Tagged: narcissism Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 09:26 on October 20, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , dark triad, ego, , , , narcissism, , , ,   

    A Narcissist, a Psychopath, and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar… 

    The bartender asks, ‘who has the darkest personality out of you three?’ The Narcissist says ‘me’, the Psychopath says, ‘I don’t care’ and the Mach says ‘it’s whoever I want it to be’.

    All embarrassing jokes aside, the Dark Triad of Personality rather ominously named, is an area of Psychological research which is attracting significant attention. It is however only a young field, in fact, it was just over a decade ago that Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term ‘Dark Triad’. It’s an area of research that seems to intrigue Organisational, Clinical and Forensic Psychologists alike and of course, has important implications for society as a whole. However, is there any real merit, use and/or empirical rigour in the study of these traits? I was inspired to delve a little deeper into the Dark Triad after last month’s blog on office politics, which touched on certain characteristics which fall within the remit of these traits i.e. manipulating others for self gain.

    So what does the Dark Triad consist of?

    Narcissism: characterised by grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and superiority (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008). The scale largely used to measure this trait is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979).

    Psychopathy: characterised by high levels of impulsivity and thrill-seeking along with low levels of empathy (Hare, 1985). It has been described as the most ‘malevolent’ of the Dark Triad (Rauthmann, 2012). The scale which is largely used in the literature to measure Psychopathy is the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale, version III forthcoming (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare). It was modelled on the Psychopathy Check List (Hare, 1991), which is largely seen as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for the measurement of forensic Psychopathy.

    Machiavellianism: characterised as being cynical, unprincipled and using manipulation of others for self-gain and life success (Jones & Palhaus, 2009). The scale which is most used to measure this construct is the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970).

    Global measures of the triad have recently been created such as the Dirty Dozen, a 12 item scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the Short Dark Triad, a 27 item scale (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, forthcoming).

    Both Narcissism and Psychopathy have migrated from the clinical literature as personality disorders found in DSM-IV, whilst Machiavellianism has been distilled from the philosophy and tactics of Nicolo Machiavelli. In this instance, they have been applied to the sub-clinical population in much the same way as the Big Five personality factors. It is suggested that there are extreme personalities in our communities, which cross the boundary over into subclinical Dark Triad territory. In fact, a recent TED talk* highlighted the fact that as many as 1% of ‘normal people’ could be classed as a Psychopath, rising to 4% in CEO’s and business leaders.

    Much of my research into the Dark Triad was precipitated by an excellent new review of the literature by Furnham, Richards & Paulhus (2013). Hence please refer to this for a more detailed account of this area. They do a particularly good job at highlighting the major outcomes which the Dark Triad predict, across the workplace, educational and evolutionary literature.

    Focussing on workplace behaviours, they cite research which shows that while leaders who are high in such traits can be successful in navigating their way to the top (when coupled with high IQ and attractiveness, apparently), most eventually fall or derail in the end (Furnham, 2010). They are described by Hogan (2007) as being able to ‘get ahead’ but not ‘get along’ – which eventually comes back to haunt them. Specific behaviours include Narcissists’ softer methods of manipulation, while Psychopaths use harder, more direct methods and Machs are able to be flexible and switch between both methods (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). With extremely successful publications such as Snakes in Suits raising awareness of Dark Triad traits and behaviours, leadership derailment and management style are more relevant and important than ever.

    In terms of specifics, research indicates that Psychopaths tend to make negative impressions in short meetings (Rauthman, 2012), while Machs have the most questionable morals and are most cynical towards others (Rauthman, 2012). Lastly, Narcissists believe themselves to be good leaders, with high emotional intelligence even though they are perceived negatively by those around them (Petrides et al, 2011). Globally, however, all three Dark Triad traits exhibit a drive for ruthless self-advancement (Zuroff, Fournier, Patall, & Leybman, 2010).

    A word of warning; whereas Psychopaths react aggressively to physical threat, Narcissists do so to ego-threat (Jones & Palhaus, 2010). However, Machs are more deliberate and cautious as to how they react and respond as they don’t give into temptation as easily as the other two typically do (Williams, Nathanson & Paulhus, 2010). Therefore, when thinking about corporate crime, Jones et al (2012) suggest that it is the Mach who is unhindered by the impulsivity of the Psychopath, and displays of hedonism of the Narcissist to be the most successful perpetrator of white-collar crimes.

    All jokes aside, the next time you face an aggressive bully, you could be dealing with a Psychopath. The next time you face an overtly arrogant manager, you could be dealing with a Narcissist. And finally, the next time you find yourself manoeuvred out of an opportunity, you may have just been made a victim of a Mach’s manipulation. The Dark Triad does exist, perhaps in all of us. However, in the vast majority of us, they do so to a much lesser extent than that 1% of the population that they truly manifest themselves in.

    Written by Raj Chopra, TPF committee member.

    Follow me on Twitter: @Raj_Chopra24, follow TPF on Twitter: @TPF_UK.

    References

    Christie, R. C., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic press.

    Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 593–600.

    Furnham, A. (2010). The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Causes of Leadership Derailment. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. & Paulhus, D.L. (2013) The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7/3, 199–216,

    Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.

    Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453.

    Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.

    Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.

    Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18.

    Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. forthcoming. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Manuscript under review.

    Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. forthcoming. Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) Scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Paulhus, D. L, & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

    Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the Dark Triad of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 35–41.

    Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.

    Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 487–496.

    Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 293–307.

    Zuroff, D. C., Fournier, M. A., Patall, E. A., & Leybman, M. J. (2010). Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain. Canadian Psychology, 51, 58–66.

    Reblogged from: A Narcissist, a Psychopath and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar…  by Raj Chopra, June 23, 2013

     

    Psychopath TEST Politicians

     

    .

    Advertisements
     
    • nowve666 09:47 on October 20, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      I think Machiavellianism is a strategy, not a personality characteristic in itself as if Narcissism and Psychopathy. Both Narcs and ‘Paths can be Machiavellian to achieve their ends. An NT can also use Machiavellian tactics at times. But it’s a technique, not a personality “disorder.” Therefore, I don’t think “the dark triad” should be treated as a “thing.” Three people might have walked into the bar but the third one can be a Narc or a ‘Path or an NT.

      Liked by 1 person

  • James 14:21 on May 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anti-Semitism, , demonic psychopaths, demons, , , , illuminati, , mythbusters, myths, myths about psychopaths, myths and reality, narcissism, , neurology, , , , , psychosis, , reptiles, retards, ,   

    Mythbusting psychopathy (part the second) 

    Related image

    Here we are again, back to kick more stupid myths into the long grass where they belong.

    What myths or misconceptions about things would you like to bust, if only people would listen?

     

    MYTH: Psychopaths have no emotions.

    This is one myth psychopaths themselves (and narcissists) love to propagate to enhance their mystique, but it’s bullshit. Everyone has emotions. The only living people with no emotions are comatose or else so severely brain-damaged they can only live with the help of a life-support machine. Even dementia patients with little or no sense of self, a completely blank memory and utter dependency on caregivers show signs of emotion when properly stimulated.

    Psychopathic emotions are selfish and inward-looking. In my experience, these emotions are often fleeting and can change rapidly. Some emotions are very blunted and don’t really cause much of a change in mood, while others can be so strong they temporarily obsess or enthral the psychopath. It can also be the case that the physical signs of an emotion are there (e.g. sweaty palms, quick heart rate, out of breath) but the psychopath feels calm in themselves, in their mind.

     

    MYTH: Psychopaths are crazy, or ‘psychotic’

    Psychopathy and psychosis are two different things. Just because a word looks similar, doesn’t mean they refer to the same thing. Psychotic people are people who have lost their grip on reality; they may hear voices, hallucinate or show magical thinking. They are very much not in control of their behaviour and generally need close medical attention for their own and others’ safety. Many otherwise healthy people suffer from psychotic episodes throughout their lives, and often recover with time or medication. Schizophrenia is an example of a psychotic disorder.

    Psychopaths are fully aware of their surroundings, their behaviour and the consequences of that behaviour. Psychopaths do not have a conscience, and are not unwell in the normal sense of the word, nor will they ‘recover’ with time or medical help. As a personality disorder with roots in an individual’s genetic makeup, this is who they are for life. Both psychopaths and psychotic people can be dangerous and violent, but many are not.

    “I’m not strange, weird, off, nor crazy, my reality is just different from yours.” – the Cheshire Cat

    There is absolutely no reason I can see why a psychopath couldn’t develop a psychotic disorder separate to and unaffected by their psychopathy. This is called co-morbidity. In fact anyone can reach sub-clinical psychosis simply by staying awake for abnormally long periods of time (symptoms start kicking in beyond the 36 hour mark). I’ve tried it once or twice; it’s an interesting experience, though not an especially pleasant one. I heard shouting voices in my head and felt off balance when I tried to walk. Overall, my memory of the experience is fuzzy. Yay, temporary brain damage!

    Oh, while we’re on this subject, unlike what certain pop psychology crackpots would have you believe, “psychopathology” is not the study of psychopaths, nor is it anything whatsoever to do with psychopaths. Psychopathology is the psychiatric version of pathology, therefore it is the study of all mental illnesses and psychological disorders / abnormalities. I repeat, similar-looking words don’t always have the same meaning!

     

    MYTH: My psychopathic ex planned to ensnare, manipulate and abuse me from the start of our relationship

    Psychopaths enter relationships in a very positive frame of mind; they often love everything about the other person and are so obsessed they want to learn every tiny little detail about them, know their entire history and the full spectrum of their emotions and thoughts. In extreme cases, the psychopath may have a painful urge to possess or climb inside their new partner. They try to please the other person by mirroring them closely and being the ideal mate for them.

    After a period of time, this effort is exhausting and the other person starts to lose their appeal. Most psychopaths’ relationships stall at this point as the other person ceases to have any interest. It’s all just the same old person, same old stuff. Boredom sets in, and the psychopath either moves on without a backward glance (I prefer this), or else takes their anger and frustration out on the other person.

    I have no citation for this and am just recounting from experience; you’ll just have to take my word for it (or not). If anyone can find actual research done in this field that contradicts me and not just pull up Lovefraud or similar bilge, that would be very welcome.

     

    MYTH: Psychopaths are in all the positions of power and are the puppet masters behind an international conspiracy to bring about a new world order.

    Image result for illuminati funnyWhile there are undoubtedly psychopaths in high places, including bankers, businesspeople and world leaders, the idea of them all working together behind the scenes for not just years, but decades, is frankly absurd.

    Listen, I don’t have any evidence to back this up, but psychopaths are not nearly co-operative enough for this to work. We don’t tend to get on well with each other, and are not known for our willingness to work in teams. Every single one of the conspirators would want the top job in the Illuminati and would be working to eliminate the competition, i.e. each other. The bloody thing would not get off the ground.

    And of course, when you realise this is the exact same idea as the Evil Zionist conspiracy theory, the exact same poisonous garbage just with the word “Jew” switched for “psychopath”, you know what kind of beast you’re dealing with.

     

    MYTH: Psychopaths are lizard men in skinsuits

    No, just no. You are welcome to verify that by getting hold of your nearest psychopath and opening him up to check all his lungs and bones and whatever else you humans have inside you are in the right place. You might need the help of a surgeon, except she’ll probably be a psychopath too and will naturally be in league with one of her kind, so you see the flaw in the plan? But seriously, demonising people (even psychopaths) is, apart from being rather insulting, a lazy way out of trying to understand why others are different. Speaking of demonisation…

     

    MYTH: Psychopaths are demons from hell

    Hell is a fairy tale designed to scare the gullible into obeying the clergy – who as you’ll remember are all psychopaths of course. The idea of demons may well originate from uneducated mediaeval people’s encounters with illnesses they couldn’t explain, such as epilepsy and schizophrenia. In fact, enough ignorants are still unconvinced about this that there is a whole department of the Royal College of Surgeons dedicated to correcting idiotic superstitions among certain communities.

    Despite the hysterical imaginations of cretins who swear they’ve seen a satanic glint in the eyes of their psychopath, I assure you I am not a demon, I am a liz-… human like you (I’m assuming here. If there are any non-humans reading this, I’d love to hear from you.)

    Talk to me. Read part 1 here.

     
    • Amaterasu Solar 15:53 on May 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Excellent article, James. Indeed, I have had many mistake psychotic with psychopathic. But I will explain that indeed there ARE psychopaths in control on this planet, who inbreed to retain the psychopathic gene. In fact, grasping that psychopaths alone would not think much past Themselves to a future They would likely not see in Their lifetime, I was at first mystified by the clear (to Me, I suppose) evidence of a very long-term plan, a generational plan, being played out before Us on the literal world stage (what We see are actors following a script written by Ones We do not see and who have the ultimate control). I have theories, and My highest probability goes to an ET influence that has these top level psychopaths convinced that They are doing “satan’s” work (“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C Clarke).

      Others give highest probability that it IS “satan,” or demons, or interdimensional Beings, or other metaphysical elements. As I have no evidence that such metaphysical things exist, but, in reading ancient texts and legends from around the globe, I feel I have enough to suggest ET has been interacting with Our planet a long while and that ET lives substantially longer than do We. I favor things that have 3D+T explanations, and so ET is My highest probability.

      Overall, though, a very good explanation of things.

      Like

      • James 09:43 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Thank you for your praise, it’s always welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed the article.

        Unfortunately the rest of your comment would indicate a psychosis on your part, though I understand if you don’t see it that way. I do not believe in Satan or the supernatural, and since the validity of your claims seem to based on the assumption that both exist and play an active role in shaping the universe, I can’t possibly take your claims seriously, so won’t even pretend to.

        Don’t take this the wrong way, I still like you 🙂

        Like

        • Amaterasu Solar 11:18 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          Hardly “psychosis.” Decades of research and a keen grasp that money promotes psychopaths to power, aiding in promoting Them to power in top-down controlmind (government) systems. You can dismiss My observations, and I will still like You as well. [smile]

          Like

      • Zachary 07:50 on May 27, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Lmafo.
        What a twat

        Like

    • nowve666 16:22 on May 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      ROTFLMAO!!! I laughed my head off reading that. These myths that annoy me of course were funny to read about in your debunking article. I really liked what you said about relationships. That’s such a refreshing insight after all the bull about “lovebombing” as if we just stalked future love partners as prey and pretended interest (for what end?). Of course, some people could do that in order to get money from someone who has it. These people don’t need to be psychopaths. And NTs sometimes fall in love rapidly and then lose interest too. But then the person jilted can go to Lovefraud and call that person a “psychopath” whether he was or not.

      The myth about psychopaths ruling the world and causing all the problems is one I find particularly irksome. I’m glad you compared it to the anti-Semitic myths, particularly about the Rothschilds. As a Jew, I get pissed off whenever I hear this, especially when it comes from people who are otherwise politically sympathisch. I even blogged about the similarities between anti-psychopath scapegoating and the anti-Semitic kind.

      I laughed myself silly over the one about the reptiles. I think our moms would have noticed upon giving birth if their baby had scaly skin and so forth. Ditto to the one about demons. It’s human, all-too-human to want to demonize people who push our buttons. I don’t think people can face the fact that behavior they disapprove of is part of the human spectrum. I also don’t think anybody deserves to go to Hell. Not even Ronald Reagan, the person I most loath. The fact that most people (at least in the Western world) believe God, a supreme being would put anyone in such a place for all eternity only goes to show how dark the human psyche is capable of being.

      Thank you for this excellent post and for being my friend.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Amaterasu Solar 18:07 on May 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        I may point out that if psychopaths were NOT in control, thet the bulk of the planet flows to very Few here, and They choose not to truly help – 99% of money donated by ANYONE to “charities” goes to pay ridiculous salaries at the high end – and given that some of these People could end poverty ten and more times over yet choose not to…suggests psychopathy. If They were caring Beings, They would be caring for Humanity… And given the psychopathic things We see – GMO’s, “geoengineering” with toxic elements, fake events touted as “reality,” and on and on… It becomes clear the Ones at the top are, indeed, psychopaths, inbreeding to retain the psychopath gene.

        Like

        • nowve666 18:52 on May 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          There is a basic logical error here. You point out that there are lots of things wrong with the world we live in.
          Then you jump to the conclusion that it must be because psychopaths are in control of the world. What you are missing is a causal link between these two propositions. You assume that anyone who does anything wrong or unethical must be a psychopath. If that were true, there would be many more psychopaths than the 1% estimated by the experts. Have you looked at the PCL-R, the “gold standard” test for psychopathy? There are 20 items on the list. You only mention one: lack of caring.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Amaterasu Solar 11:15 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

            The causal link? Money. The accounting for Human energy added into the system, required to survive. “If You have to account for Your energy to anOther to survive, You are NOT free; You are a slave.”

            That power over Others that money provides is what give the psychopaths in control the drive to get it and retain it. Money systems promote psychopaths to power.

            Like

            • nowve666 12:16 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

              So only psychopaths go for money? Psychopaths like money. Nons also like money. Don’t tell me you don’t like money, Amaterasu. Everyone likes money. That doesn’t mean that everyone has money. Nor have you shown that have more than anyone else. Psychopaths exist on every level of the class structure. What “decades of research?” And doesn’t money promote whomever has it to power, psychopath or not?

              You talk about ETs but offered no evidence that ETs are working with psychopaths. I don’t think you’re psychotic. I just think you need to study the syllogism. Wikipedia says, “A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, ‘conclusion, inference’) is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.” You start with a premise. For example, if your premise is “only psychopaths seek and get money,” then follow it with “only people with money have power,” your conclusion can be “psychopaths have all the power.” But your first premise is wrong. Psychopaths are not the only ones who seek and get money (and power). Therefore, your syllogism breaks down.

              Like

              • Amaterasu Solar 14:47 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

                I did not say only psychopaths go for money – surely We all do as that is how We survive on this planet. BUT, psychopaths are the Ones who will do ANYTHING to get money/power over Others. And They do, accumulating money/power over Others far more than Others who have limits to what They will do for it, because of conscience and caring.

                And I don’t think the THEORY of ET needs proof. Geez. Did You notice I gave it as a theory based on ancient texts and legends. If I had proof, it wouldn’t be a theory, now would it. I am just saying that the plans, the scripts written, are clearly generational. And without some long-term direction, psychopaths would not work for things that are beyond Their life span. Ergo I THEORIZE an ET involvement on this planet. A PSYCHOPATHIC ET involvement.

                Like

                • nowve666 16:16 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

                  Ama, your proposition that “psychopaths are the Ones who will do ANYTHING to get money/power over Others,” must be based on the fact that we do not have a conscience. Since freedom from conscience enables us to do anything, you assume that we WILL do anything to get money/power. I addressed that issue in my blog at https://kiasherosjourney.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/free-to-choose/ where I pointed out the freedom to do something doesn’t mean that we will inevitably do it. There are reasons why a psychopath wouldn’t “do anything for money.” In my case, I never really cared about money as long as I had enough to satisfy my rather modest desires. Sure, I could hold up a liquor store, I suppose. That would get me more money but it could also get me a stretch of prison time. I don’t want money that badly. Furthermore, as James and I have both tried to point out, non-psychopaths can and have done terrible things for money. If they are not psychopaths, they probably feel guilty afterwards. Having a conscience doesn’t prevent everyone from doing wrong. You just can’t assume someone is a psychopath because he has done something you consider terrible. That’s why they have tests and expert diagnoses.

                  I wasn’t poo-pooing the idea that there are extra-terrestrials. I just think the idea that they are in league with psychopaths is far-fetched.

                  Like

                  • Amaterasu Solar 16:58 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

                    I am not saying that ALL psychopaths WILL do that. I am saying that MANY of Them will. While Those who are not psychopaths will stop short, in high probability, thereby giving the many psychopaths that will do anything the upper hand in gaining power over Others. Ergo, money systems promote psychopaths. And money long ago promoted certain families (ones We seldom hear of, even) to the top, and They inbreed to retain the gene, and have a generational plan to take over the planet – and the reason I give highest probability for Them doing this is that there is some influence that is directing Them, that has a longer life span than Us Humans. Else there would be no such “new world order” plan.

                    Like

                    • James 18:03 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

                      But there is no “new world order” plan, so that solves that 😛

                      Trust me, Amy, we do not have enough family loyalty to spend our lives on a plan that only our great-great-great-grandchildren might benefit from. Your theory of psychopathic families hatching a plot over centuries doesn’t hold water. Now there may be a type of personality that does behave in that way, but they are not psychopaths because their behaviour is illogical from a psychopathic point of view. If I’m going to enact a new world order to put me in charge of planet Earth, I’m going to do it now, while I’m still around to enjoy it. Fuck future generations, I wouldn’t even share power with my living family, nevermind some hypothetical descendants.

                      As for being directed by ET; fuck ET! ET would be my bitch, not the other way around.

                      Like

                      • Amaterasu Solar 19:05 on May 13, 2017 Permalink

                        That’s why We can find “leaders” like George H W Bush talking about it. MANY of Them have brought up the NWO. So I guess We can concluded it’s fictional, right? Do a search for quote “New World Order” and see just how many “leaders” have brought it up.

                        Like

                      • nowve666 20:54 on May 13, 2017 Permalink

                        Our money has “Novus Ordo Seclorum” under a truncated pyramid. I guess that’s Latin for “New World Order” “Thus the motto Novus ordo seclorum can be translated as “A new order of the ages.” It was proposed by Charles Thomson, the Latin expert who was involved in the design of the Great Seal of the United States, to signify “the beginning of the new American Era” as of the date of the Declaration of Independence.” So this is a very old thing. Dates all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. You think the Founding Fathers were psychopaths?

                        Seriously, Amy. The “New World Order” is talked about a lot. But that doesn’t make it any more “real” than the Illuminati nor God, for that matter. These things have a certain meaning but not the conspiratorial one that’s so popular on the internet. And, as James said, psychopaths are not into that kind of sacrificial planning that would be needed to build some future dystopia. We’re more into the here and now.

                        Like

                      • James 03:59 on May 14, 2017 Permalink

                        The “NWO” mentioned on your banknotes is, and always was, the shifting of power away from the old world of empires and kings and towards the New World, i.e. America. That has pretty much happened over the past 200 years, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way, back east and towards Asia for the first time in about six centuries. I’d say the “New” World Order was a bit past its sell by date, wouldn’t you?

                        Liked by 1 person

                      • nowve666 13:14 on May 14, 2017 Permalink

                        My point. The NWO is nothing new. Just as the Illuminati was an ancient order in Bavaria that had nothing to do with the conspiracy theories, the NWO is basically a concept politicians can now evoke when needed. It can mean whatever someone wants it to mean.

                        Like

                      • Amaterasu Solar 08:33 on May 14, 2017 Permalink

                      • James 03:54 on May 14, 2017 Permalink

                        Or you could show me a video clip of at least one leader mentioning it 🙂

                        Anyway, you fixated on the least important part of my comment. Fact is, I can’t prove there’s no NWO conspiracy (just as you can’t prove there is one), but I have made a good stab at proving it’s not psychopaths. How about addressing that, largest and most important point of my comment?

                        Like

      • James 09:54 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, when I hatched out of my egg, my mother was quick to dismiss any fleeting similarities between myself and Gary, our pet gecko.

        Hell is a brutal concept really, and I can see how people might believe it justified for really horrible individuals to go there for a limited period of time, but an eternity of neverending torture seems unjustly cruel even for someone like Stalin or Hitler (or Reagan). I can understand centuries, maybe even millennia, of agonising punishment being reasonably well-deserved, but an eternity? God is one cold motherfucker. It’s ridiculously out of proportion to any evil even the worst human is capable of committing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • nowve666 10:08 on May 13, 2017 Permalink | Reply

          Right. As mortals, we are incapable of infinite evil. We are finite. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is absurd.

          Like

    • Amaterasu Solar 17:17 on May 16, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Well this is weird. I got an email of a post here by nowve666 discussing the cremation of care ceremony at Bohemian Grove (something I already knew about this), and other stuff which She rightly points out supports My research on the psychopaths in control. But when I get here… It’s not. Can’t see it anywhere. Any clue what’s up there?

      Liked by 1 person

    • nowve666 17:52 on May 16, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Amy, I can’t see it either. How weird. Maybe James didn’t approve it.

      Liked by 1 person

  • GeneticPsychosMom (Tina) 09:38 on April 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , narcissism, , , , , Republicans, ,   

    Dear Kentucky, Mitch McConnell Might Be a Psychopath 

    Mitch McConnell Contradiction in facial expression - a smile with a frown - smirk and dead eyes

    Contradiction in facial expression – a smile with a frown – smirk and dead eyes

    McConnell: ‘Winners make policy, losers go home” and more quotes on “Stuff Psychopaths Say.”

    “No majority leader wants written on his tombstone that he presided over the end of the Senate,” the minority leader said.

    He continued: “Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American. I just hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his party, and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.”

    Are these the words of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as the Republican majority changed Senate rules this week to do away with filibusters of Supreme Court nominations?

    Actually, they were uttered in 2013, by then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), when Democrats pushed through a similar filibuster change for lesser nominations.

    That McConnell did a 180 on the topic — going from the institutional defender of the filibuster to the man who destroyed it — is unsurprising. He has frequently shifted his views to suit the needs of the moment. But in this case McConnell was correct in 2013, and what he just did this week was even more ruinous than what he accused the Democrats of doing then.

    By rights, McConnell’s tombstone should say that he presided over the end of the Senate. And I’d add a second line: “He broke America.” No man has done more in recent years to undermine the functioning of U.S. government. His has been the epitome of unprincipled leadership, the triumph of tactics in service of short-term power.

    After McConnell justified his filibuster-ending “nuclear option” by saying it would be beneficial for the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said this: “Whoever says that is a stupid idiot.”

    McConnell is no idiot. He is a clever man who does what works for him in the moment, consequences be damned.

    Back in 1994, McConnell lamented to the conservative Heritage Foundation that Republicans hadn’t used the filibuster enough: “I am a proud guardian of gridlock. I think gridlock is making a big comeback in the country.”

    For the next quarter-century, he made sure of it. Back then he was fighting all attempts at campaign-finance reform and spending limits, championing disclosure of contributions as the antidote. But when the Supreme Court allowed unlimited “dark money” in campaigns without disclosure, McConnell reversed course and has fought all attempts to enact disclosure.

    McConnell famously declared in 2010: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    ProPublica’s Alec MacGillis, author of a McConnell biography, “The Cynic,” reports former Republican senator Robert Bennett’s account of what McConnell told fellow Republicans after Obama’s election: “Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that.’ ”

    And that’s what he did. By 2013, for example, 79 of Obama’s nominees had been blocked by filibusters, compared with 68 in the entire previous history of the Republic.

    After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death was confirmed last year, it took McConnell less than an hour to say that the vacancy should be filled by the next president. He called keeping Obama’s nominee off the court “one of my proudest moments.”

    While other Republicans have at times been willing to criticize President Trump’s outrages, McConnell has been conspicuously quiescent. Although his predecessors at least attempted collegiality, McConnell practices no such niceties (recall his “nevertheless, she persisted” silencing of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren). But most characteristic of McConnell is his tendency to shift his views to suit current exigencies (on the minimum wage, withdrawal from Iraq, earmarks, abortion, labor and civil rights) and his adroitness at gumming up the works: forcing clerks to spend hours reading a bill aloud on the floor; opposing immigration legislation he’d encouraged; asking for a vote on a debt-ceiling proposal and then trying to filibuster it; urging the Obama administration to support a bipartisan debt commission and then voting against it.

    Now comes the filibuster’s demise. In the current cycle of partisan escalation, it’s only a matter of time before the filibuster is abolished for all legislation, killing the tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate dating back to 1789. The Founders did this so minority rights would be respected and consensus could be formed — and McConnell is undoing it.

    Two years ago, when a Democrat was in the White House, McConnell said he would only abolish filibusters of Supreme Court justices if there were 67 votes for such a change. This week, he employed a maneuver to do it with 51 votes. It suited his momentary needs, but the damage will remain long after McConnell’s tombstone is engraved.

    Excerpt from “Mitch McConnell, the man who broke America“, by Dana Milbank, April 7, 2017

    Image courtesy The Conversation US

     

    Even Mr. McConnell’s fellow Republicans say somewhat admiringly that he can be a secretive and coldly calculating tactician with an eye for political openings, someone more consumed by political strategy than ideology or philosophy.

     

    Habits of Highly Psychopathic People Pic

     

    Psychopath TEST Politicians

    .

    .

     
    • nowve666 09:59 on April 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Much as I hate the GOP, I have a grudging respect for them because of their ruthless pursuit of having their way. At the same time, I have a reluctant contempt for weak-kneed Democrats who let them get away with it. Perfect case in point, when the Repugs refused to do their jobs in the process of confirming (or denying) Obama’s Supreme Court appointment. They just don’t give a damn. They’re like Honey Badgers. Everyone shakes his head and says how wrong it was and the GOP just goes ahead and does it anyway. Result? They now have that seat. Too bad the GOP agenda is everything I’m against. I would love to see that ruthlessness used in favor of an agenda I would like.

      As for the nuclear option, I wanted Obama to use it to pass the health care bill. I’m glad someone finally got rid of the filibuster although I don’t like what they did it for. Maybe now, when our idiot country finally wakes up and kicks these fascists out of office and we have a Democratic Congress, they will be able to actually pass legislation.

      Don’t Psychopath test politicians. We need a good progressive psychopath in government to make his ideas actually work.

      Like

    • Amaterasu Solar 15:54 on April 12, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      All high-up politicians are psychopaths. Maybe a few are puppets of psychopaths. Maybe. The psychopaths in control do NOT let Any get high up in politics unless They are on board with the psychopaths’ agenda.

      Like

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: