More on sociopathic, psychopathic personalities

The Personality Profile of A Leader

Followers Beware

by Cindy-Lou Dale

I was brought up to believe that all men are created equal. Equal? I find this a startling assumption as clearly, this is definitely not so. Humanity is unmistakably divided into two categories – good and evil; which is openly displayed in what we witness daily. Man’s humanity to man and more so their inhumanity to man; those who are vicious and animal-like, waging war and killing and those that are enlightened, peaceful and caring

Now, let’s look at the world leaders. See how many of their personality traits can you pick out of this profile.

Glibness/Superficial Charm - Language can be used without effort by them, to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers who exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.

Manipulative and Cunning - They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with their own fantasies, as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality.
Pathological Lying - Has no problem lying coolly and easily. It is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - A deep-seated rage, that is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims, and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions - When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion, it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love - While they talk about "God's love" they are unable to give or receive it. Since they do not believe in the genuineness of their followers' love, they are very harsh in testing their devotees and expect them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.

Need for Stimulation - Living on the edge, yet testing the beliefs of their followers with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy - Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the follower cannot believe their leader would callously hurt them, they rationalize the behavior as necessary for their (or the group's) own "good" and deny the abuse. When devotees become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "spiritual rape" to them.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency - Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability - Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their followers or others outside their group. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the followers.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity – Totalitarian leaders frequently practice promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their followers, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle - Tends to move around a lot or makes all-encompassing promises for the future. Many groups claim as their goal world-domination or other utopian promises. Great contrast between the leader's opulent lifestyle and the followers' impoverishment. Support by gifts and donations from the followers who are pressured to give through fear and guilt. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - Changes their image and that of the group as needed, to avoid prosecution, to increase income, and to recruit a range of members. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed, to preserve the group. Can resurface later with a new name, a new front group, and a new twist on the scam.

Other related qualities: Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them; Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them; authoritarian; secretive; paranoid; only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired; conventional appearance; goal of enslavement of their victim(s); exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life; has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love); ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim.

You have just read the mind-manipulating personality profile of a sociopath and probably the personality profile of several prominent world leaders -- the very leaders who exercise their exceptional abilities to charm and seduce their followers, as well as the media. The self-same media that foolishly allows itself to be manipulated and hoodwinked and that, in turn, reports its misguided findings to the masses, whose reports we naively believe.

Excerpted from "The Mandela Myth"

US/Canada WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: The psychopathology of John Yoo: First person in Vanity Fair

Wow! Talk about a magazine article that is iconic; this is it.

The sounds of one hand clapping for the value of the EGO; as told by a sycophant in federal office.

It is useless to comment that here is the picture of PURE EVIL, but there ya go; that' s precisely what it is.

The worst part for me is when Yoo tells the interviewer (CIA lackey ??? ) that they aren't going to the park as "it's boring. Just a bunch of homeless people".

No, John, do not take a look at your handiwork - those homeless veterans forced to live in there. Don't think about their families. Show no remorse to those you have damaged, just do that spin and be part of the circular firing squad !! It's all of course, Ashcroft's and Gonezales' fault" Right? WRONG.

As a woman I have to say it: how could ANYONE in their right mind sleep with this man?

Deconstructing this mythology would take hours of my time. I'm not going to do that, but I wanted to make sure that the actual URL got posted. This article in and of itself is NOT free speech; it's a crime against humanity. This is thinly disguised HATE SPEECH.

And to watch this ritzo buy Lincoln cheaply makes me SICK to my stomache. Oh, lucky us! How will John Yoo warp those thoughts while he sits in PRISON ??

The FASCISTS lawyer. How friggin impressive. (Me, I prefer the high caliber lawyers of We the - all of the - People .. ) My fervant prayer is that they drown him out at the Berkley commencement .. and that he faces charges in Very Short Order.

GENEVA WILL PREVAIL

Now, dear reader, please go and write
a letter to the ICC.

The ICC has established its headquarters in The Hague, The Netherlands. The Court is currently located at ‘de arc’.

Address: Maanweg 174, 2516 AB, The Hague, Netherlands.
Postal Address: Po Box 19519, 2500 CM, Den Haag, Netherlands.

It's time us ACTIVISTS have a winning day.

This blog is going to add a WAR CRIMES
section now.

It's that time ..

Veeger

John Yoo: In His Own Words

Buzz up!

Go inside John H. Richardson's transcript of his interviews with John Yoo, author of "The Torture Memo."

By John H. Richardson

http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/john-yoo

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

John Yoo served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, where he was involved in many of the legal issues concerning the war on terrorism.

John Yoo is a professor of constitutional law at the University of California-Berkeley. He is also the main author of what has come to be known as "The Torture Memo," the long-sealed internal White House document that defined precisely which aggressive techniques could be legally employed by CIA interrogators against suspected terrorists.

Earlier this year, Yoo sat down with Esquire author John H. Richardson for a series of lengthy interviews about the memo and about how Yoo -- a scholar by trade, a libertarian by temperament -- came to be the man behind it. Some of his words appeared in Richardson's June 2008 profile, "Is This Man a Monster?" Here we present his words in their entirety.

A note on the format: Because Richardson did not record many of his questions, they have been left out of this document. For the most part, we believe, this does not detract from the clarity or intent of Yoo's responses. Where this is not the case, we have added clarifying statements in brackets.

***

I was born in Korea, emigrated at 3 months, and lived in southern New Jersey and Philadelphia. I went to Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia for middle school and high school. It was founded the same year as the Constitution was written, 1789. I wore a little suit and learned Latin and Greek. Then I went to Harvard.

My folks were doctors. They wanted economic opportunity -- Korea in the 1960s was still mostly an agricultural economy. They didn’t want to live under a military dictatorship. They wanted to live in a democracy. But I don’t know if they were politically active. Once they were here they weren’t politically active. I don’t think either of them has ever given money to a political campaign. They vote -- they’re very proud, as lots of immigrants are, to vote -- but they’re not particularly Democrat or Republican.

I played soccer, tennis. By no means was I a jock. In terms of activities, at the school I went to sports are mandatory. I worked on the school paper. I did lots of stuff. Played chess, did tutoring. Didn’t do school government at all. And our school didn’t have political organizations, as far as I know -- we didn’t have a Republican or Democrats club.

I followed politics. I can remember Nixon resigning. I can remember the Vietnam War ending. I think I became politically aware under Carter and Reagan. I wasn’t one of these kids that worked on political campaigns.

I was very conscious of Reagan. I very much agreed with the policies he ran on. Being Korean, I think it was natural to support the candidate that was most anti-communist. But I also thought -- I wasn’t a property owner or making income or anything, but the message of lower taxes and smaller government made sense to me.

Certainly my parents were anti-communists. They were refugees during the Korean War, they saw terrible things that North Korea did. The North went all the way down, everybody really suffered and blamed it on North Korea, which I think is reasonable. So they were very anti-communist because of that.

Otherwise they were fairly libertarian, which is not uncommon for immigrants either. They don’t want government interfering very much in the decisions they make and the choices they make in life. Certainly I think Korea is much more of an authoritarian country, and you come to the United States because it offers you a personal freedom that is not so common abroad. I never sat down with them and talked extensively about it, I just get that sense.

I have a younger brother who has a Ph.D. in biology. Now he’s in the biotechnology industry. He’s two years younger than me.

Harvard. American history.

I don’t know, I was just interested in it. Harvard doesn’t give you a lot of guidance and the school I went to had a lot of emphasis on history. I took Latin and Greek, I was interested in classics.

I did very well in high school, obviously, to get into Harvard. I was at the top of the class. It was the only way you could get into Harvard.

The things I did in college were mostly about foreign policy. My area was diplomatic history, the history of U.S. foreign relations. So I took a lot of courses in that area and wrote my thesis on U.S.-European relations in the 1950s and 1960s. My thesis advisors were in that area, too.

It’s not a very popular area in history these days. It used to be a big deal. If you think, in pre-1960s it was diplomatic and political history and now it’s social and cultural history. Part of it was probably, again, being from Korea, sort of interested in -- the United States came to Korea and stopped an invasion. It was a generous act on the part of the country. Objectively, if it weren’t for the United States, the whole peninsula would be communist right now and living under the most appalling conditions.

At Harvard, I joined the school paper, the Harvard Crimson. Started writing for the editorial page. I guess I wouldn’t have thought of myself as conservative as opposed to just being Republican. I guess Harvard is such a liberal place that just being Republican set me apart. I guess that’s how you could say I became politically active, writing op-eds about the events of the day and taking a conservative approach to them. But I would never -- I didn’t come to it because I was a member of the Harvard Republicans, which I wasn’t, or through a very extensive reading of political philosophy. I didn’t read Leo Strauss when I was 12 years old. I just had very basic conservative or Republican instincts.

In college, I took political science, political philosophy, American history, had exposure to more systematic thinking on both sides of all these questions. Certainly the performance of the Democrats in the ’80s didn’t change my mind. Remember Mondale running? Dukakis running? Dukakis and Bush ran in my senior year of college, so I didn’t see anything to change my mind.

Mentors then? Thomas Schwartz, a professor at Vanderbilt in History. Brian Ballow, History in Virginia now. They were junior professors then, didn’t get tenure. I took courses from them about American foreign relations, American government, politics from 1900 on. They were very rigorous. A lot of the events we studied still had contemporary resonance, like the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. In those classes they were very demanding. You had to speak up and say what you think to defend your position.

In the Schwartz class we studied intervention in Korea, the Berlin airlift, the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam. The loss of China. A lot of these questions still had a lot of politically controversial -- they would call on you to state your point of view and defend it.

Yeah, I think so. Even by the early ‘80s most people thought the Vietnam War was a bad war and that we should have gotten out and should have gotten out earlier, that Johnson and Nixon had been terrible presidents for getting us involved. I thought by the early ‘80s it had become clear what had happened in Vietnam after the U.S. had left, what had happened in Cambodia and Laos -- I wasn’t part of the generation that fought about Vietnam, I was in the generation after that -- so I remember the argument was, Yes, it was militarily difficult and the United States took a lot of casualties, but look at the terrible things that happened after the United States pulled out. And you look at the Korean War, in Korea that didn’t happen, the United States didn’t pull out of Korea and you didn’t have what happened in Southeast Asia afterwards. And by the ‘80s South Korea had become an industrialized country and was becoming a democracy. So to me I sort of went, Well, is the conventional story about Vietnam really true?

But you’re still talking about questions that are politically hot button issues.

I don’t know. In Vietnam there was a lot of loss of life, suppression of civil liberties -- they’re still a communist dictatorship. You’re right, they’re trying to imitate China. But to me, when I look at the terrible things that are happening in Korea today and have been happening since the Korean War, if North Korea had taken over the entire peninsula, that would happen to a lot more people. You never would have had the success in South Korea that you see today. There’s a striking photo from space of Korea at nighttime and it’s all lights, and a completely black gap where North Korea is.

Iran-Contra? I remember that very clearly, watching the hearings on TV, I guess in the summer of ‘87. The other thing I remember very clearly from that period was watching the Bork hearings. It was sort of towards then that I became more interested in constitutional law, or just law, rather than just history or politics.

I had never read a book about constitutional law. The Constitution just appeared in my history courses, primarily about the Civil War. I just remember Bork, with his qualifications, and all the things he’d done. The hearings seemed -- I thought he was mistreated by the Senate. I was very struck by that.

But I also remember the Iran Contra affair, and I do remember being very disappointed in Reagan saying he didn’t remember authorizing it, but he must have authorized it. I still think what Congress did was perfectly constitutional -- they cut off funding for the Contras and Congress has complete control of the purse and the president can’t try to funnel money to the Contras in violation of that statute, so I thought that was perfectly legitimate by the Congress. Somebody in the administration definitely violated the law. Even after all the investigations no one seems to know if Reagan understood what he was doing or knew, but I think they violated the law.

I’ve never actually agreed with the views of the president’s constitutional defenders on Iran-Contra, although they are not many. Mr. Benson today expressed the view I have: Congress has lots of powers. They don’t use them often, but they have the complete power of funding.

I wasn’t a cultural conservative in the sense that I went to college and didn’t like the liberal culture of the day. I was definitely in dissent of the conventional politics of a college campus in the 1980s. Every now and then I would see people protesting this or that, and I thought, You’re at Harvard with all this opportunity all around you -- you’re wasting it by protesting. It seemed to me a waste of time. There was so much stuff you could do there. I think it was South African divestment then. It wasn’t that I agreed with apartheid at all, but to spend all that time protesting it just seemed to me a waste of the limited time you had. You’re lucky enough to be there.

I know other conservatives think college is too much drinking, too much smoking. That certainly wasn’t me at all. I don’t think I’ve changed my basic political views much since then. When it comes to domestic social policy, I’m basically a libertarian. I don’t want Huckabee to tell us what our morality should be. I feel Reagan was much more conservative on foreign policy or the economy but not on welfare rates or abortion.

In the op-eds I’ve written since I left the administration I’ve been quite critical of some of their social policies. I thought the gay rights amendment was ridiculous and I wrote a pretty long op-ed attacking it. I just don’t think the federal government should be deciding whether gay people can be married or not. And I don’t think the Constitution should be telling us whether gay people should be married or not. I think the states should decide, like they decide all kinds of questions about families. As a voter I would vote for gay marriage. I also wrote an op-ed about abortion. I said I don’t think the federal government should decide it, I think the states should decide it, and if it was voted on in California I would vote for abortion rights.

1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10

ICH crosspost with other urls .. Bush's "tacktics" and insanity

Bush-Hitler: Hypnotizing The Masses

By Russell M. Drake

07/21/04 -- Said by some to be more dangerous than Osama bin-Laden, he has been condemned as a "war maniac," called a "moron" by the Canadian prime minister’s chief spokeswoman, ridiculed as "The English Patient" for his struggles with language, and likened to Adolf Hitler.

Of all the labels hung on George W. Bush, the hardest to shake may be the comparison with Hitler.

Perhaps the clearest likeness between the two men lies in their use of emotionally induced hypnosis to plant in the mass consciousness an image of themselves as protectors of their subjects from threats to national survival both inside and outside the fatherland.

In a June, 2003 article written for The Nation about Bush’s "mastery of emotional language, especially negatively charged emotional language," clinical psychologist Reanna Brooks observed that "Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners’ minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from hypnosis and advertising to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us."

His subliminal messages to justify religious war against "evildoers" are right out of Madison Avenue. Writing in The New Yorker of July 12 & 19, David Greenberg tells how Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, "himself an evangelical, laces the President’s addresses with seemingly innocuous terms that the devout recognize as laden with meaning: ‘whirlwind,’ ‘work of mercy,’ ‘safely home,’ ‘wonderworking power.’"

Aspiring political hypnotists would do well to study Hitler as an introduction to Bush.

"Without in any way straining language we can truthfully say that he (Hitler) was one of the great hypnotists of all time," says George H. Estabrooks in Hypnotism, the ne plus ultra of Hitler hypnosis books. Dr. Estabrooks was chairman of Colgate University’s psychology department, and taught at the school from 1927 to 1964.

Demonizing Saddam

"The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of the people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy." Hitler said that, in Mein Kampf.

Bush could just as easily have said it. Having lost public focus on Osama bin Laden by his inability to capture the wily 9/11 bomber, he found it not just convenient, but necessary, to replace bin Laden with Saddam Hussein as the new "single enemy," a stratagem inherited from the first President Bush who damned Hussein as "worse than Hitler" in the run-up to Desert Storm, the first Iraq war. On the eve of war in early October, 1990, ex-president Ronald Reagan picked up the beat before a crowd of Houston Republicans, denouncing his former Iraqi ally as "the reincarnation of Hitler."

"Depicting Saddam Hussein as an evil man made it easier to justify U. S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War. Psychology is an important part of any war strategy." from Introduction to Psychology, a textbook by Mark Garrison, Kentucky State University. If demonizing Saddam was effective strategy in the first Gulf war, the current administration worked wonders with it, with a little help from people like 60 Minutes' Andy Rooney and Bill Clinton who, on the David Letterman show, September 11, 2002, called Saddam "a threat, a murderer and thug..." while endorsing his removal.

Fear Hypnosis

In search of support for shaky WMD charges against Saddam, Bush found the torture issue and put it on the front burner in his January 2003 State of the Union address: "This dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues and rape."

Bush went on to urge Americans to come together in an orgy of fear induced self hypnosis by mentally imaging the dreadful prospect of Iraqi sponsored terrorists attacking the U. S., and tried again to link the Iraqi leader to the 9/11 attack on the twin towers: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans - this time armed by Saddam....We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." If Saddam had not existed, Bush would have invented him.

Press Supports War on Iraq

With skillful use of fear hypnosis, Bush not only gulled the public, but played a credulous press like a Steinway baby grand.

The establishment press fell in behind Bush almost to a man in endorsing his war aims against Iraq. This blind procession is amply documented by reporter Chris Mooney in the March/April 2004 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. The L. A. Times and the N. Y. Times weakly dissented from war without UN approval but rolled over when Bush went ahead anyway. Even the usually skeptical The New Yorker saw merit in Bush’s war plans, warning that absent "Saddam’s abdication, or a military coup...a return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be the most dangerous option of all."

Hypnosis Contagion

The demonization of Saddam spread like germs.

"The mob leader will count on emotional contagion....Emotions are far more contagious than the measles. This fact of emotional contagion was very important to Hitler," says Estabrooks. Emotional statements by a hypnotic leader, he avers, are "burned" into receptive subconscious minds with the permanence of an image engraved on a photographic negative.

To be hypnotized by one such as Bush is to be branded with his ideology and to bend to his will as he so directs. This is true of anyone drawn uncritically to any leader or dominant figure. Be it Bush or Clinton, Hitler or Churchill, Reagan or FDR, the difference in the degree of hypnotically induced allegiance depends on the skill of the hypnotist and the suggestibility of the subject.

In The Group Mind, first published in 1920 by Putnam, author William McDougall says, "It is well recognized that almost any emotional excitement increases the suggestibility of the individual, though the explanation of the fact remains obscure."

By putting the horror mask on Saddam, by petrifying U. S. citizens with tales of Saddam’s gases and torture chambers and terrorist connections, Bush dusted off and refined an old Hitler trick.

"The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force." Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Putting his own spin on Hitler’s formula, Bush induced fear-of-Saddam hypnosis in Americans to set them up for repetition hypnosis, to deepen and fix the fear. "Axis of evil" - "weapons of mass destruction" - "torture chambers" - "Iraqi terrorists" - "grave and gathering danger," all gained dominance in the thought patterns of Americans to lure them to Bush’s side against the evil Saddam.

"The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the power is seen which it exercises on the most enlightened minds. This power is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives of our actions are forged." So said Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, his seminal study of political hypnosis, published in 1897.

Bush Power Hypnosis

Why did Bush thus goad Americans to war by hypnotizing them? The answer seems to be that from day one, he intended the chaos of crisis and war to put in place a domestic agenda that he knew stood little chance of succeeding in peace.

He gambled that the electorate would be reluctant to change leaders in the crisis of war just as crewmen would hesitate to pull the captain from the bridge of their ship even as he sailed into a field of icebergs.

Bush’s incendiary bluster on taking office would seem to support this scenario. In turn, he dissed North Korean and Iranian leaders, sat by while the intafada exploded into the bloodiest, most enduring sequel of suicide bombings and Israeli retaliation in the history of the war, trashed the Kyoto treaty to reduce global air pollution, unilaterally revoked the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, and vetoed U. S. support of a world court to try war crimes.

The Republican ‘Pearl Harbor’

His actions appeared designed to escalate seething world resentment of America’s imperial transgressions to flash point, provoking an outbreak of hostilities that would draw the nation into armed conflict.

While Bush and his handlers may not have expected a reaction to their warmongering so costly as 9/11, when it came may well have regarded it as God-sent. The twin towers disaster has been called "the Republicans’ Pearl Harbor," because of the opportunity it presented to rally the electorate around Bush and continue him in power, as Pearl Harbor did for FDR.

In Bush’s Brain, by James Moore and Wayne Slater, Bush advisor Karl Rove is seen as agitating for the Iraq invasion to keep war fever alive when the hunt for bin Laden faltered and as 9/11 receded in the public consciousness. Other administration figures stepped forward to beat the war drums.

A March 5, 2004 article in the New York Times said, "Mr. Bush and his aides have planned for more than a year to make the president’s response to terrorist attacks the centerpiece of his re-election effort."

"We are fighting a global war on terrorism," said National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, on "Meet the Press," Sunday, March 14, 2004.

In early February on "Meet the Press," Bush referred to himself as a "war president" and said he had "war on my mind" when he made decisions in the Oval Office.

Verbal Confusion Hypnosis

While Bush may have led the nation into war with Hitler hypnosis he has kept it there with hypnosis of his own making, a technological tour de force of classical, textbook hypnosis that eclipses anything Hitler used and sets Bush apart as a political hypnosis stylist in his own right.

When it became apparent as time passed that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was an illusion, Bush segued smoothly into verbal confusion hypnosis, which is discussed at some length in Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, by Jesse E. Gordon:

"The verbal confusion technique, which is quite difficult to administer, involves an approximation of double-talk in which instructions of a somewhat contradictory kind are given in rapid succession making it impossible for the attentive subject either to quite comprehend or quite acquiesce to any of them. Finally, he simply gives up all attempts and more or less collapses into a hypnotic state."

Exactly. A review of the Bush hocus-pocus in his 2004 State of the Union address, for example, shows how nimbly he skipped through a maze of issues such as WMD - deftly changed to "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" - no child left behind, "the sanctity of marriage," senior drug discount cards, invading Iraq in the interests of national survival and world peace, "foreign terrorists," permanent tax relief, jobs, and much, much more. Holding up one theme card after another for public review, before they could "quite comprehend or quite acquiesce to any of them," Bush fanned the deck and flashed yet another card at his bewildered audience.

A "GOP strategist" complained to the Los Angeles Times, "He’s all over the map now, sending a lot of confused messages to the voters." Of course.

Many now openly wonder how so obvious a lie as WMD could have passed muster with such a large majority of Americans.

One answer is provided by Hitler in Mein Kampf: "In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people....will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one." Thus was born the concept of the "Big Lie," yet another Hitler crowd manipulation tool co-opted by Bush.

Even the most skeptical may succumb to hypnotic contagion but later find the resources to cast off the devil spell, says William McDougall. Among the most fervent Bush supporters have been people now coming forward to say that they are "uncomfortable" with reports that the reasons given for going to war may have been nothing more than a pack of Bush lies. Call them recovering Bush dupes.

War is Peace

Perhaps the biggest challenge he has given the public is asking them to think of his war making as, actually, peace making. Think of the Pentagon as the "Ministry of Peace," charged with making perpetual war in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Bush has been almost studious in application of the hypnotic word "peace" to sugarcoat his designs for war.

"Peace" has become his slogan.

"Slogans are both exciting and comforting, but they are also powerful opiates for the conscience....Some of mankind’s most terrible misdeeds have been committed under the spell of certain magic words or phrases," said Harvard University president James Bryant Conant in the Baccalaureate Address to Harvard College, June 17, 1934.

"How many people in the confusion of a defeat or crisis have been reassured by one word? Peace. Independence. Reconstruction. Without taking a closer look, they adopt the leader in whose name this ideal has been proposed. It is the ideal that unites them and leads them into the venture. If necessary, technicians will be responsible for conducting it from the inside so long as the figurehead maintains his prestige." Jean Dauven, The Powers of Hypnosis.

Nixon national security advisor Henry Kissinger intoned "Peace is at hand" as voters prepared to go to the polls in November, 1972 to choose between George McGovern and Richard Nixon as the candidate most likely to end the Vietnam War. In one of the most cynical betrayals of public trust on record, Kissinger the technician lied to a desperate nation about the prospects of peace in order to get the figurehead reelected.

After Nixon was safely reinstalled in the White House, saturation bombing to coerce North Vietnam to U. S. peace terms started again, with the unspeakable Christmas bombing of Hanoi as the main attraction.

Author, foreign correspondent and broadcaster William L. Shirer, who witnessed Hitler’s rise to power, commented in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich on Hitler’s masterful use of the peace card.

"On the evening of May 21 (1935), he delivered another ‘peace’ speech....one of the cleverest and most misleading of his Reichstag orations.....He rejected the very idea of war, it was senseless, it was useless, as well as a horror."

But while the world was lulled by his peace offensive, the master of the Thousand Year Reich plotted the war he said he abhorred.

George W. Bush misses no chance to reaffirm his dedication to peace and to denounce those who he says threaten peace.

He mounted the pulpit of the United Nations, September 17, 2002 to bully the international body with his peace message: "The United Nations must act. It’s time to determine whether or not they’ll be a force for good and peace or an ineffective debating society."

He stood before Congress and the press, sent an emissary to the Orwellian sounding United States Institute of Peace, went on the radio, appeared at factories and military bases, hawking his peace message while putting U. S. forces in place to invade Iraq.

Sometimes, to justify keeping the country in a state of war, he combines "peace" with "freedom" and "security" as in his commencement address to the students of Concordia University, May 14 this year when he said, "America works for peace and freedom....For the sake of peace, for the sake of security, we stand for freedom." Administration spokespersons, notably Condoleezza Rice, repeat these buzz words in their own speeches.

Bush Radio Hypnosis

With his regular Saturday radio addresses, Bush works heroically on turning Americans into automatons of subservience to his goals. John Kerry, refusing to concede the airwaves to Bush, is using the medium to respond to Bush attack ads and launch attacks of his own, giving every indication that he will continue the tradition of Saturday presidential radio if elected.

Radio is the most hypnotic of the media as, in the words of Jean Dauven, "It is through the spoken word that the hypnotist exercises his power." The audio nature of broadcast fosters an illusion of privacy that allows the hypnotist to flatter the listener that he/she is being addressed exclusively, enhancing the listener’s suggestibility.

Hate-Talk Radio Hypnosis

Estabrooks witnessed the birth of political radio hypnosis and the advent of the craft’s earliest stars, FDR, Churchill, and Hitler. He predated Rush Limbaugh’s lobotomized rabble by decades, but was in on the beginnings of hate-talk radio when Father Charles Coughlin and the Rev. Gerald L. K. Smith poisoned the airwaves in the 1930s.

Estabrooks would have been fascinated with the emergence of Ronald Reagan, radio hypnotism’s modern master. With his banal gipperisms, deeply imbedded fear of communism and Soviet nuclear threat obsessive-compulsive anxiety disorder, all delivered in the polished tones of a professional broadcaster, Reagan robbed a generation of Americans of their capacity to think critically, a condition perpetuated by his disciples as witnessed in the transcontinental state funeral of early June, 2004, a seven-day binge of national hypnosis. Brain dead from Alzheimer’s for 10 years, Reagan was resurrected from the public media files to extend his hypnotic hold on Americans, all part of the Republican power keeping machinery which includes putting Reagan’s picture on money and carving his likeness either on Mt. Rushmore, or "our own mountain," as one of his adherents puts it.

Men of Action Don’t Apologize

The president, by the very nature of his position at the pinnacle of power, is hypnotic. Probably no president, with the possible exceptions of Nixon and Reagan, has marshaled so powerful an arsenal of hypnosis, or exercised it so energetically and effectively as George W. Bush.

Successful hypnosis of the electorate satisfies a demagogue’s dream - uncritical acceptance of the man and his policies by a majority. Bush has been good enough at it to acquire an aura of invincibility that predictably has led to an excess of hubris in his conduct.

As Reagan and the elder Bush did not apologize for Iran-Contra, do not expect George W. Bush to ever forswear his actions in Iraq. It is not in his nature to admit mistakes or reflect on his misdeeds, nor apparently is it in the nature of his closest aides and subordinates to do so either. Gustave Le Bon described the type in The Crowd.

"The leaders we speak of are more frequently men of action than thinkers. They are not gifted with keen foresight, nor could they be, as this quality generally conduces to doubt and inactivity. They are especially recruited from the ranks of those morbidly nervous, excitable, half-deranged persons who are bordering on madness...their convictions are so strong that all reasoning is lost on them. Contempt and persecution do not affect them, or only serve to excite them more."

George Estabrooks spoke of such men possessing ".....an uncanny drive, a restless energy, as they push forward toward their own self-centered ideal, and they will be utterly ruthless in attaining their ends. The rights of others, even the lives of others, are simply of no consequence if they stand between the dictator and his determined goal....

The dictator really believes that he is God’s chosen instrument - or society’s chosen instrument if he does not believe in God - to lead his group, or possibly the entire world, into the promised land."

Bush apparently has long held the notion that God wants him to be president. On the occasion of his second inauguration as Texas governor, he "gathered a few trusted colleagues in his office to announce, ‘God wants me to be president,’" according to Southern Baptist leader Richard Land as quoted in online Slate magazine, April 29, 2004.

Bush’s Hypnotized Supporters

Bush spinmeisters will continue to place their candidate in front of unsuspecting NASCAR dads, right wing religious fundamentalists, teenage soldiers, home owners, sports fans, snow mobilers and dirt bikers, loggers and roughnecks, teamsters and hard-hats, 2nd Amendment zealots, high school dropouts, Orange County developers, and field hands, where the president can work his inspirational way into their hearts and minds. This has been called targeting "the lowest common denominator," but Nazi propaganda chief Paul Joseph Goebbels had a better description, revealed in his diaries discovered in the rubble of the Propaganda Ministry at the end of World War II:

".....the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals."

Bush, the Elected Dictator

Will all of this lead to a New Thousand Year Reich in America?

George Estabrooks warned that such an outcome, while not inevitable, is not impossible.

"How can we guarantee that our choice at the polls will be a wise one?......on this matter of electing a potential dictator, you will make that mistake once only. From then on, he will take care that your mistakes are always in his favor......

"Sit down and think over that last spellbinder you heard on the platform, over the radio or on television.....Were you listening to a man of reason or to a hypnotist who aimed to limit your field of consciousness? You say you cannot be hypnotized against your will. Perhaps you were hypnotized last night as you listened to that political address over your TV.....The most dangerous hypnotist may be the man you listened to last week over the radio. You were his subject....As a matter of fact, you were a very excellent subject. Think it over....."

Hitler aide Albert Speer and newscaster William L. Shirer commented on a recent moment in history when a great people became the eager followers of a hypnotic leader who led them to ruin.

".....as I see it today, these politicians in particular were in fact molded by the mob itself, guided by its yearnings and daydreams...Certainly the masses roared to the beat set by Hitler’s and Goebbel’s baton, yet they were not the true conductors. The mob determined the theme." - Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich.

"The Germans imposed the Nazi tyranny on themselves." William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

Russell M. Drake is a freelance writer and photographer in Yucca Valley, California. He is a journalism graduate of the University of Texas, and a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and The West Texas Livestock Weekly. He co-founded and later sold a Los Angeles company that produced self hypnosis-aided educational courses on audio cassette. He has contributed articles and pictures to newspapers in Southern California. Contact: russ33@msn.com

Copyright 2004 Russell M. Drake, P. O. Box 1213, Yucca Valley CA 92286

Comment section of this article added on 25/01/08 -

There's more to this than meets the eye, just like the rest of it we are FORCED to check out for ourselves.

Here are some other urls to CHECK out and I also suggest people do a thorough read of Alice Miller's works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali..._(psychologist)


http://artofmentalwarfare.com/pog/

http://www.informationclearingho...o/ video1037.htm
which is already on ICH, obviously

http://www.truthout.org/docs_200...6/ 011008A.shtml

What Is He Capable Of? The Presidential Psychology at the End of Days

and some who are not famliiar with this material yet on political psychopathology could start here:
http://ponerology.blogspot.com/

This is a very good list of urls following the provocation of Iran incident
http://wordpress.com/tag/imperialisme/

You'll pull up 173,00o hits when you goggle the Presidential psychology at the end of days . unbelievable.

---

Paralysis by Analysis??

Too late--the train has left the station, the damage is done.

The Bush regime, its shadowy handlers, and its collaborators, must be held accountable and brought to justice for their mega-crimes.

911 must be thoroughly investigated by an impartial international court with the power to subpoena witnesses and to punish both the criminals and the perjured witnesses.

Nothing less will do, and even that would only be a start. Justice is long overdue.