Updates from October, 2015 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 14:32 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply  

    Understanding what is psychologically happening when the guardianship (or other court proceeding) turns abusive and not justice–the psychopatic courtroom and judge 

    How to Spot a Prosocial Psychopath: http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pro-Social-Psychopath

    MaryGSykes.com

    I strongly recommend that if you are a probate victim or family member you understand what a psychopath/narcissist/sociopath is and how they think.

    The above link will take you to a National Geographic documentary on psychopathy and how they think and operate and why you are more likely today to find them in a modern corporation or boardroom or even the court room.  They are drawn only to riches, wealth, the need to control and deceive others. They have depressed emotions in the area of sympathy, empathy, understanding and compassion.  They will never love, and will make excuses for love.  They are calmest when they are told of violence, cruelty, torture and pain. Then they can focus and plot and plan their next move to win, to control to conquer and most of all, attain riches and prestiege.  This is the modus operandi of the psychopath/narcissist/sociopath (“PNS”).

    One of the…

    View original post 582 more words

     
  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 09:51 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    A Profoundly Sick Society 

    King Henry VIII, Fat Cat CEO

    I wish to draw attention to researcher Stefan Verstappen who provides valuable insight into how individual agency has shaped and continues to shape society (1).

    While Machiavellianism has long been associated with politics and public conduct, Verstappen shifts focus somewhat by arguing that people with psychopathic personalities have for thousands of years tended to grasp power and impose their views and deeds on the rest of us. In order to get power, he concludes that people cheat, kill or lie their way to the top. Whether it has been due to the butchery or lies of royalty, religious leaders, politicians or corporate oligarchs, nice guys have tended to finish last.

    What leads him to conclude this?

    Psychopathy is a personality disorder identified by characteristics such as a lack of empathy and remorse, criminality, anti-social behaviour, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and a parasitic lifestyle (2).

    With that definition in mind, look around: the criminal, parasitic activities by bankers that have plunged millions into poverty; the destruction, war and death brought to countries in order that corporations profit by stealing resources; the dropping of atom bombs on innocent civilians in 1945 or the use of depleted uranium which again impacts innocent civilians; and the many other acts, from the use of death squads to false flag terror, that have brought untold misery to countless others just because powerholders wanted to hold onto power or to gain more power, or the wealthy wanted to hold onto their wealth or gain even more.

    Based on these terrible deeds, it becomes easy to argue that the people ultimately responsible for them do not adhere to the same values as ordinary people. It may be even easier to conclude that it’s not the cream that rises to the top, but, in many cases, the scum.

    Now such a scenario might seem awful enough, but the people who tend to control the world, the ones responsible for these acts, try to impose their warped world view and twisted values on everyone else. Hollywood films, commercials and political ideology are all engaged in forwarding the belief that it’s a dog eat dog world, war and violence abroad is necessary, competition and not cooperative is what counts, aggression and not passivity is the key to ‘success’ and that success equates with amassing huge amounts of personal wealth and lavish displays of conspicuous consumption.

    “A person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful  personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.” – definition of a psychopath from Dictionary.com

    Again, bearing this definition in mind too, the acts mentioned above are not those of properly functioning social beings that contribute to a sense of communality, altruism, love or morality; quite the opposite in fact.

    Yet this is the type of stuff that is rammed down our throats as constituting normality every day. Whether it’s the ‘Big Brother’ TV show or ‘The Apprentice’ show, these values are promoted day and night. The ‘Big Brother’ winner is the one who can survive and outdo the competition in terms of the duplicity and backstabbing involved along the way. The winner of ‘The Apprentice’ must be more aggressive, more duplicitous, more devious and cunning and more willing to trample over everyone else. And the winner is judged as such by a multi-millionaire who himself was cunning and ruthless enough to have made it to the top of the pile and has amassed millions for his own personal benefit. These are the role models to be admired and emulated!

    These are the measures of success, of sanity, of normality.

    “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” – Jiddu Krishnamurti

    Apprentice competitors are highly driven individuals: not driven by a need to help humanity, but by egocentricity and greed. And, ultimately, these are the values that many mainstream opinion leaders, senior politicians and their corporate masters hold dear.

    These values of egocentricity, aggression, competitiveness, duplicity and greed are not confined to some TV show. There are part of a much more sinister process. They are inextricably linked to and underpin the actions that resulted in the killing of half a million children in Iraq for geo-political gain (3) and the sending in of military forces into the jungles of India to beat, rape and dispose of a nation’s poorest people because they stand in the way of profit and greed (4). From Congo and Libya to Syria and beyond, we witness the outcome of a terrifying mindset that is nurtured and encouraged throughout society.

    Too many people have become “well adjusted to the values of a profoundly sick society,” whether residing in middle England, middle America or the gated communities of south Delhi or Mumbai. Humanity is being beaten down to be neurotic, vicious and to regard these traits as constituting normal, acceptable behaviour. Thanks to the media, this becomes engrained from an early age as comprising ‘common sense’, and those who question it are merely sneered at or ridiculed by a system that promotes a mass mindset immune to its own lies.

    Whether this is all due to psychopathy, narcissism or ‘Machiavellian personalities’ is open to debate. Moreover, as implied at the outset, historical and sociological factors often compel usually decent people to act in terrible ways. The debate within academic sociology between structure and human agency is after all a very long one (5). Whatever the underlying reason, however, as a global community we are being force fed a diet of perverse values and destructive actions, all spuriously justified on the basis that ‘there is no alternative’ and ‘needs must’.   

    Corporate capitalism, consumerism, the new world order, a war on terror (or drugs or poverty, take your pick), neo-liberalism – call it what you will, but it’s all based on the filthy lie that those in control have wider humanity’s interests at heart. They don’t. By any means possible – war, murder, torture or propaganda, they seek to convince people otherwise. What price human life? None whatsoever for such people.

    Notes:

    1) Defense Against the Psychopath (2013): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQkDvO3hz1w

    2) Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., Lilienfeld, S. O. (15 December 2011). “Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12 (3): 95–162. 

    3) Reuters report (2000), UN Says Sanctions Have Killed Some 500,000 Iraqi Children: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm

    4) BBC Newsnight interview with Arundhati Roy (2011):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrYQmRBdMPQ

    5) Colin Hay (2001), What Place for Ideas in the Structure-Agency Debate? Globalisation as a ‘Process Without a Subject’:http://www.criticalrealism.com/archive/cshay_wpisad.html

    Excerpt from “Psychopathy, Politics and The New World Order” by Colin Todhunter, Global Research May 2013

     
    • nowve666 10:30 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I’m tired of all the evils of society being blamed on psychopaths. For 1% of the population to accomplish all that, we must be some sort of superior being. Or do “regular people” have a hand in it too? Here’s a thought. Instead of just giving brain scans to politicians, give them to all “evil doers” before labeling them “psychopaths.”

      You say you are not against us and yet, in this very article, you call us “scum.” Let’s face it. Competion is indemic to our society. By the time they go to school, children have already mastered the tender art of bullying. Is this the fault of psychopaths? Or is human nature darker than you wish to believe?

      Like

    • James 11:27 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      So those on top want to brainwash people into becoming more like themselves. Right…
      How does creating more competition benefit those on top exactly?

      Like

  • James 11:46 on October 15, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bliar, capitalism, Congress, , , devolution, equality, , Give peace (and Corbyn) a chance, Good Friday Agreement, , greedy fat cats, , , James is da bomb, , , , , parliament, , , , , , senate, socialism, , , Tony Blair, , Washington, Westminster   

    The case against MRI scans 

    Long time, no post. Did you miss me?

    (answer: no, we forgot you ever existed)

    To get to the single most important reason why MRI scans mustn’t be used against psychopaths in politics, scroll down a little less than half way, and it’s all there in bold. 

    For some time, this blog and its related projects have been advocating the compulsory MRI-scanning of all politicians in America (and presumably the world) to make sure they are not psychopaths. Any psychopaths that are found are to be forcibly removed from office because, you know, they’re bound to make evil screw-ups of leaders.

    Well I say it’s only fair that the other side gets a hearing.

    Let’s set some things straight. I hate authoritarianism. I hate corruption. I hate power politics and the class of people who think it’s their right to lord it over the rest of us, to erode citizens’ powers and turn once-great democracies into corporate states. I am an advocate for people-power and for resistance against all forms of tyranny. I am also a psychopath. And, even more crucially, I am against MRI scans for politicians.

    Viva la revolución

    I have an argument for this, sure, but let me first share with you the views of a friend of mine:

    No matter how bad a choice voters make, the elected official is still the one to enact good or bad governance. A good example is Obama. He seemed like an excellent choice based on his campaign. But a very different Obama stepped into office and did things that were, in many ways, opposite of what he promised. Is this because he is a “psychopath?” And, more importantly, does it even matter? Politicians often act corruptly. They don’t keep their campaign promises. I don’t really care if the man is a psychopath or an NT (neurologically typical). He betrayed his base. Why do politicians so often do this? I suggest that even if we brain scanned all candidates and only elected NTs to office, things would go on the same way they have all along.

    There is a class of people the Occupy Movement nailed. The 1%. The richest one percent of our society has more wealth the the whole rest of us 99% put together. Money is power. The one percent will not tolerate a politician who is too intent on rocking the boat. They will either buy him or get rid of him. Getting rid of someone does not have to mean killing him. Just bestow enormous amounts of cash on the person’s opponent. Mischief managed.

    (…)

    Many people have studied the problem. Marxists, for example, tell us that revolution is the only solution. The problem is capitalism. Sounds good. It doesn’t look like any of us will live to see a revolution. But who knows, surprise lurks around every corner. Hope is all we have after all.

    So Fran (my friend who is the author of the above text) points out that the problem with today’s politics is it is directed by the so-called one percent. The bankers, the CEOs, capitalists at their very worst. It doesn’t matter who’s in political office as long as they run the show, because nothing ever changes.

    I am not totally sold on this argument because I do think we can live with capitalism and I’m not holding out for a revolution. And I do think that as long as politicians are not greedy or corrupt, there is no way any corporation can assert its dominance over a government. Maybe that’s asking too much! But I think we can all agree that we should aim for the majority of our democratic representatives to be of good character. With this in mind, it is important to stipulate that how psychopathic some politicians are is not an indicator of how undemocratic or corrupt a government is. Neurotypicals are corruptible too. Some of you probably call these people “apaths” or maybe even “flying monkeys”, I just call them human. Ordinary human beings with no pathology to speak of are sometimes bad people. This is a fact.

    But let’s not get too bogged down with blame-shifting, after all I want to write a positive piece about why psychopaths might make good political leaders.

    My argument (the really important bit)
    In a democracy, where citizens are equal under the law, we all have the right to shape our society, either through voting or becoming directly involved in politics. To deny some portion of the population (i.e. psychopaths) that right (i.e. by excluding them from politics based on an MRI scan) is profoundly undemocratic and anti-egalitarian.
    In Britain, and the rest of the European Union, such a move would be illegal under the European Convention of Human Rights. In the United States, it would even be unconstitutional. Think about it. Substitute ‘psychopath’ for any other minority you can think of and imagine a law that forbids them from full political participation.
    Such a penalisation is nothing less than taking a demolition ball to democracy and destroying any hope for future equality and good relations between psychopaths and the general population. In turn, this has the potential to open the floodgates for the total exclusion, not only of psychopaths but of anybody deemed to have an “unsatisfactory” mental state, from whatever role in society anybody cares to come up with.

    But let’s put that aside for now, and instead examine the reason given for psychopaths being excluded from politics. Tina Taylor says “Policymakers who don’t have the ability to empathise when they are making decisions are naturally limited.” (and yes, that is a direct quote; Tina and I are friends, so naturally we have discussed this issue before). To me that sounds an awful lot like the argument people used to make about women or black people in politics. It is a patronising and insidious way to justify the poor treatment of others.

    And it is not true. From my perspective, not being able to easily empathise (let’s not forget that psychopaths do have empathy, so if empathy really is essential to politics, psychopaths are no more limited than anyone else) is an advantage rather than a limitation. Rather than relying on my emotions or my empathetic concern for others, I make decisions based on logic. Using the critical thinking that I have learned both from experience and my education, I weigh up all the pros and cons of every possible outcome and choose the outcome with the most pros and fewest cons. As a psychopath, I will not get de-railed by angst or self-doubt during an emotionally difficult decision. For instance:

    Psychopaths have no trouble dealing with the really tough questions politicians are faced with all the time. And they make the right decision more often than not, because they are logically compelled to do so. If you examine the professions which have the most psychopaths, you don’t just see fat cat CEOs and stockbrokers, you see lawyers, surgeons, journalists, members of the clergy, police officers, and… you guessed it, politicians! Everyone assumes that is a bad thing, and that psychopaths only excel in these jobs because of their conniving, back-stabbing ways, but if that were true, wouldn’t psychopaths be in senior positions in every job out there? What if psychopaths simply make good doctors, journalists, lawyers and politicians? What if there are millions of psychopaths out there who are among the very best examples at these socially-vital positions?

    Still not conviced? Well…

    Good and bad leaders

    I admit it, many psychopaths would and do make terrible politicians. Such historical leaders as Caligula, Napoleon and Hitler are often said to have been psychopaths, but obviously there is no way of ever knowing for sure. But just because these despicable people exist doesn’t mean they are representative of all psychopathic politicians. Tony Blair is another politician widely-cited as being a psychopath. Again, we shall likely never know for sure if he is or not, but my “psycho senses” certainly tingle when I see him. Blair’s first achievement was making the Labour Party electable for the time in 18 years, effectively bringing to an end two decades of Conservative-dominated politics. Tony’s time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is widely remembered for notorious reasons, including joining America’s invasion of Iraq and the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly. But his governance can also claim responsibility for the ending of war in Kosovo, the resolution to the decades-long Troubles miring relations between Ireland and the UK, the start of self-government for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the very first Human Rights Act in Britain’s millennium of parliamentary democracy, which, among many other achievements, once and for all abolished the death penalty and paved the way for legal recognition of non-heterosexual couples and their rights to adopt children and marry. Not bad for a psychopath, eh?

    Out of a list of U.S. presidents ranked by psychopathic traits, John Adams, Andrew Jackson and both Roosevelts score near the top. John F Kennedy is at the very top. Even the truly great presidents, Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Eisenhower, though further down, are all in the top half of the list. Also near the top are less reputable presidents such as Richard Nixon and George W Bush. The point being that there is good and bad in everyone, and just because somebody is a psychopath does not automatically mean they will be a bad politician, indeed they may be good or even great. In a similar manner, just because somebody is not a psychopath, doesn’t mean they will be a good or trustworthy leader. Whether one is a good or bad politician comes down to a person’s motivation. Those who want great wealth stand a good chance of becoming a corrupt politician. Those who are ideologically-driven to the extreme may just turn out to be a Stalin or a Hitler. And this is true regardless of a person’s ‘psychopathy status’.

    Fin

    We have established that barring psychopaths from political positions is undemocratic, unfair and anti-egalitarian. We have also explored how barring them from politics is not even necessarily going to solve any of the problems and that such moves are likely to evolve into more complete segregation of society. And we have looked at what psychopathic politicians actually look like, and have pointed out that they’re not all that bad.

    Let me just finish on a personal note. I am interested in politics, I may very well one day in the far-off future stand for election. If I became a Member of Parliament (the American equivalent would be a Congressman), I would not be interested in lining my own pockets. I am not greedy for financial wealth. I don’t really like money. But I do like power. I would naturally be motivated to reach the most senior position I could. As Prime Minister, or as a cabinet minister, or just as a regular MP, I would treat the creation of a fairer, more just society not as a sacred duty from on high, or as an empathic obligation, or as the morally right thing to do, but as a challenge and a power-trip. And what better way of wielding power or of becoming immortal in history is there than being the one to end corruption, or stop war, or to redistribute wealth equally across society?

    The article I’ve quoted comes with permission from the blog of Fran Nowve. If you want to read the whole article, and I suggest that those of you with leftist views will certainly want to, click here

    If you disagree with this post, why not write a comment below? Better still, write an article in response and tell me why you believe I’m wrong. You can be sure to receive a reply whatever you decide to say.

     
    • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 06:08 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      I will clarify my position that I would like politicians to be tested for psychopathy in an effort to make the voters aware of the empathy limitations, the contrariness, the tendency to go to war. James, you contradict your earlier statement to me that you would be a ruthless leader… and another time you made the statement that if you were the leader, you would sit back and do nothing and just wait out your term.

      Like

      • James 15:17 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        That’s not true at all. I said some psychopathic leaders would do those things, and they do. I particularly said I wouldn’t sit back and do nothing like Obama appears to be doing in his last 18 months in office. The only person contradicting me, is YOU.

        You can make voters “aware” of all these things, without taking the drastic and irreversible step to banish psychopaths into the political and social wilderness.

        Liked by 1 person

    • nowve666 12:50 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Tina, there are things that must be ruthlessly combatted. The out-of- control income inequality for example, genocide, for another. Can we. truly some things without ruthlessly hating and opposing their antithesis

      Like

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 14:17 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Are you saying that ruthlessness is related to hate? James told me that he doesn’t understand hate.

        Like

        • nowve666 14:51 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          I’m simply saying ruthlessness against things that are against the values you represent can be democratic. I would ruthlessly oppose gerrymandering for example.

          Like

    • nowve666 12:53 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      James, you have once more knocked it out of the park. Bravo!

      Like

    • nowve666 16:40 on October 16, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Tina, the No Masters-No Slaves doesn’t have a place for comments. So I’m commenting on it here. One of the things they emphasized is the view that genetically driven “primary” psychopaths are very rare and most psychopaths are “secondary” ones. If that is true, brain scans won’t get rid if them at all. Interesting video. Progressive in some ways and reactionary in other ways. Calling moral relativism “satanic” is reactionary. Liberalism recognizes that morality is very relative. For example, killing is against the 10 Commandments except when one kills in war or kills in self-defense or kills an animal to eat it’s flesh, etc. One can do the same with all the moral verities. Of course social Darwinism and eugenics are reactionary. Although I think eugenics can be applied in a neutral or progressive way. But so far it hasn’t been. Need I mention that many, many psychopaths don’t subscribe to those last two “satanic” values? But I guess you don’t agree with those people or you would give up using brain scans to make govenment psychopath-free.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Amaterasu Solar 10:03 on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Well, MY vote is to remove systems that promote psychopaths to power to begin with. In top-down controlmind, the power over Others draws Them FAR more than the average Human. There are better ways of doing things on this planet. I offer this article to see one way:

      Wearing Black on Thursdays
      http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/54/wearing-black-on-thursdays

      Rather than chase every politician and give Them the test – and We will find a large percentage, especially at the top, that prove to be psychopaths – stop doing things in ways that put Them in positions of power over Others.

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 12:25 on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Yet since we have established that psychopaths in power aren’t an inherently bad thing. For Hitler and Stalin, there’s a Kennedy, two Roosevelt(s), a Jefferson. I’m not saying this particularly for you, Amy, because I know you better than to believe this could persuade you, but for anyone reading your comment and thinking to herself “hmm, sounds good”. We can achieve a great society without revolution!

        May I ask, how do you react to the apparent rise in popularity of left wing politicians (Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, the sustained popularity in Greece of Syriza)?

        Btw, do you speak German? They’ve got capitalised pronouns down to a fine art, just like you 😛

        Liked by 2 people

        • Amaterasu Solar 07:49 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Having psychopaths in control leads to things like “geoengineering” with toxic nanoparticulates, releasing GMO to contaminate the planet, nuke plants built on fault lines, MK ULTRAesque programs, fake “news” to drive an agenda, interweb takeover, vaccines in general and FORCED vaccination in particular, planned obsolescence creating the lion’s share of waste, wage/debt slavery, Agenda 21, and a lot more on a long list. All the Kennedys, Roosevelts, and Jeffersons One can find will not affect most of this, if any. It is inherent in the systems We are using,

          My opinion of all politics is that it’s dog & pony. A show. All controlminds are corporations, and no corporation is going to let Us choose Their CEO. So the whole arena is just distraction and a way to make Us THINK We are involved.

          I know about 10 words of German… I cap Human pronouns out of respect for the co-creator Gods We are – much like scripture caps God, as well.

          Liked by 1 person

          • James 11:16 on October 26, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            That’s all I needed to show the world your general nuttiness.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Amaterasu Solar 09:17 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Which part is “nutty?” The list of psychopathic things We plainly see emerging from systems that promote psychopaths? The FACT that all controlminds ARE corporations and They are not going to let Us choose Their CEO’s? Or that I honor My fellow Humans?

              Not seeing “nuttiness” in any of the three.

              Like

              • James 09:46 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Well of course you wouldn’t.

                Like

                • Amaterasu Solar 09:47 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  That hardly answers the question.

                  Like

                  • James 09:55 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    You’re right, it doesn’t. I’ve wasted enough time on you already.

                    Like

                    • Amaterasu Solar 09:58 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      Well if THAT isn’t a cop-out! LOL! YOU claimed nuttiness and now refuse to explain. That leaves YOU in the bottom position. That’s OK. I agree enough time has been spent dealing with One who will not support the claims that One has made. [smile]

                      Like

                      • James 10:04 on October 27, 2015 Permalink

                        Except you prove my claims for me. Any reasonable person reading your comments would think “man, what a nut”.

                        Liked by 1 person

        • Teresa 07:23 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

          I had a 3 year relationship with a psychopath/sociopath.

          She told me she had ptsd, which she may well have had as I happen to know she did have a shit childhood, but I think her childhood just pure turned her evil. She really had no remorse, she would feign it and I would fall for it, until i didnt anymore. I feel like im now impervious to charm lol. Charming people make me suspicious.

          She pretended to be a person she just wasnt. She even used to post on fb about how she hated domestic abusers…I fell for her ‘kind’ heart, and fell for being abused lol. I dont feel scarred now, I did, but I realised that all the time I hated her and gave her space in my head, was hurting me. I refuse to hurt me anymore :D. Anyhoo, good blog, I may favourite it.

          Liked by 1 person

          • James 10:08 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

            Thanks Teresa for those kind words. Please do continue to read and share the blog with any friends you think might like it too. I’ll say no more, lest I set your suspicions off. .

            Like

            • Teresa 11:09 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

              No worries…I do think, even though I have been burned by a psychopath, that certain things about psychopathy just make good sense. Like approaching relationships from a logical standpoint, rather than emotional.

              I actually credit her too for teaching me not to fall for BULLSHIT lol.

              I also beat her up after we split lol, I went to get some stuff from her place and she had another girl there already haha. I saw red and I knew this was my chance for revenge seeing as she wouldnt want to show this new girl her true colours. True to form she made out that I was cray cray and that she was some kind of victim! LOL…She was good gotta give her that. Still atleast I got to exact some revenge in safety. 😀

              Liked by 1 person

              • James 11:23 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                And in beating her up, I guess you really showed who was the sane one!

                Liked by 1 person

                • Teresa 11:39 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                  Hahaha gosh no, I was the closest to insane, (by the time we split up), that I’ve ever been, which is probably why i did it.

                  I blamed her for my mental health and the fact that she already was wooing another victim.

                  Nowadays I take part of the blame, because I stuck around. Im also glad she moved on and left me alone (though at the time I felt jealous). I do feel sorry for any future girlfriends. Hopefully they are smarter than I was and they get out quick.

                  Btw I wanted to ask, did you ever follow the case of Casey Anthony in the US? I know you said you find it easy to spot a fellow psychopath…I always thought I saw it in her eyes….they seemed just like my ex’s eyes, but maybe I just have a vivid imagination.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • James 12:02 on January 1, 2016 Permalink | Reply

                    Yeah, she’s a psychopath alright. That was an interesting case.

                    Like

    • nowve666 16:10 on October 25, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Amy, I have heard of abundance economics before. The real question is not how to get psychopaths out of office but how to take power in the name of the many from the hands of the few. Scarcity economics which jus what inequality comes down to. No matter what a politician’s brain scan shows, most will succumb to the power of the rich.

      Like

    • Amaterasu Solar 10:12 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      Since I cannot reply, James – the reply button is under the permalink button – I will continue in a new comment. If everyOne is taught that the moon is made of green cheese, sure, Those who say it is a rock will be called “nutty.” Just because it sounds “nutty” to the indoctrinated, does NOT follow that it is indeed “nutty.” Was hoping You could be specific on WHY anything I said sounds “nutty.” Not that because it might sound nutty to Those not educated, it must be so. There’s no logic in that.

      Like

      • James 10:20 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        This fucking blog’s comment chain is useless.

        I agree in principle with what you’re saying, but I also know there’s no evidence to support many of the extraordinary claims you make. If there were, you would simply post them instead of arguing semantics.

        To pre-empt what you might do next, quoting some website or book that itself has no credibility doesn’t count as ‘evidence’.

        Liked by 1 person

        • James 10:21 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Many if not all, I should say.

          Like

        • Amaterasu Solar 10:22 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Again, no specifics… What “extraordinary claims?”

          Like

          • James 10:25 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Let’s just say that anything you say about the nature of the world, I regard as an extraordinary claim. Everything you wrote in the comment that caused me to call you nutty is an extraordinary claim. I am not giving specifics because with you there is no one thing that stands out as being especially nutty.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Amaterasu Solar 10:26 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              So You are knee-jerk reacting, and have no logical basis for Your assessment?

              Like

              • James 10:33 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                Not at all. It is you who are making the claims, therefore it is you who must provide evidence for those claims.

                If I claimed to be sitting in bed with the Loch Ness monster right now, would you take it as red that I am telling the truth, or would you quite rightly demand that I provide evidence in the form of a selfie of me with my arms lovingly draped around the neck of the monster?

                What you are doing, in saying that I am knee-jerk reacting, is:

                Misrepresenting my position in order to discredit me.
                Drawing attention away from the fact that you have no evidence to support your various arguments about the nature of this world.
                Turning my own accusations of your lack of logic back on me, i.e. deflecting.

                Remember I have far more experience of ‘playing dirty’ than you. You can’t get one over me like that.

                Now put up, or shut up.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Amaterasu Solar 10:38 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  When You point to the specifics You question, I will see what I can do. And asking a question is hardly a “misrepresentation.” Interesting that You took that as any kind of statement on My part… No need to answer the question that way. Heh. And use it as if I attacked…

                  [sigh]

                  I will be happy to “put up” when You point to what You doubt.

                  Like

                  • James 10:58 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    Well, like I said, I doubt pretty much your entire worldview. There is no one specific thing that jumps out from the rest. But since you want specifics, Agenda 21 would be a good place to start. Your bizarre opposition to compulsory vaccination would be another (as if preventing the spread of disease is a bad thing).The assumption that GMOs are harmful is another. ‘Fake news’ is a fourth. Closely linked are your earlier claims that mass shootings don’t really happen. Suggesting nuke plants built on faultlines are a malicious plan rather than simply a bumbling error of incompetency, complete necessity (e.g. the whole of Japan is on a fault line, they’ve got to put their power stations somewhere) or (I don’t know the science on this) completely irrelevant to the overall safety of such a plant. Your belief in malicious “geo-engineering” and “toxic nanoparticulates”. And many, many, MANY more things you have said to me before on other threads but I cannot recall.

                    Like

                    • Amaterasu Solar 12:54 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                      The fact that most of the People getting measles are Ones who have been vaxxed isn’t a clue? The fact that the jabs are filled with toxins is what? Merely incidental? If this crap worked, You’d think They could deliver in saline or other bioinert medium just what is needed. Some of the most vile thinks persist. Why? Because psychopaths are in control. Once that is processed, the answers become clear.

                      You think the recent spate of school shootings is not staged? Logic alone will tell You this is BS. We have had guns a very long while and such events have kept themselves to one or two a century. Suddenly they are happening almost daily? Pffft. Don’t insult My intelligence by suggesting they are “just happening.”

                      My thoughts on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF74ibHcQAE

                      You don’t think it’s significant that a test that “proved” GMO was safe that was run by the biotech company for three month only, when repeated for two years showed an anomalous number and size of tumors in the rats? I guess We should discard that longer test, eh? Logical. LOL!

                      And You might want to research Agenda 21. It is very real and creates Human hives controlled by the psychopaths in specific spots on the planet. I think You can get a copy from the UN itself….

                      And please, don’t go putting words in My mouth. NEVER have I said mass shootings do not happen. Just that statistically they don’t happen with zero spontaneous tears and a common theme to have a way to disarm the Ones You (the psychopaths) want disarmed – more than once a decade at most. (That’s very generous.)

                      And no, My silence had to do with doing other things and setting about typing this.

                      James, You do amuse Me. LOL!

                      Like

                      • James 13:27 on October 27, 2015 Permalink

                        Oh, I know Agenda 21 is real. But it’s not a mind control thing, it’s to do with sustainability.

                        I apologise for seeming to put words into your mouth, I must have misunderstood your original point.

                        And yes, I figured you were busy, I’m just an impatient bastard 😉

                        Other than that, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your claims. Opinions, “logic” (evidence is not a priori, so I require more than a logical argument to convince me you’re telling the truth. I need facts. You know as well as I do an argument can be logical but false), hearsay and anecdotes do not challenge the overwhelming amount of verified and verifiable evidence against everything you’re saying.

                        By the way, you don’t have to provide the evidence. I’m not demanding you do under pain of harassment. If you don’t want to talk about this anymore, it’s not a problem with me 🙂

                        Like

                  • James 12:38 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                    Do I take it from your silence that you have no evidence, or am I just being impatient? 🙂

                    Like

    • nowve666 12:24 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      James, I must side with Amy on the issue of vaccinations and GMOs. You said the person making An assertion has the burden of proof. Forcing everyone to get vaccinations is more than an assertion. It’s an invasion of people’s bodies. I know. All the top science mucky mucks say Dr. Wakefield is a fraud and have was chased out of England after a nasty scandal. But come on! Do you really trust the authorities? I think a large percentage of them are just playing follow-the-leader. A few have an idea and the rest are ballast. Follow the money. Well stands to gain from mass vaccinations? Big Pharma. I know Dr. Wakefield has been accused of mercenary motives. But he stood up too an incredible wall of “expert opinion” and was driven from his country. Looks more like a man of principle losing all to take an unpopular stand. The problem is with the MMR vaccine. It uses live bacteria or viral material unlike most vaccines. The worst outcomes have occurred when all the of the toxic vaccinations are administered together, a preferred method. That is quite an assault on a toddler. They won’t even separate the vaccines into the shots administered some time apart from each other. There have been well documented cases of a normal child developing autism right after receiving the MMR. I know all the arguments. The kid was already autistic but didn’t manifest symptoms until after the shot. Coincidence. And the apparent rise in autism is just because they are defining it differently. I have heard all the lame arguments made to argue away strong evidence the powers that be want too disappear.

      But, aside from who is right about vaccination, what happened to the man who is such a champion of civil rights. Your blog about protecting democracy sounded so Jeffersonian. Shouldn’t people have the right to control their own bodies? I am consistently pro-choice in every area: drug use, abortion, labeling GMOs and vaccination. If we aren’t even allowed the integrity of our own bodies, what do we have a right to?

      I am not anti-vaccine. I get most shots available. But those contain dead organisms. I was lucky to have grown up in a time before the MMR. I got the measles. Big deal. The media is using scare tactics of a mass epidemic to keep the agenda of the Pharmaceuticals. I came by my skepticism of medical orthodoxy honestly. I ignored the standard advice and healed myself of hep c and diabetes, the former with a raw vegan diet and the latter with a cooked vegan diet. Lots of raw foodists are against even flu shots. It’s their right. I can hear you pointing out that adults have a right to control their bodies but children have to be protected from their parents’ eccentricities. In some situations I agree. But the evidence against the MMR vaccine is strong enough to leave the decision in the hands of parents.

      Finally GMOs. I won’t even get into the science of this. People have the right to know what they’re eating. What is Monsanto so afraid of? If GMOs are o.k. they should educate the public to accept them, not force them on people. Did you ever see Omen II? 92nd word: Faemad.

      Liked by 1 person

    • James 12:36 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      There is no credible evidence for vaccinations giving anybody autism, and there is nobody outside of a peculiar sect in your country who is even talking about it as an issue. It is a right-wing (of the Glenn Beck variety) American myth. Nobody else is buying.

      You say it is your right to have body sovereignty, I say it is my right to not be threatened by disease from some loony who won’t vaccinate her children because she thinks they might become autistic.

      There is no evidence that GMOs are or even might be harmful Indeed, science says they are fine. No wonder you won’t get into it!

      I stand by my claim. You and Amy have the responsibility to prove with reliable and valid evidence that your minority views have any credibility. This is not me siding with the corporations, this is me looking at the facts.

      Like

      • Amaterasu Solar 13:10 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        Hahaha! So vax Yourself. You have no right over My flesh. And yeah, when One discounts anything outside the psychopaths’ control as evidence – “minority view” ha! – then One will not see the psychopaths at the top.

        Got other things to do, James. Do enjoy the day.

        Like

        • James 13:28 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          OK, I understand.

          You have no evidence so you’re running away. I win.

          Like

          • Amaterasu Solar 13:48 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Sure. That’s it. You win. Really, convincing You is not that important to Me. There’s plenty to find on the web. Search sometime.

            Liked by 1 person

            • James 14:56 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              Perhaps you should take your own advice and look at something that contradicts what you believe. You never know, you might find yourself agreeing with it.

              Also, perhaps a psychiatrist could be of help.

              Like

              • Amaterasu Solar 14:08 on October 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                LOL! Dear One, I used to believe the Disney fantasy as You seem to, and it was through looking at the evidence – something(s) that contradicted what I believed – that I saw, as a guy told Me at a SciFi convention decades ago, everything I knew was wrong.

                Do You dispute the “geoengineering” with toxic materials? Are You one of those contrail theorists – never mind that labs pretty much everywhere are measuring unnatural, elevated (sometimes radically) levels of specifically nanoparticulates of aluminum, strontium, and barium, toxins, and biologics…?

                If I was a psychopath and had the money, and wanted to experiment on, deceive, kill off vast populations so as to better control Humans on this planet, “geoengineering” is mighty handy.

                Money systems promote psychopaths. There are, therefore, psychopaths at the top here. Given this, to truly understand what’s going on here on this planet, it is a great boon to accept and work with that fact.

                That last suggestion gave Me a chuckle. Clearly I am failing to think rationally here. Hahaha! Played just like a psychopath.

                I kiss You with My heart. [smile]

                Like

                • James 20:21 on October 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  No, I think you’re a schizophrenic.

                  Like

      • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 13:28 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        James, I want stupid people who put anything in their mouth (without a care) to eat GMO’s, so the GMO’s serve a good purpose when those people leave the earth early. Guess what I found – Autism linked to GMO’s, also “inflammatory bowel disease in the US population skyrocketed by 40% since the introduction of GMOs http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-education/autism/

        If you are vaccinated, then you don’t have to worry about catching the disease from the non-vaccinated, right?

        Liked by 1 person

        • James 13:36 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          You’re probably right that being vaccinated protects you. I admit I don’t know much about how vaccinations work. I do know there is no evidence they cause autism though 🙂

          A page from a website that is obviously an anti-GMO campaign does not fit the definition of reliable, reputable evidence. Get me a single peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable scientific journal, then I’ll take notice. Get me several of these papers, and I might even believe you. Anything less is worthless.

          Like

          • James 13:46 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            According to your CDC, very few people catch viruses they have been vaccinated against, and though it is possible, the numbers are too small to be significant.

            So I concede the point about compulsory vaccinations. I no longer think it is right to force a person to vaccinate himself for his own safety if that is not what a person desires.

            Like

            • Amaterasu Solar 13:50 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              The CDC is a corporation run by psychopaths. They lied about the link They found between MMR and autism. I take everything out of there with copious salt.

              Liked by 2 people

              • James 15:00 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                OK, lol. Cuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkkkoooooooooooooooo

                Like

                • Amaterasu Solar 14:17 on October 28, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  So say You. LOL! You haven’t checked it out, because it very much is a corporation, trade records on Dun & Bradstreet and all. I did the research, I offer the info, I’m a bit busy, You doubt, You research. [smile]

                  Like

          • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 14:22 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            UMMMM. There are references on that page.

            Like

          • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 14:24 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            P.S. I like that you’re pro-GMO. Because you’re a psychopath. It actually makes sense.

            Liked by 1 person

            • James 14:58 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              I am not pro-GMO.

              I have no opinion on them. If I eat them I eat them, if not I’m none the wiser. They are not a problem.

              Liked by 1 person

              • @GeneticPsycho (Tina) 15:40 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                You are none the wiser!

                Liked by 1 person

                • James 15:44 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

                  And you are? All that ‘knowledge’ in your head about GMOs is false, because you read the wrong things.

                  At least I know the difference between science and bullshit. Mainly because what I lack in scientific understanding, I make up for in bullshit!

                  Like

            • James 15:03 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

              P.S. Nice job on the comment editing. You made the right choice.

              Like

    • nowve666 16:16 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

      James, science doesn’t say anything. People say things. Some of those people are scientists. There are scientists on both sides so out all comes down to who you believe. Dismissing a whole body of evidence as not credible hardly stands as a rebuttal. You say the burden of proof is on someone who makes an affirmative statement . You say GMOs and Vaccinations are safe So the burden is on you. Lots of people are suspicious of vaccinations, not just the fever right like Glen Beck. And many European çountries ban GMO. I’m surprised England hadn’t banned it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • James 16:23 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

        There isn’t a “whole body of evidence” to support your side. Scientific consensus (consensus among scientists, in case you somehow think I’m talking about the Science God) says the GMOs and vaccinations are safe. It is up to those who disagree with the consensus to persuade the rest with evidence.

        You’re right for us mere mortals who don’t practise science, it comes down to who you believe. I choose to believe scientific consensus.

        Like

        • nowve666 18:28 on October 27, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          I read a book by Dr. Wakefield which told his side of things. I have heard of many cases where autism followed right after a shot. I don’t believe in coincidence. I do believe in science but I also know trends regarding “scientific consensus” has a tendency to change every 20 years or so.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Amaterasu Solar 14:30 on October 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply

          Who consists of this “scientific consensus?” With about a flip-flop of the media figures that say Human-created climate affects are all about carbon, seems a very great number disagree. Fossil records say that carbon increase followed warming periods, not preceding or initiating them. (Not that some Humans don’t have a hand in the climate We see, mind You.)

          What are Your “official” sources for who qualify in this propaganda? Some of Us look at the evidence both sides bring. That is the sign of a critical thinker, eh? To assume no very ill motive to convince Us to effectively kill Ourselves here, no propaganda like PopMech’s ghastly piece in support of the official story of 9/11, no psychopaths with the wherewithal to do this should They choose to (and They would), is to assume without giving that concept fair probability.

          James, dear, when money, when accounting for the energy We each add into a system is present as a requirement to survive, psychopaths will rise to the top. And so, promoting these things as good to the masses, and never mind what evidence might actually be, is expected from psychopaths that can, as 9/11 did, do things towards many goals.

          And logic would tell Me that a whole lot more research on both GMO and vaccines would be the order of the day were not psychopaths with profit/power motives in place to force everyOne to partake – NOW!

          You play Your part, and I’ll play Mine. [smile] I do not support forcing toxins into the flesh of Ones whose rights give Them sovereignty over Their said flesh.

          Like

          • James 14:48 on October 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            Sorry, I don’t waste time talking to undiagnosed schizophrenics. Now unless you will provide evidence for anything you’re waffling on about, stop messaging me.

            Like

          • Amaterasu Solar 14:50 on October 29, 2015 Permalink | Reply

            [chuckle] Yup, James, You’re right. Have a nice life.

            Liked by 1 person

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: