vulnerable. This is a double edged sword. For a normal person this is a generally good thing. A psychopath, however, doesn't have psychological limits like a normal person and would be inclined to take this to far (GMOs, destruction of rights, destruction of environment, et cetera). This is not success over one's environment - this is destruction in the name of mastery. Only a specific type of person would do this: a psychopath.

You're in a good spot mentally.

Here's a book that I think should be in everyone's home. Especially people in this sub:

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510

I had the good fortune to be exposed to a psychiatrist in her down time on a regular basis, and she got me to thinking about the domination of the psychopath.

Here's an interesting exercise she put me on the path of. Go out on the web and grab any reputable definition of psychopath you can find. Now, while you're reading it, try to think like a corporate shareholder. Does this person sound like someone that might benefit the company?

PROTIP: if you're good at pretending to be a shareholder, the answer is YES.

Here's another thought. Psychopaths, because of their inherent lack of emotional boundaries, are the most likely to rise to the position of leader in any given group of people. And if you know anything about management, it's that they promote the kind of people they like to work with. Think on your own experiences. Have you ever wondered why almost everyone thinks their boss or bosses boss is an asshole? Have you ever wondered why Person Asshole got promoted over Person Qualified for a position? It is because, and I've had members of management confide this to me in various ways, Management wants to promote people they want to work with. And that makes perfect sense, psychopath or not.

Management whiles it's day away in meetings and corporate luncheons. OF COURSE they're going to stack the deck with psychopaths if they're a psychopath. People they not only can relate to and form a cohesive force with, but that they can intrinsically understand and manipulate directly through pure logic. This effectively eliminates what the psychopath considers to be the messy contrivances and unpredictability emotional swings can bring to the boardroom negotiation. Game theory, all the way down. People that get to this level and can't compete for moral reasons are eliminated in short order. Annnnnnd the next thing you know, your entire management staff is a hierarchy of psychopaths.

When you extrapolate this model to world government, you begin to understand the mess we're in and the scale of the threat we are up against as a species.

[deleted]

1.) The difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is nil.

Clinicians will make a big deal about the differences and might even say that there's no such thing as a psychopath, but if you look at the descriptions and read enough of the literature you'll see that they're essentially one and the same.

The only difference is in the old 'nature' / 'nurture' divide. Neither is central. Both are important. There's a famous case (you'll find him sooner or later) of a guy who's a neuroscientist who is a psychopath. He's non-villent and very normalized in terms of his interactions and behavior. His parents were borderline gods to be able to raise him to be a proper human being. This suggests that you can modify the expression of the pathology. I think this is an excellent thing to contemplate.

Sociopath / psychopath . . . same thing.

2.) They don't think they're sick. They think we're weak.

In the view of the psychopath they are absolutely God's gift to the planet and any failure to believe otherwise is contemptible. This very conversation would be regarded as the prattlings of idiots in the view of a psychopath.

In their view they are not sick.

In their view they are better than us. They probably think they're a new race of better human beings.

3.) You're right. They do laugh it off.

There's a disinfo agent [he may or may not be unwitting - but the result is the same] named Kevin Dutton who underwent a proceedure that, on a brain state level, mimicked the thought patterns of a psychopath. It wears off after half an hour - there's thought of doing the reverse to treat psychopathology, but since it wears off the psychopath will simply go back to being a psychopath after half an hour. Anyway, he became a psychopath for half an hour. He said that it felt great. In his words: "It was like having half a bottle of wine, but you were completely lucid. I even beat my best scores at video games because of my lack of fear."

They laugh it off because being a psychopath feels great. Plus they think they're better than us.

4.) They have zero remorse or conscience.

Please be very clear about this - they literally have no empathy. They are inhuman.

Empathy is a combination of mirror neurons and a fully functional amygdala. The mirror neurons are mostly in the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. In a psychopath this area is turned off. So they don't feel what othrs feel as they watch others. When you watch a little kid get his arm cut off you feel really bad. To a psychopath this is no different than watching a sunset. It's pure information and the psychopath has no emotional attachment and no feelings for the person they're watching.

Similarly, the psychopath does not have a fuly functioning amygdala. They don't feel fear the way that you or a normal person does. So, when they're confronted with a situation in which they watch the pain and suffering of another they can't feel what the other is feeling and they have no fear response to inhibit their behavior patterns.

The two basic components of empathy are each turned off in the psychopath.

They are not human on a brain-state level. They are Komodo Dragons in human skin.

5.) A person must participate for the psychopath's manipulation program to work.

In 2008 I thought it was the Illuminati. In mid-2008 I wondered if it was 'the Jews.' In 2009 I thought it was the Luciferians. In 2010 I thought it was a tribal family system. Now I think it's psychopaths. All of the above are technically true to a point. And I think the think that links them is psychopathology.

And, regardless of the group you blame, it all falls apart the moment we stop participating in their schemes and scams. They're powerless without us. The only thing we need do is laugh at them and let them do whatever they wish without our participation.

Imagine a school bully that no one took seriously. He'd be powerless within seconds. If he did violence you'd simply lock him up and take him away from society. His power depends on the other kids feeding into it. The bullies are few. The other kids are many. This is a simple math problem in my view. They're the parasites and we only need to inoculate ourselves with knowledge.

Funny . . .

They're literally inhuman on a brain-state level. In some sense David Icke was right all along.

In some sense David Icke was right all along.

A lot of his supporters say that the things he says about "lizard aliens" is satire meant to make us question everything we see. Once taken on tat level, I can see where some of his stuff makes a little sense.

David Icke talks a lot about genealogy, and how these 'inhuman' traits are passed down through the bloodlines. You can see it in the behavior of royal families - they love to interbreed.

And did you know that all the US Presidents (bar one) is related to British Royalty? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

Some people respond to the above fact by saying that we are all probably related to each other if you go back far enough, so no big deal... but just sit down and do the math for a couple of minutes - and there is no way. This is absolutely mind-blowing information and it actually validates David Icke's theory (which means downvote city here I come haha).

About British royalty, yes, I know they are all related. It's the same here though. I cannot find the link, but some little girl did a genealogy thing on them and found that most are related, albeit distantly.

You shouldn't get down voted too bad. Personally, I don't care about them. What does bother me is when people down vote you and never say discuss what they disagree with. Also, almost every post of mine always ends up with two down votes. Looks like a couple accounts just go through and down vote anything I post, no matter what it is. LOL!

the genealogy link is in my above post... it is a mainstream source from the UK.

Thanks for the comment. I don't really care about the downvotes for myself, it is just a shame to me that so many people here really despise David Icke... I think what he says is at least worth some discussion. I've listened to the guy talk about the Lizards at length, and he might actually be onto something... it is a lot less insane once he puts it in context.

I still think he's incorrect about them being literal lizard people.

Still, after having examined psychopathology, I find it intensely amusing that his ideas fit in so nicely.

Now I can spot them a mile away.

The only thing left is for me to examine the marks - the participating victims.

That was my point. I don't think he even thinks they are really lizard aliens. But, maybe he does. He was a football goalkeeper..... :)

Icke uses lizard aliens as a metaphor because it's easy to comprehend and it sticks in the mind. Personally, I would have called them vampiric lizard aliens, which fits certain bankers very closely.

No he is serious about the lizard aliens... but it is not as outlandish as it sounds if you actually listen to him talk about it at length...

[deleted]

Before I say anything more: the following paragraph is my own interpretation and will clarify how I use certain terms.

Judaism is not a genetic code - it is a belief set. You can be converted to Judaism, but you cannot be converted to being Ashkenazi. Judaism is a belief set as where Ashkenazi is a genetic code. When I talk about Jews I am only referring to religion and to religion alone. When I refer to Ashkenazi I am referring to an ethnicity determined by genetics. There are overlaps only in that some Ashkenazi choose to believe in Judaism. There are many nonAshkenazi who also believe in Judaism and so this confirms my belief that Jews are separate from Ashkenazi.

I'm telling you the above so that you don't get confused when I invoke these terms and concepts.

. . .

Moving on . . .

I have thought long and hard about genetic links to psychopathology.

In my own family I have a medium grade psychopath. She's the only one. No other members of my family are psychopathic. If it was a genetic trait there would be more than just one since I come from a large family. If I found more than one single psychopath in my family I would be more inclined to winder about a genetic link - however the lone wolf makes me think that this isolated case is not a condition of genetics.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way, mind you. There are many researchers who've attempted to find a genetic link for psychopathology and so far no such link has been found. This could be somehow proven later, but, as of this typing, no such link has yet been found.

As for the Jew thing, I maintain that Ashkenazi, Jews and Sapherdics are not bad. They are merely groupings of people - some along religious lines and some along genetic lines. Not all Ashkenazi are Jewish and not all Jews are Ashkenazi (even Joe Biden will back me up on this)

There is no such thing as a psychopath who is Jewish.

I cannot stress this enough: psychopaths do not believe in anything other than themselves. They'l pretend to believe in things, but they do not believe in anything. The only reason they pretend to believe in things is only because they think their mark believes in those things. It is a pure manipulation technique. I caution you not to believe the things that psychopaths tell you. Whether about themselves or others. Psychopaths are notorious pathological liars and cannot be trusted in any sense. If I think a person is a psychopath they are no longer a Jew, gentile, Christian, black or anything - they're a new sub-class of human devoid of any other descriptor; they are a psychopath and that is all.

Yes, psychopaths mimic very well. They will pretend to be Jewish or whatever, but, again, they are not Jewish or anything. This is why they can pretend to be Democrats and go along with hard right ideology. Or, on the other hand, pretend to be Republican and then vote for Agenda 21. They do not believe in anything. They have no ideology apart from "fuck you, buddy I got mine."

I repeat: there is no such thing as a psychopath who is Jewish. They pretend, but that's all.

Now, as for the Jews who believe in the words of the psychopath pretending to be Jewish that's another mater. Such people do exist. I know this because I've met them. However, such people also exist in all denominations, genetic lines, belief sets, sexes and whatever else you use as a criteria for dividing the human species.

Similarly the psychopaths pretending to be Christian are not Christian. My own family is predominantly Christian and they're highly manipulated. It's unfortunate, but it's the case. They believe in the things that psychopaths [pretending to be Christian] tell them to think. This is not limited to Jews. This is a civilization-wide problem.

It is not the Jews, bro. I hear what you're saying and understand it on a level that you're about to understand. You are at the brink of a level of understanding that will probably necessitate a good sit-down and a cup of hot chocolate.

The psychopaths that are in upper levels, in my opinion, are very likely Rh Negative. Since Rh Negative favors Caucasians the statistical likelihood that a successful psychopath is Caucasian rises dramatically. Remember that the Rh Negative psychopath will have a higher intelligence and will say whatever they need to say in order to get leverage over people. They will pretend to be whatever they need to be to convince people to do their bidding.

Three concepts to think on:

1.) Rh Negative favors Caucasian blood (Ashkenazi).

2.) Psychopaths will use whatever tools are at hand.

3.) Psychopaths do not believe in anything.

If you combine all of these the few psychopathic people who are Rh Negative who are also Ashkenazi will claim to be Jewish if it suits their ends. If it doesn't suit their ends then they won't care. Even if they're not Ashkenazi and it favors them to pretend to be Jewish then they'll pretend to be Jewish. Or Ashkenazi or whatever. They don't care. You might care, but they don't. They only tell you what you want to hear so that they can manipulate you.

My own thesis is that there are Ashkenazi who are psychopathic as with any other ethnicity. I don't really care what they look like. They believe in nothing and should not be confused with people who actually do believe in things. To do so would inadvertently demonize people who have nothing to do with the pathology.

And here's another thing to contemplate:

There are many Ashkenazi in this very sub. People who would be your ally. They may or may not consider the differences between Judaism [belief set] and Ashkenazi [genetic codes]. But that doesn't make them any less a person. You're also ignoarant about these same things and use them to discriminate against a group of people amongst whom you'd find friends who would help you to over-throw the self-appointed rulers. This is a tragedy in my mind.

I understand your zeal and I understand that this is a bit of a thing in your mind. It's okay. I've changed my mind too so I'm not saying that I'm completely correct at all times and you're the silly one. This is not the case. We're all ignorant and we all make mistakes - myself included.

But, really, just remember that there are many Jews, Ashkenazi and so on who would be your ally. Take them as brothers. The psychopaths are the bad element. They believe in nothing. The Jews and Ashkenazi are normal people like you. They are not the enemy. The psychopaths are the enemy.

I have known six psychopaths. None of them were deep-thinking people. They had no loyalties, did not have any ideology, did not have a religion and did not care about such things at all. Psychopaths are not human. Only a human can be Jewish or Christian. This is literally impossible for a psychopath.

I'm rambling now. I don't mean to, it's just this this is a very important subject tome.

You're a human. So are Jews. How do I know this? Because they believe in things. The ability to believe in things is what makes us human. This is impossible for a psychopath so you don't need to extend this concept to them. Be good to other humans.

I wish you the best.

http://youtu.be/Tb3FZKOKMYM

They do not consider themselves sick. I've met many of them in business. They know they are different from the norm, but they consider themselves superior. So many of them have narcissistic antisocial disorder. They justify their actions to themselves because they believe we are all beneath them, inferior, animals. So anything can be done. Also, to a man (or woman) they almost always deny a problem is their fault. Anything that goes wrong, it is always YOUR fault. This allows them to do horrendous, evil things with no guilt. Remorse is a weakness not for them.

I've worked with several king-emperor sociopathic bastards and they were hell on wheels. Dishonest beyond belief. Destroyed the companies they were in. I could see easily how they could bring down societies if they got into power. The very worst ones (three of them) were from one particular country; my guess that the culture of that East Asian nation leads to such people rising in the ranks through cheating, lying, and backstabbing. Oddly, two were Stanford grad school graduates. Stanford encourages win at any cost, I believe, it turns out very hard-nosed, cut-throat business grads, ans sociopaths thrive doing that.

Another core trait was that they had to win. Always. In fact, this accounted for a lot of their lying. If they felt they were losing, they would lie to shift the game in their favor. You see this a lot in certain Redditors.

I wonder how the sociopaths and psychopaths who run our world, and us, react to the realization that they are sick, mentally, and abnormal?

They don't even pause to consider what we think.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

"People they like to work with."

That's a tricky phrase.

The only people they like are te ones they can manipulate into doing their bidding. I do think that psychopaths will exploit other psychopaths, but I can't imagine them finding each other and teaming up per se. Something about that doesn't jibe with me. They're lone predators; and a lone predator teaming up with another lone predator seems ill-fitting. Remember that, on a brain-state level, these are Komodo Dragons in haman skin. Two lizards working together doesn't seem to fit. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm only saying that I have a hard time getting a handle on that and so I'm disinclined to take it to seriously (not that I can't change my mind later).

The net result, though, is identical. I completely agree with you that psychopathology is a trait that has been built into our current corporate model. I also completely agree that there are many psychopaths within our corporate structures - especially on the upper levels. I'm still trying to understand the relationship between the psychopath and the mark. Psychopaths have a mark and they exploit that mark. It's important to remember that the mark is an active participant in the machinations of the psychopath (Joel plays into Lana's games in 'Risky Business' [1983]). I feel like I'll get a better understanding on psychopathology when I get to understanding the mirrored side of it -the side of the mark. The participating victim.

I like that you bring in Game Theory.

I've had it in mind for months now that John Nash and Ayn Rand factor into the study of how psychopaths operate. I think Ayn Rand was probably, herself, a psychopath. It's that or she was a highly damaged Seneca. The result, in either case, is the same: a 'philosophy' based on psychopathic behavior / mental states.

You know, a funny thing is that a lot of the mystic Luciferian stuff, on a deep level, ends up describing some of the psychopathic behaviors and mind games. That is, they seem to regard the serpent as a tool to be used and not completely bad in itself - however, it's like fire. You don't play with fire. You treat it with respect. The psychopaths do not have any respect at all. So, ironically, they are the unchecked fire. The horse without a bridle. A car without brakes. Fun superficially, but dangerous along a time-line.

It's nice to see others in this sub with this kind of knowledge.

Cheers.

They're lone predators

Why do you think that?

Obviously this is my own opinion and I'm an armchair entomologist.

Take me with a grain of salt.

One of my favorite descriptions of psychopaths is "intra-species predator." I like this description because it's suggestive. Suggestive of what they do, how they operate and their style of thought. Their type of predation is not for food purposes so much as satisfaction purposes. But the essential notion that they find a mark and exploit it is so similar to predatory behavior as to be almost identical. I do think of them as predators in terms of their behaviors and effects.

Now, assuming that we're speaking of a predator, what kind of a predator? A pack predator or a lone predator? Psychopaths do not have empathy. They do not hold to bonds of trust and loyalty. They're notorious pathological liars and will abandon all promises made (this is all text book stuff, mind you - any author on the subject will back me up on everything I've just said).

Are the above descriptions those of a pack predator? Let's look at some pack predators: dogs. They're excellent pack predators and they cooperate with each other and even allow the sick to dine without participating in the hunt. Dogs are extremely loyal and have bonds of trust. They do not arbitrarily destroy one another from within. They have a sense of social cohesion.

Unlike a psychopath.

A psychopath, on the other hand, has no loyalty to his pack. If it benefits the psychopath to sacrifice the pack for a temporary gain the psychopath will proceed immediately with whatever it takes to dispatch the pack (murder, fire, poison, patsy, whatever). To a psychopath this is just business. They assume that the pack would dispatch them and so they're simply pre-empting the decision to their own benefit (John Nash's "Game Theory" comes to mind).

Let's look at psychopaths within organizations.

Mitt Romney is very likely a psychopath. He has so many of the markers that it's hard not to notice (if you'd like me to detail them ask - otherwise I regard it as academic and boring). What did he do with his companies? He scoured them for every cent he could. He'd buy companies, fire people, sell them and then profit off of the broken lives of people who no longer had jobs. When asked about this he'd give a beautiful smile and tell you about capitalism. Romney's loyalty was only to himself. When asked about his political leanings he'd say whatever the person in front of him wanted to hear. There are numerous examples of him switching his line to appease a new audience (gay rights, gun rights, health care and so on were never fixed for him - no loyalty). And so he'd sacrifice his pack for personal gain. This was such a pattern for him that people made videos about it.

Why is this the case that they have no loyalty a given pack?

I think it's because the pre-frontal cortex is turned off in psychopaths. They don't have the mirror neurons and so don't feel what others feel (there are some TED Talks on this subject somewhere). If you feel what others feel then you're likely to value them and work in such a way as to benefit them. This is literally impossible for a psychopath since they have that part of their brain turned off.

I am at the point of rambling.

I'm tired and haven't had dinner.

If you have any other questions for me I'd be happy to answer them. I've spent about a year o the subject and so know a bit more than the casual reader. I'm not an expert by any stretch, but if you have questions that I can answer I'd be happy to tell you whatever I know. My big blind spot, for the moment, is the relationship between the psychopath and his marks / prey. The movie "Risky Business" [1983] was hard to watch because Lana is a psychopath. She fits the bill so well it's off-putting. Now note that Joel plays into her manipulations and she ends up being lionized and lauded for her behavior! I must look deeper into this area of psychopathology as I'm far too ignorant on the subject.

And now I really am rambling.

Cheers.

VERY GOOD!

Tagged you as friend, because of fantastic, well thought replies and obvious intelligence.

Congratulations?

I'll take it.

I know what you mean.

This is a very interesting, serious and highly applicable sphere of thought. This sub especially would do well to spend a full year on this one subject alone. I try to send in links now and again and there's been a little extra interest lately. About a year ago there was comparatively less interest.

Whatever.

Now that you know about it you have the possibility to tell others. This puts you into a sort of 'healer' role. Not that you are Christ come to save humanity or anything; you're in a position of knowledge. You can help others. You can help your friends and family. Maybe not by pointing out specific psychopaths, but by knowing that they exist and that they're trying to run game as we type / read these sentences. You might be able to disarm some of the psychopaths' games. Your thoughts and actions will ripple out. As you know now others might know in time. This can only be beneficial.

If anything you should congratulate yourself.

You saw something worthy of time and attention.

Cheers.

P.S. Here's something a bit more pleasant:

http://youtu.be/iIwvsdt9cTc

[deleted]

On a limited level I do agree with this.

I'm new to the topic (I only have a year backing me which, believe me, is nothing). I only know what I know and nothing more. My understanding is that psychopaths will work together as a tacit agreement that they simply benefit from another on a local level. The moment it serves them to back-stab, lie, kill, whatever they will do so. They have no loyalty.

So, when they work together, it's not a long term agreement.

It's only for as long as its expedient.

Their lack of loyalty precludes any long term or meaningful allegiance.

thanks for the link.. I came across this one from another sub on the same subject. do you know it?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm

I've never even seen a copy of it. I want a copy, but it's so obscure that you have to order it online or in specialty book shops. A buddy of mine made noises that she'd buy a copy based on my recommendation, but I don't really think it's her cup of tea. Too bad for me.

I read a few reviews and have listened to interviews with a editor from the publishing company. The stories he tells about the publishing of that book are pretty incredible. Here are a couple of interviews by that guy:

http://youtu.be/uWbrowBAla8

http://youtu.be/Mvad6de6tfA [the links to the other four parts should be in the links section]

http://youtu.be/gpeK4HIDZX0

Also, here's an interview with the author:

http://youtu.be/DU7LKAsjt4k

I only have one book by Dr. Hare and nothing by Thomas Sheridan.

I'd like to get 'Snakes in Suits' and also 'Defeated Demons.'

Alas, I am unemployed and penniless so all of my information is limited to that which is free.

About Political Ponerology, though; my understanding is that it's a very dense book and either translated into English or written in a non-native language relative to the author. It was also written entirely from memory. Not having read the book, I get the impression that someone only loosely interested in the topic won't get much out of it. I think only obsessive freaks like myself would find it interesting. Hopefully I'll be able to secure a copy.

[deleted]

In that first link the interviewer is probably stoned. I think he's funny and I don't really mind that he's a little silly. The subject matter, however, is mind blowing.

I'm still interested in a lot of the Masonic and Luciferian stuff. The whole 'Jew' thing is a red herring. They're interesting as aberrations, but ultimately lead no where.

That said, there is an interesting link between blood types and intelligence. Those with Rh Negative tend to have higher I.Q.s. Psychopathology occurres in all ethnicities with even distribution. However, psychopaths, like all other human types, are plotted along intelligence curves. The stupid psychopaths remain drug addicts, pimps and middle management (I've met some of these incidentally). The more intelligent psychopaths go on to become statesmen, lawyers, bankers and so on. Now consider this: Rh Negative blood types occur in Caucasian people more so than in any other ethnic group. In Asians, for example, the distribution of Rh Negative is something like 0.2%. (I'm quoting the Red Cross web site - so I'm not making any of this up.) In Blacks / Hispanics it's in the 8% range. In Causasians, however, the distribution for Rh Negative blood is a whopping 15%! The biggest concentration is in Basqueland.

With all of the above said, I think that the reason there are so many successful white psychopaths is because of a randomization program across a population. You'l simply get more Rh Negative people (higher I.Q.) in Caucasians and if a number of those are psychopaths they'l tend to be more successful at manipulating people in higher social strata.

In this sense, the whole 'Jew' thing makes some sense, however, the badness is not a condition of being Jewish. The badness is that they're psychopaths[*]. But since all ethnicities have even distribution of psychopathology you can't say one set is more psychopathic than another set. The variable is in the Rh Negative. And even then it's not like all Rh Negative people are psychopathic. When psychopathy is not present Rh Negative people tend to be pretty awesome (I know a couple Rh Negative people and they're very sweet - also Robert Anton Wilson was Rh Negative).

http://youtu.be/AQ1TTBB4vuw

The deeper I examine the topic the more interesting it becomes.

[* ] Incidentally a psychopath doesn't believe in anything and so they'l pretend to be something even though they don't believe in it - there is literally no such thing as a Jewish psychopath. Similarly there is no such thing as a Democrat, Republican or Feminist psychopath. They'l pretend to be these things only because they'l be able to manipulate people who really do believe in these things.

This is an important thing to remember:

Psychopaths claim to believe in things, but they really don't believe in anything. This cannot be stressed enough.

Thank you :)

You're quite welcome.

Psychopathology dovetails nicely with conspiracy theory.

It explains why the elites are such bastards.

We know they're bastards, but finally, there's an explanation as to why.

It's also nice to see an explanation that accounts for their bizarre shifts in ideology.

I could go on, but I've borderline hijacked this thread already.

Cheers from this side of the planet.

I'll definitely be reading into it.

There's occasionally a valuable thread that pops up here.

This place really has gone downhill lately but thanks to insights like yours I still come back now and then and manage to eke out something worthwhile out of an increasingly sensational torrent of links.

So, kudos to you.

Just out of curiousity, what side is that? Down under here.

I'm in sunny Los Angeles, USA.

Not all of us are vapid.

For the sake of it; this is the exact interview that got me on the kick. It was a completely random click on my part and I expected to get nothing out of the interview at all. Instead it would occupy my mind for the next year solid.

http://youtu.be/vKXJEUU8g6Y

Thomas is very easy to understand and serves as an outstanding introduction to the subject. As you look into it you'll notice some really funny and interesting links between pop-culture and psychopathy.

You're in for a hell of a ride, by the by. While I have it in mind: don't go thinking everyone that behaves bad is a psychopath. I'm not directing this at you specifically - this is for anyone reading this. Psychopaths exist, but normal people are capable of bad behavior too. The last thing we need is a civilization wide witch hunt. I take the subject seriously enough that I don't call a person a psychopath unless I really mean it. And even then I'll think twice. It's a very serious accusation. When I find out a person is a psychopath they effectively die in my mind. They are banished to non-existence. By thinking about or talking about or behaving with a psychopath you're giving them energy. They love this. If you find a psychopath [very rare - I've only met a handful] just stop all contact with that person. And remember the likelihood is that they're not a psychopath. The likelihood is that they're having a really bad day or something.

For the sake of comparison here's a documentary about an actual psychopath:

http://youtu.be/jKvhKI6Kxew

Now you've seen, with your own eyes, how they behave.

The lesson I learned about myself through the study of this subject is that you have almost no choice but to be Gandhi. Which is a good place to be, really.

Boy, do I prattle and meander.

Cheers.

Ah, the City of Angels. I used to live in Pasadena as a lad.

Thanks for the links! I am certainly not adverse to watching lengthy videos and the subject matter seems particularly edifying.

I'll get back to you if something substantial manages to pique my interest.

Bah! I enjoyed it. Prattle on!

See you around :)

What if the impulse and drive to gain control over the lives of other human beings is abnormal and pathological?

It is. Inherently so. Now what?

What if success itself, as we understand it, is pathological?

What is success, other than power and authority over other human beings?

Better question: Why are you letting psychopaths define success for your own life?

Well, you must. You live in a country ruled by psychopaths.
You live in a house that is owned by a piece of paper created by a psychopath.
Every day you go to the psychopath store to pick up your food.
You watch the psychopaths on TV (assuming you still have one). You see the psychopaths at work (assuming you still have a job).
I find your "better question" interesting. What do you do to define success in your life? Would you consider that there is ANY answer to being successful that does NOT involve making decisions for your own life?

How can you make decisions for your own life, while a hoard of psychopaths rules over you? The only answer I've seen anyone give to this is to ignore them. Let them do as they please. And here we are: A massive slave army, losing rights each month. I suppose this is r/conspiracy, so I can say: When you lose more rights than you're willing to- will you still have the right to fight back?

You always have the right to fight back.

You see more than just fnords.

I find myself having this viewpoint as well. What bugs me, though, is that while what you describe could 100% be the case, I can't see a way to A)completely verify it, or B) rule out this perception being some sort of subconscious ego-defense/jealousy thing on our part.

Anyhow, this all of course totally meshes up with my thoughts in this post from a while back:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/17vhe8/hypothesis_competition_keeps_us_busy_powering_the/

The essay "political ponerology" is on my reading list, it used to be sandizmat in the soviet bloc and discusses how psychopathy has a tendency to gain positions of power and has genetic components, and collusion among psychopaths. Available on google I think.

Edit: correct spelling is samizdat, meaning grassroots individual reproduction of material to evade official censorship

Also get 'Without Conscience' by Dr. Robert Hare.

You'll have a couple of sleepless nights.

But it's worth it.

Thanks for the recommendation!

I'm happy to pass on whatever I can.

We're all in this together.

Knowledge is power.

Great post. But isn't that same drive to dominate the reason our species is the apex predator of Earth? Just a thought, of course. Not trying to refute/disprove what you are saying.

Not directly. What you're talking about is a primal biological drive. One that (I assume) would have existed long before the complex social structure that we recognize today began to form.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. It's a good hypothesis.

Ok, yeah, you get what I meant. We were able to out-compete everything else. We made it at the expense of something else. Take the Neanderthal for instance; they weren't able to compete so they fell by the way side.

Does that make any sense?

[deleted]

This is a metaphysical question as well as a practical one.

Without evil transcendence means little.

That said; evil never sleeps. A new psychopath is born every day.

I think there will always be psychos, of varying degrees. Once all the psychos we need protecting from are gone, that just leaves the "protecting" psychos, half of which will decide to terrorize us and half will protect, and it would go on and on. Once the bad psychos are gone, it always leaves the good psychos which in turn half of them try to terrorize and so on and so forth. And I think when most of the psychos are gone, and most are complacent with everyday life, some will start to notice that everyone else is weaker and then start the whole cycle over again.

Right interesting thread!

EDIT: Wanted to expand a bit and for spelling

When you look at people like George W Bush, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Mitch McConnel, Lindsey Graham, etc, etc, in high positions you just go WTF? Do you have to be pyschopath?

But what really disturbed me the most was Netanyahu's speech to congress on May 24th, 2011. Our representatives are owned by the Israel lobby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK7SRYp4sBc

[deleted]

What surprises me about most of them is how authoritarian they act. There are a lot of times when it also seems they are speaking from the same script that has been prepared for them.

You don't have to be a psychopath.

But it helps.

Really great eye-opening post. This is why my boss and I do not get along, or why he thinks we get along but I secretly hate his fucking guts. He is an unethical psychopath, and I will never understand him. He will certainly never understand my laid back approach to customers, sales, and business in general. I am an ethical person in need of making a profit in life. He is a shrewd unethical man, hell bent on increasing profit margins year after year until he bites every hand that feeds him. I secretly hope his entire business crumbles under his feet. I want him to beg in the gutter next to me. Does this make me a sociopath?

But what if this is always literally true? What if the impulse and drive to gain control over the lives of other human beings is abnormal and pathological? What if success itself, as we understand it, is pathological?

It is. It's driven by egotism. The other thing is that the ambition is always driven by a feeling of lack. Think about it, if you are happy and content with where you are and what you have will you have this overwhelming need to get somewhere or get more?

I get off controlling myself more so than others. I feel that to be true mastery of our powers to mold the external reality in accordance with our drive to understand, control, and morph our own self.

I never understood why we're all forced to be productive. Some of us can't and some of don't want to, that's fair, right? If you want to be an over-achiever, go ahead, but I see no reason why everyone has to be. That's the problem with our society. If you don't demonstrate value, and we tend to focus on the worst of values, such as good looks, financial success and material possessions, then you might as well not even be human.

But what if I like slacking? What if I don't like work and I'm fine with putting in the bare minimum, that should be my right as well. It's a free country, right? Well, no, it's not, because really, you're supposed to be an employee, not a citizen, think about it. We do this whole civilization thing so we don't have to live in squalor and we can collectively enjoy the benefits of our work, but if a select few is just going to eat it all up, we might as well just go back to the serfs and feudal lords system, which is actually how I kind of feel as a wage-slave for a corporation.

http://www.anxietyculture.com

Success isn't bad, yo. It's like, if you're successful you're bad. You're not bad if you do cool stuff and others see it. You're only bad if you mean about it. I wouldn't call anyone in this sub bad for succeeding. I'd only call them bad if they were mean about it. Don't be bad. Be good. Success is something else.

I think the overall theme is most of the time good people don't succeed as they aren't willing to backstab and be cutthroat in nature. Some good folks do rise to the top, but most folks there are only there because they stepped on someone else to get there. Good points you made, actually.

You're chill, bro. I think the peepz at the top are prolly back-stabbing punks. I'm not saying all success is good or bad. I'm only saying it's not like all success is bad. It depends on what you think success is. I succeed when I say I want to run a mile in six minutes and then do it. When a politician says he wants to get a bribe and then secures a bribe he succeeds too. His shit's wack and mine ain't so bad. It depends. I get it, though. The cats at the top ain't chill. They'll cut you for a buck. That's a different kinda success.

For a long time I've been tending to the conviction that the people who hold positions of authority, and who amass large amounts of wealth, are not normal or healthy human beings. I'm not alone in this suspicion. It's often said here that various world leaders are sociopaths or psychopaths.

Yup.

Most normal men want to work their job, go home and fuck their wife, watch some sports, enjoy a beer and have a one to few good kids.

I cannot imagine myself to rise to the power of a president or a dictator (or even a senator) and make a law to, say, because we are modernizing a nation we need to make some sacrifices - say, 60 million people need to die...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology

http://ponerology.com/psychopaths_3.html

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/

Everybody on this subreddit should read some Lobaczewski.

Success in general? No. Success as a corporate middle man? Maybe. The corporate model pushes people to behave in ways they would not normally behave. This happens when you blindly chase numbers.

Here is a list of video links that redditors have posted in response to this submission (deduplicated to the best of my ability):

• VideoLinkBot FAQ
• Feedback

"What healthy, sane person gets off from telling others how to live?"

And this is exactly why I hate authoritarian progressives (otherwise tragically known as "liberals" in today's society, though it is both the right and left).

Very good post and comments. Success in life for majority of people can't be further away from really being successfull (happy, kind, caring and giving). Getting and receiving material wealth does not make us mentally and spiritually rich, or better person. Usually the most opposite will happen.

Are all succesful people psychopaths, or just the ultra-succesful? What about the moderately succesful, are they psychopaths? Basically, how much money does a person need to make a year before hes or she is a psychopath? Any psychopaths on /r/conspiracy?

This is what keeps psycho nutters like me awake all night worrying about the idiot fundies turned atheists, moron socialists, carpetbagged and carpet bagging neanderthals and so on and so forth.

You really want to surround yourselves and yours with oblivion just to spite your family?!

Weirdos.

Your continued incoherency is a true treat. Keep up the good work.

My coherency issues or my incoherency issues?

I'm going to go ahead and throw you a "both". I find your use of carpetbagging here whimsical, as if trying to delude your readers into thinking you have something to say, by removing context and inserting- uhh... "Psycho nutter".

'Going to go ahead' + ''Carpetbagger'. Go fuck yourself.

Go fuck yourself.

Well! That was warranted, huh?

Every day.

In that first link the interviewer is probably stoned. I think he's funny and I don't really mind that he's a little silly. The subject matter, however, is mind blowing.

I'm still interested in a lot of the Masonic and Luciferian stuff. The whole 'Jew' thing is a red herring. They're interesting as aberrations, but ultimately lead no where.

That said, there is an interesting link between blood types and intelligence. Those with Rh Negative tend to have higher I.Q.s. Psychopathology occurres in all ethnicities with even distribution. However, psychopaths, like all other human types, are plotted along intelligence curves. The stupid psychopaths remain drug addicts, pimps and middle management (I've met some of these incidentally). The more intelligent psychopaths go on to become statesmen, lawyers, bankers and so on. Now consider this: Rh Negative blood types occur in Caucasian people more so than in any other ethnic group. In Asians, for example, the distribution of Rh Negative is something like 0.2%. (I'm quoting the Red Cross web site - so I'm not making any of this up.) In Blacks / Hispanics it's in the 8% range. In Causasians, however, the distribution for Rh Negative blood is a whopping 15%! The biggest concentration is in Basqueland.

With all of the above said, I think that the reason there are so many successful white psychopaths is because of a randomization program across a population. You'l simply get more Rh Negative people (higher I.Q.) in Caucasians and if a number of those are psychopaths they'l tend to be more successful at manipulating people in higher social strata.

In this sense, the whole 'Jew' thing makes some sense, however, the badness is not a condition of being Jewish. The badness is that they're psychopaths[*]. But since all ethnicities have even distribution of psychopathology you can't say one set is more psychopathic than another set. The variable is in the Rh Negative. And even then it's not like all Rh Negative people are psychopathic. When psychopathy is not present Rh Negative people tend to be pretty awesome (I know a couple Rh Negative people and they're very sweet - also Robert Anton Wilson was Rh Negative).

http://youtu.be/AQ1TTBB4vuw

The deeper I examine the topic the more interesting it becomes.

[* ] Incidentally a psychopath doesn't believe in anything and so they'l pretend to be something even though they don't believe in it - there is literally no such thing as a Jewish psychopath. Similarly there is no such thing as a Democrat, Republican or Feminist psychopath. They'l pretend to be these things only because they'l be able to manipulate people who really do believe in these things.

This is an important thing to remember:

Psychopaths claim to believe in things, but they really don't believe in anything. This cannot be stressed enough.

Before I say anything more: the following paragraph is my own interpretation and will clarify how I use certain terms.

Judaism is not a genetic code - it is a belief set. You can be converted to Judaism, but you cannot be converted to being Ashkenazi. Judaism is a belief set as where Ashkenazi is a genetic code. When I talk about Jews I am only referring to religion and to religion alone. When I refer to Ashkenazi I am referring to an ethnicity determined by genetics. There are overlaps only in that some Ashkenazi choose to believe in Judaism. There are many nonAshkenazi who also believe in Judaism and so this confirms my belief that Jews are separate from Ashkenazi.

I'm telling you the above so that you don't get confused when I invoke these terms and concepts.

. . .

Moving on . . .

I have thought long and hard about genetic links to psychopathology.

In my own family I have a medium grade psychopath. She's the only one. No other members of my family are psychopathic. If it was a genetic trait there would be more than just one since I come from a large family. If I found more than one single psychopath in my family I would be more inclined to winder about a genetic link - however the lone wolf makes me think that this isolated case is not a condition of genetics.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way, mind you. There are many researchers who've attempted to find a genetic link for psychopathology and so far no such link has been found. This could be somehow proven later, but, as of this typing, no such link has yet been found.

As for the Jew thing, I maintain that Ashkenazi, Jews and Sapherdics are not bad. They are merely groupings of people - some along religious lines and some along genetic lines. Not all Ashkenazi are Jewish and not all Jews are Ashkenazi (even Joe Biden will back me up on this)

There is no such thing as a psychopath who is Jewish.

I cannot stress this enough: psychopaths do not believe in anything other than themselves. They'l pretend to believe in things, but they do not believe in anything. The only reason they pretend to believe in things is only because they think their mark believes in those things. It is a pure manipulation technique. I caution you not to believe the things that psychopaths tell you. Whether about themselves or others. Psychopaths are notorious pathological liars and cannot be trusted in any sense. If I think a person is a psychopath they are no longer a Jew, gentile, Christian, black or anything - they're a new sub-class of human devoid of any other descriptor; they are a psychopath and that is all.

Yes, psychopaths mimic very well. They will pretend to be Jewish or whatever, but, again, they are not Jewish or anything. This is why they can pretend to be Democrats and go along with hard right ideology. Or, on the other hand, pretend to be Republican and then vote for Agenda 21. They do not believe in anything. They have no ideology apart from "fuck you, buddy I got mine."

I repeat: there is no such thing as a psychopath who is Jewish. They pretend, but that's all.

Now, as for the Jews who believe in the words of the psychopath pretending to be Jewish that's another mater. Such people do exist. I know this because I've met them. However, such people also exist in all denominations, genetic lines, belief sets, sexes and whatever else you use as a criteria for dividing the human species.

Similarly the psychopaths pretending to be Christian are not Christian. My own family is predominantly Christian and they're highly manipulated. It's unfortunate, but it's the case. They believe in the things that psychopaths [pretending to be Christian] tell them to think. This is not limited to Jews. This is a civilization-wide problem.

It is not the Jews, bro. I hear what you're saying and understand it on a level that you're about to understand. You are at the brink of a level of understanding that will probably necessitate a good sit-down and a cup of hot chocolate.

The psychopaths that are in upper levels, in my opinion, are very likely Rh Negative. Since Rh Negative favors Caucasians the statistical likelihood that a successful psychopath is Caucasian rises dramatically. Remember that the Rh Negative psychopath will have a higher intelligence and will say whatever they need to say in order to get leverage over people. They will pretend to be whatever they need to be to convince people to do their bidding.

Three concepts to think on:

1.) Rh Negative favors Caucasian blood (Ashkenazi).

2.) Psychopaths will use whatever tools are at hand.

3.) Psychopaths do not believe in anything.

If you combine all of these the few psychopathic people who are Rh Negative who are also Ashkenazi will claim to be Jewish if it suits their ends. If it doesn't suit their ends then they won't care. Even if they're not Ashkenazi and it favors them to pretend to be Jewish then they'll pretend to be Jewish. Or Ashkenazi or whatever. They don't care. You might care, but they don't. They only tell you what you want to hear so that they can manipulate you.

My own thesis is that there are Ashkenazi who are psychopathic as with any other ethnicity. I don't really care what they look like. They believe in nothing and should not be confused with people who actually do believe in things. To do so would inadvertently demonize people who have nothing to do with the pathology.

And here's another thing to contemplate:

There are many Ashkenazi in this very sub. People who would be your ally. They may or may not consider the differences between Judaism [belief set] and Ashkenazi [genetic codes]. But that doesn't make them any less a person. You're also ignoarant about these same things and use them to discriminate against a group of people amongst whom you'd find friends who would help you to over-throw the self-appointed rulers. This is a tragedy in my mind.

I understand your zeal and I understand that this is a bit of a thing in your mind. It's okay. I've changed my mind too so I'm not saying that I'm completely correct at all times and you're the silly one. This is not the case. We're all ignorant and we all make mistakes - myself included.

But, really, just remember that there are many Jews, Ashkenazi and so on who would be your ally. Take them as brothers. The psychopaths are the bad element. They believe in nothing. The Jews and Ashkenazi are normal people like you. They are not the enemy. The psychopaths are the enemy.

I have known six psychopaths. None of them were deep-thinking people. They had no loyalties, did not have any ideology, did not have a religion and did not care about such things at all. Psychopaths are not human. Only a human can be Jewish or Christian. This is literally impossible for a psychopath.

I'm rambling now. I don't mean to, it's just this this is a very important subject tome.

You're a human. So are Jews. How do I know this? Because they believe in things. The ability to believe in things is what makes us human. This is impossible for a psychopath so you don't need to extend this concept to them. Be good to other humans.

I wish you the best.

http://youtu.be/Tb3FZKOKMYM